Bernie and Reagan's political positions are very similar

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Reader... Skylar is a Mouthy British Socialist posing as a US Citizen.

She has absolutely no knowledge of the United States, its history or traditions... she is here solely to foment Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle.

In truth, the US did not see 100% gains in US GDP during WW2 or any other period.

Oh God, a British socialist who would have sunk the country if it weren't for Thatcher. They make dumbed down Democrats look bright by comparison.

Oh my Lord yes... there is NOTHING on this earth that is more pathetic than a British Socialist. They represent a virulent parasitic species of reasoning that destroys everything that it infects.

One need look no farther to understand the problem, than any chart that tracks the rise of socialism in Britain to see that it tracks precisely with the crippling of the British Empire... down through its very near concession to the German socialists... and its pitiful, US subsidized existence, ever since.

It should also be noted that the same track is present in the US fall as it has succumbed to socialism. As socialism is merely human weakness set forth as a political entity. It is little more than EVIL PERSONIFIED!

 

[Meathead]

Trust me I want Bernie in the White House, but the comparison to Reagan is interesting to consider.

Billy,

The gimmick this plainly absurd comparison uses is the simple fact the hope its readers won't realize that Ronald Reagan actions behind the scenes were diametrically opposed to his artfully scripted rhetoric and cleverly constructed deceptions.

Ronald Reagan was above all else the Great Pretender. And because he was capable of presenting an exceptionally convincing Presidential persona for the camera he was able to dazzle a wide percentage of committed conservatives and impressionable moderates.

Just keep in mind he sold them on "trickle-down" economics, which obviously has turned out to be siphon-up economics, and he managed through a sequence of surreptitiously repealed controls (regulations) on the finance industry to turn the future of America over to Wall Street and the banks.

Ronald Reagan became President mainly because he looked Presidential. That is the same reason why Dennis Kucinich, a man who would have made a superb President, couldn't even get nominated because of his looks.

Reagan not only looked presidential, but he was. Reagan was a master in rhetoric and its delivery which served the US and the world very well. Reagan breathed new life into a country that was severely wounded by Vietnam and the failures of 4 successive presidents, LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter. One can only hope that there is another "Reagan" in the wings since we've had 10 years of inept presidency.

I doubt it. Reagan was likely the Marcus Arieiius of American history.

 

[Skylar]

Reader... Skylar is a Mouthy British Socialist posing as a US Citizen.

She has absolutely no knowledge of the United States, its history or traditions... she is here solely to foment Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle.

In truth, the US did not see 100% gains in US GDP during WW2 or any other period.

Oh God, a British socialist who would have sunk the country if it weren't for Thatcher. They make dumbed down Democrats look bright by comparison.

Oh my Lord yes... there is NOTHING on this earth that is more pathetic than a British Socialist. They represent a virulent parasitic species of reasoning that destroys everything that it infects.

And who says I'm a British Socialist? Why you do, citing yourself.

Once again, in a discussion of the facts, history, reason and evidence......you run. Your claims that tax policy resulted in the 1950s 'boom' and 1953 'bust' were nonsense. It was clearly the Korean war...the beginning and ending of which preceded the 'boom' and 'bust by a quarter each respectively.

And your claim that 'socialist policy' cast a shadow on the economy is also nonsense. The kind of banking and economic regulation you denounce has a superb track record.....with the rate of recession and depression before these New Deal regulations being DOUBLE the rates of recession and depression after these New Deal Regulations.

Why would any rational person want to return to DOUBLE the rates of recession and depression under your unregulated capitalism model? You can't offer any credible explanation. So you offer 'British Socialist' fantasies.

Keep running.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Now Reader... THAT is how THAT is DONE!

Remember, the Key to Defeating the Lowly Leftist in debate, rests in two key fundamentals:

1- Find a Leftist.

2- Get them to SPEAK!

 

[Meathead]

Reader... Skylar is a Mouthy British Socialist posing as a US Citizen.

She has absolutely no knowledge of the United States, its history or traditions... she is here solely to foment Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle.

In truth, the US did not see 100% gains in US GDP during WW2 or any other period.

Oh God, a British socialist who would have sunk the country if it weren't for Thatcher. They make dumbed down Democrats look bright by comparison.

Oh my Lord yes... there is NOTHING on this earth that is more pathetic than a British Socialist. They represent a virulent parasitic species of reasoning that destroys everything that it infects.

And who says I'm a British Socialist? Why you do, citing yourself.

Once again, in a discussion of the facts, history, reason and evidence......you run. Your claims that tax policy resulted in the 1950s 'boom' and 1953 'bust' were nonsense. It was clearly the Korean war...the beginning and ending of which preceded the 'boom' and 'bust by a quarter each respectively.

And your claim that 'socialist policy' cast a shadow on the economy is also nonsense. The kind of banking and economic regulation you denounce has a superb track record.....with the rate of recession and depression before these New Deal regulations being DOUBLE the rates of recession and depression after these New Deal Regulations.

Why would any rational person want to return to DOUBLE the rates of recession and depression under your unregulated capitalism model? You can't offer any credible explanation. So you offer 'British Socialist' fantasies.

Keep running.

I don't know if you're a British socialist, but I do know that you're an idiot. Your claims, replete with historical reference, strongly suggest the dogmatism found in Marxist doctrine so beloved by them . Carry on.

 

[Skylar]

Now Reader... THAT is how THAT is DONE!

Remember, the Key to Defeating the Lowly Leftist in debate, rests in two key fundamentals:

1- Find a Leftist.

2- Get them to SPEAK!

Wit the 'reader' being you talking to yourself. After you abandoned your entire argument about the 1950s, all your babble about tax policy, and won't even discuss the economic record under regulated capitalism.

That was easy.

 

[Skylar]

Reader... Skylar is a Mouthy British Socialist posing as a US Citizen.

She has absolutely no knowledge of the United States, its history or traditions... she is here solely to foment Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle.

In truth, the US did not see 100% gains in US GDP during WW2 or any other period.

Oh God, a British socialist who would have sunk the country if it weren't for Thatcher. They make dumbed down Democrats look bright by comparison.

Oh my Lord yes... there is NOTHING on this earth that is more pathetic than a British Socialist. They represent a virulent parasitic species of reasoning that destroys everything that it infects.

And who says I'm a British Socialist? Why you do, citing yourself.

Once again, in a discussion of the facts, history, reason and evidence......you run. Your claims that tax policy resulted in the 1950s 'boom' and 1953 'bust' were nonsense. It was clearly the Korean war...the beginning and ending of which preceded the 'boom' and 'bust by a quarter each respectively.

And your claim that 'socialist policy' cast a shadow on the economy is also nonsense. The kind of banking and economic regulation you denounce has a superb track record.....with the rate of recession and depression before these New Deal regulations being DOUBLE the rates of recession and depression after these New Deal Regulations.

Why would any rational person want to return to DOUBLE the rates of recession and depression under your unregulated capitalism model? You can't offer any credible explanation. So you offer 'British Socialist' fantasies.

Keep running.

I don't know if you're a British socialist, but I do know that you're an idiot. Your claims, replete with historical reference, strongly suggest the dogmatism found in Marxist doctrine so beloved by them . Carry on.

All you know is that when faced with an argument you couldn't dispute factually......you were left with no option but to insult me personally.

You blinked.

 

[Meathead]

Reader... Skylar is a Mouthy British Socialist posing as a US Citizen.

She has absolutely no knowledge of the United States, its history or traditions... she is here solely to foment Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle.

In truth, the US did not see 100% gains in US GDP during WW2 or any other period.

Oh God, a British socialist who would have sunk the country if it weren't for Thatcher. They make dumbed down Democrats look bright by comparison.

Oh my Lord yes... there is NOTHING on this earth that is more pathetic than a British Socialist. They represent a virulent parasitic species of reasoning that destroys everything that it infects.

And who says I'm a British Socialist? Why you do, citing yourself.

Once again, in a discussion of the facts, history, reason and evidence......you run. Your claims that tax policy resulted in the 1950s 'boom' and 1953 'bust' were nonsense. It was clearly the Korean war...the beginning and ending of which preceded the 'boom' and 'bust by a quarter each respectively.

And your claim that 'socialist policy' cast a shadow on the economy is also nonsense. The kind of banking and economic regulation you denounce has a superb track record.....with the rate of recession and depression before these New Deal regulations being DOUBLE the rates of recession and depression after these New Deal Regulations.

Why would any rational person want to return to DOUBLE the rates of recession and depression under your unregulated capitalism model? You can't offer any credible explanation. So you offer 'British Socialist' fantasies.

Keep running.

I don't know if you're a British socialist, but I do know that you're an idiot. Your claims, replete with historical reference, strongly suggest the dogmatism found in Marxist doctrine so beloved by them . Carry on.

All you know is that when faced with an argument you couldn't dispute factually......you were left with no option but to insult me personally.

You blinked.

Seriously, do you expect me to dispute that capitalism is failed and socialism is the answer? Where have you been in the last 100 years. Sorry Comrade. the shoe is on the other foot. Failure begets failure, from China to Russia to Zimbabw to Greece. There is nothing for me to prove and there is nothing you can prove.

While some might think the never-say-die idea is noble, failure is failure, and trying to mitigate it with bravado is futile.

Get over it. Move on.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Reader... Skylar is a Mouthy British Socialist posing as a US Citizen.

She has absolutely no knowledge of the United States, its history or traditions... she is here solely to foment Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle.

In truth, the US did not see 100% gains in US GDP during WW2 or any other period.

Oh God, a British socialist who would have sunk the country if it weren't for Thatcher. They make dumbed down Democrats look bright by comparison.

Oh my Lord yes... there is NOTHING on this earth that is more pathetic than a British Socialist. They represent a virulent parasitic species of reasoning that destroys everything that it infects.

And who says I'm a British Socialist? Why you do, citing yourself.

Once again, in a discussion of the facts, history, reason and evidence......you run. Your claims that tax policy resulted in the 1950s 'boom' and 1953 'bust' were nonsense. It was clearly the Korean war...the beginning and ending of which preceded the 'boom' and 'bust by a quarter each respectively.

And your claim that 'socialist policy' cast a shadow on the economy is also nonsense. The kind of banking and economic regulation you denounce has a superb track record.....with the rate of recession and depression before these New Deal regulations being DOUBLE the rates of recession and depression after these New Deal Regulations.

Why would any rational person want to return to DOUBLE the rates of recession and depression under your unregulated capitalism model? You can't offer any credible explanation. So you offer 'British Socialist' fantasies.

Keep running.

I don't know if you're a British socialist, but I do know that you're an idiot. Your claims, replete with historical reference, strongly suggest the dogmatism found in Marxist doctrine so beloved by them . Carry on.

It's a British Socialist. As are most of the Progs on this board. This site uses the US of USMB to promote the notion that it is a US owned board... but the bulk of the Leftists on this board are Euro-peons. Go back through the site... follow the thread contributions and it will become obvious.

 

[Skylar]

Oh God, a British socialist who would have sunk the country if it weren't for Thatcher. They make dumbed down Democrats look bright by comparison.

Oh my Lord yes... there is NOTHING on this earth that is more pathetic than a British Socialist. They represent a virulent parasitic species of reasoning that destroys everything that it infects.

And who says I'm a British Socialist? Why you do, citing yourself.

Once again, in a discussion of the facts, history, reason and evidence......you run. Your claims that tax policy resulted in the 1950s 'boom' and 1953 'bust' were nonsense. It was clearly the Korean war...the beginning and ending of which preceded the 'boom' and 'bust by a quarter each respectively.

And your claim that 'socialist policy' cast a shadow on the economy is also nonsense. The kind of banking and economic regulation you denounce has a superb track record.....with the rate of recession and depression before these New Deal regulations being DOUBLE the rates of recession and depression after these New Deal Regulations.

Why would any rational person want to return to DOUBLE the rates of recession and depression under your unregulated capitalism model? You can't offer any credible explanation. So you offer 'British Socialist' fantasies.

Keep running.

I don't know if you're a British socialist, but I do know that you're an idiot. Your claims, replete with historical reference, strongly suggest the dogmatism found in Marxist doctrine so beloved by them . Carry on.

All you know is that when faced with an argument you couldn't dispute factually......you were left with no option but to insult me personally.

You blinked.

Seriously, do you expect me to dispute that capitalism is failed and socialism is the answer?

Strawman. When have I said either. I've argued that unregulated capitalism is wildly unstable and that regulated capitalism is more stable. And that higher tax rates for the wealthy don't result in economic catastrophe. Nor do low tax rates for the wealthy result in economic prosperity.

Seriously, do you even read what you're responding to?

Try again, 'comrade'. This time reading for comprehension.

 

[Skylar]

Reader... Skylar is a Mouthy British Socialist posing as a US Citizen.

She has absolutely no knowledge of the United States, its history or traditions... she is here solely to foment Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle.

In truth, the US did not see 100% gains in US GDP during WW2 or any other period.

Oh God, a British socialist who would have sunk the country if it weren't for Thatcher. They make dumbed down Democrats look bright by comparison.

Oh my Lord yes... there is NOTHING on this earth that is more pathetic than a British Socialist. They represent a virulent parasitic species of reasoning that destroys everything that it infects.

And who says I'm a British Socialist? Why you do, citing yourself.

Once again, in a discussion of the facts, history, reason and evidence......you run. Your claims that tax policy resulted in the 1950s 'boom' and 1953 'bust' were nonsense. It was clearly the Korean war...the beginning and ending of which preceded the 'boom' and 'bust by a quarter each respectively.

And your claim that 'socialist policy' cast a shadow on the economy is also nonsense. The kind of banking and economic regulation you denounce has a superb track record.....with the rate of recession and depression before these New Deal regulations being DOUBLE the rates of recession and depression after these New Deal Regulations.

Why would any rational person want to return to DOUBLE the rates of recession and depression under your unregulated capitalism model? You can't offer any credible explanation. So you offer 'British Socialist' fantasies.

Keep running.

I don't know if you're a British socialist, but I do know that you're an idiot. Your claims, replete with historical reference, strongly suggest the dogmatism found in Marxist doctrine so beloved by them . Carry on.

It's a British Socialist. As are most of the Progs on this board. This site uses the US of USMB to promote the notion that it is a US owned board... but the bulk of the Leftists on this board are Euro-peons. Go back through the site... follow the thread contributions and it will become obvious.

Most of the 'progs' on the board are 'british socialists'.....says you citing you. Again, you're offering us your fantasy as an excuse for why you've abandoned your every argument regarding economic growth, tax policy or economic regulation.

You don't need an excuse. You just didn't know what you were talking about.

 

[jasonnfree]

Reagan preached many of the same political positions that Bernie is today. Check it out:

Mash-Up Of Bernie Sanders And Reagan Shows The Insanity Of The Modern GOP (VIDEO)

Reagan as governor didn't much like the free college tuition that California had at that time. He tried to end it but couldn't. I see very little similarity between him and Sanders other than he wasn't near as far right extremist as republicans have come to be today.

 

[jasonnfree]

Reagan preached many of the same political positions that Bernie is today. Check it out:

Mash-Up Of Bernie Sanders And Reagan Shows The Insanity Of The Modern GOP (VIDEO)

Reagan as governor didn't much like the free college tuition that California had at that time. He tried to end it but couldn't. I see very little similarity between him and Sanders other than he wasn't near as far right extremist as republicans have come to be today. But he was still 100%

...one could say Bernie is also a loopy kunt

You're quite right.

If one is an uneducated low-life one could say something like that.

Bernie Sanders is an imbecile. He's not qualified to do a dam' thing, which of course explains why his life 'accomplishments' are a round ZERO!

The goal of socialism is communism...
-Vladimir Lenin-

Pretty much says everything needed to know about progressivism/socialism.

Silly bleeding hearts...

Everything you need to know about progressivism/socialism, if you believed what Lenin said, which it appears that you do.

 

[Meathead]

Reagan preached many of the same political positions that Bernie is today. Check it out:

Mash-Up Of Bernie Sanders And Reagan Shows The Insanity Of The Modern GOP (VIDEO)

Reagan as governor didn't much like the free college tuition that California had at that time. He tried to end it but couldn't. I see very little similarity between him and Sanders other than he wasn't near as far right extremist as republicans have come to be today.

No, Reagan was far more practical and politically astute than Reagan. Reagan was no one-trick-pony, which is historically obvious.

 

[Skylar]

Reagan preached many of the same political positions that Bernie is today. Check it out:

Mash-Up Of Bernie Sanders And Reagan Shows The Insanity Of The Modern GOP (VIDEO)

Reagan as governor didn't much like the free college tuition that California had at that time. He tried to end it but couldn't. I see very little similarity between him and Sanders other than he wasn't near as far right extremist as republicans have come to be today.

No, Reagan was far more practical and politically astute than Reagan. Reagan was no one-trick-pony, which is historically obvious.

Laughing....indeed, Reagan was more practical than Reagan. The former being a president. The latter being an conservative revisionist action figure with a kung-fu grip.

 

[MikeK]

Everything you need to know about progressivism/socialism, if you believed what Lenin said, which it appears that you do.

It may be said that the goal of socialism is communism -- if one is referring to an economically devastated nation such as post- revolution Russia was during Lenin's time. What Lenin didn't say, however, is the goal of socialism during that era in Russia's history was anything other than the period of agonizing poverty that tragic nation had fallen into.

What Lenin was really saying is the goal of his idea of totalitarian socialism is communism. But Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist and anyone who doesn't understand the difference is urged to look into the quality of life in such democratic socialist nations as Denmark, Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands, et al. Those are happy, healthy, peaceful places.

 

[Skylar]

Everything you need to know about progressivism/socialism, if you believed what Lenin said, which it appears that you do.

It may be said that the goal of socialism is communism -- if one is referring to an economically devastated nation such as post- revolution Russia was during Lenin's time. What Lenin didn't say, however, is the goal of socialism during that era in Russia's history was anything other than the period of agonizing poverty that tragic nation had fallen into.

What Lenin was really saying is the goal of his idea of totalitarian socialism is communism. But Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist and anyone who doesn't understand the difference is urged to look into the quality of life in such democratic socialist nations as Denmark, Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands, et al. Those are happy, healthy, peaceful places.

Way too nuanced for this thread. If you can't sum up your argument with 'all you need to know', then you're clearly not doing it right.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Everything you need to know about progressivism/socialism, if you believed what Lenin said, which it appears that you do.

It may be said that the goal of socialism is communism -- if one is referring to an economically devastated nation such as post- revolution Russia was during Lenin's time. What Lenin didn't say, however, is the goal of socialism during that era in Russia's history was anything other than the period of agonizing poverty that tragic nation had fallen into.

What Lenin was really saying is the goal of his idea of totalitarian socialism is communism. But Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist and anyone who doesn't understand the difference is urged to look into the quality of life in such democratic socialist nations as Denmark, Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands, et al. Those are happy, healthy, peaceful places.

Socialism is only capable of producing devastating poverty. As such denies the natural principles of economics, which any sense of prosperity depends, entirely.

 

[Arianrhod]

Then I'd say Bernie is headed for a landslide victory next year since he's just like Reagan.

Yeah gerrymandering is a bitch isn't it?

The map is from 2004.

Seriously stupid...

Posting an electoral map from 2004 and thinking it makes some point relevant to 2015? I'd be inclined to think the person who posted it just didn't bother noticing the "2004" in the lower right corner.

You should be more charitable.

 

[Meathead]

Then I'd say Bernie is headed for a landslide victory next year since he's just like Reagan.

Yeah gerrymandering is a bitch isn't it?

The map is from 2004.

Seriously stupid...

Posting an electoral map from 2004 and thinking it makes some point relevant to 2015? I'd be inclined to think the person who posted it just didn't bother noticing the "2004" in the lower right corner.

You should be more charitable.

That, or you could be just an idiot.