Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101

[Camp]

Yes, because we are so much better off with all those crazy Jihadists Reagan Armed to fight them.

THERE we go.Maybe NOW we can get back to the topic of this thread.The corruption run by that evil traiterous bastard Ronald Reagan.I'm probably hoping for too much here though.

Well, what more can be said, and why bother? Nothing sticks to the teflon president, and posters will continue to fart in here.

 

[Oldstyle]

[

Once again you're confused about your history, Joe. It isn't Bush that insisted on recounts and challenged voting irregularities...that was Al Gore. Bush was perfectly happy with the results because he won. It was Gore that demanded recounts in Florida.

And solely blaming Bush for the "wreck" this country now is ridiculous. Blame for the situation we find ourselves in now lies with both political parties. Only a blinders wearing ideologue would blame one man for problems that can be traced all the way BACK to the policies of FDR! This situation has been coming down the pike for a LONG time.

Sorry, man. Bush was president. Totally his fault.

He inherited surpluses, peace, prosperity and managed to fuck all that up in 8 years. And lose a major city in the process. Seriously, people have killed themselves over less incompetence.

And you guys keep acting like electing him was a good idea.

You may have the most superficial grasp of history of anyone I've ever met, Joe. Listening to you is like taking a "History Lite" class...where the Professor sort of knows a little bit about a subject but really knows very little about it at all.

You make a statement about Bush demanding recounts and compare THAT with Nixon's decision not to demand recounts back in 1960. The only problem with that ignorant rant is that it was Gore that demanded the recounts because he lost in Florida not Bush. So what do you do when that's pointed out to you? You rattle off that canned nonsense about Bush inheriting "surpluses, peace & prosperity". The problem with THAT ignorant rant is that Bush inherited a contracting economy as the Dot Com Boom bubble evaporated in the last year of Slick Willie's 2'nd term and a fight that was forced upon him by an enemy that was plotting to attack the US LONG before the choice of Bush or Gore was made. I have no clue what you're talking about when you say Bush lost a "major city"! Did we lose a city that I didn't hear about?

 

[JoeB131]

[

Once again you're confused about your history, Joe. It isn't Bush that insisted on recounts and challenged voting irregularities...that was Al Gore. Bush was perfectly happy with the results because he won. It was Gore that demanded recounts in Florida.

And solely blaming Bush for the "wreck" this country now is ridiculous. Blame for the situation we find ourselves in now lies with both political parties. Only a blinders wearing ideologue would blame one man for problems that can be traced all the way BACK to the policies of FDR! This situation has been coming down the pike for a LONG time.

Sorry, man. Bush was president. Totally his fault.

He inherited surpluses, peace, prosperity and managed to fuck all that up in 8 years. And lose a major city in the process. Seriously, people have killed themselves over less incompetence.

And you guys keep acting like electing him was a good idea.

You may have the most superficial grasp of history of anyone I've ever met, Joe. Listening to you is like taking a "History Lite" class...where the Professor sort of knows a little bit about a subject but really knows very little about it at all.

You make a statement about Bush demanding recounts and compare THAT with Nixon's decision not to demand recounts back in 1960. The only problem with that ignorant rant is that it was Gore that demanded the recounts because he lost in Florida not Bush. So what do you do when that's pointed out to you? ?

Nixon could have won on a technicality but respected the will of the people.

Bush won on a technicality and ignored the wil lof the people. His brother and Catherine Harris did all they could to suppress recounts.

You rattle off that canned nonsense about Bush inheriting "surpluses, peace & prosperity". The problem with THAT ignorant rant is that Bush inherited a contracting economy as the Dot Com Boom bubble evaporated in the last year of Slick Willie's 2'nd term

The contractions weren't that serious. Bush Still inherited 4% unemployment AND surpluses of over 200 Billion a year. And his first reaction was "Hey, let's give tax cuts to RICH PEOPLE!"

and a fight that was forced upon him by an enemy that was plotting to attack the US LONG before the choice of Bush or Gore was made.

Treating a criminal act like a cause of war is kind of stupid, really. But it would have been nice had Bush actually gotten his ass off the ranch when the CIA came to him with a memo titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike US". Instead, he said, "Well, you covered your ass" and went fishing.

Ron Suskind, George W. Bush and the Aug. 6, 2001, PDB - Salon.com

Hey, but Bush got right on that- by attacking the wrong country!!!!

I have no clue what you're talking about when you say Bush lost a "major city"! Did we lose a city that I didn't hear about

YOu now, New Orleans. Washed off the map, hundreds of people killed, because he appointed a guy who ran HORSE SHOWS to run FEMA and didn't spend money on levies... Sat on his ass at his ranch flipping off Cindy Sheehan.

Really, this guy was a total fuckup, and you act like electing him was ever a good idea.

But, no, let's rant about Obama and a website or four diplomats being killed. Let's ignore losing a major city and thousands killed in Iraq.

 

[JoeB131]

From the above link....

Ron Suskind’s “The One Percent Doctrine” is out this week, and the Washington Post’s Barton Gellman says it’s full of “jaw-dropping stories” about the Bush administration’s war on terror.

Or lack thereof.

We’ve known for years now that George W. Bush received a presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, in which he was warned: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” We’ve known for almost as long that Bush went fishing afterward.

What we didn’t know is what happened in between the briefing and the fishing, and now Suskind is here to tell us. Bush listened to the briefing, Suskind says, then told the CIA briefer: “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now.”

 

[Oldstyle]

Sorry, man. Bush was president. Totally his fault.

He inherited surpluses, peace, prosperity and managed to fuck all that up in 8 years. And lose a major city in the process. Seriously, people have killed themselves over less incompetence.

And you guys keep acting like electing him was a good idea.

You may have the most superficial grasp of history of anyone I've ever met, Joe. Listening to you is like taking a "History Lite" class...where the Professor sort of knows a little bit about a subject but really knows very little about it at all.

You make a statement about Bush demanding recounts and compare THAT with Nixon's decision not to demand recounts back in 1960. The only problem with that ignorant rant is that it was Gore that demanded the recounts because he lost in Florida not Bush. So what do you do when that's pointed out to you? ?

Nixon could have won on a technicality but respected the will of the people.

Bush won on a technicality and ignored the wil lof the people. His brother and Catherine Harris did all they could to suppress recounts.



The contractions weren't that serious. Bush Still inherited 4% unemployment AND surpluses of over 200 Billion a year. And his first reaction was "Hey, let's give tax cuts to RICH PEOPLE!"

and a fight that was forced upon him by an enemy that was plotting to attack the US LONG before the choice of Bush or Gore was made.

Treating a criminal act like a cause of war is kind of stupid, really. But it would have been nice had Bush actually gotten his ass off the ranch when the CIA came to him with a memo titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike US". Instead, he said, "Well, you covered your ass" and went fishing.

Ron Suskind, George W. Bush and the Aug. 6, 2001, PDB - Salon.com

Hey, but Bush got right on that- by attacking the wrong country!!!!

I have no clue what you're talking about when you say Bush lost a "major city"! Did we lose a city that I didn't hear about

YOu now, New Orleans. Washed off the map, hundreds of people killed, because he appointed a guy who ran HORSE SHOWS to run FEMA and didn't spend money on levies... Sat on his ass at his ranch flipping off Cindy Sheehan.

Really, this guy was a total fuckup, and you act like electing him was ever a good idea.

But, no, let's rant about Obama and a website or four diplomats being killed. Let's ignore losing a major city and thousands killed in Iraq.

Once again, Joe...you kind of know a little bit about what you're talking about but your knowledge is so superficial that in the end you're totally clueless.

Bush didn't just give tax cuts to "rich people"...Bush gave tax cuts to everyone. He had this radical concept that the American people should be able to spend their OWN money better than the Federal Government. But since you hate rich people SO much that pisses you off to no end.

Only the truly ignorant buy into the notion that Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance and failed to act. The truth is that he was given a vague warning that Al Queda wanted to strike against the US in a daily briefing that was one of many briefings that warned of the same thing. Blaming Bush for failing to act from THAT briefing is a cheap shot. Always was...always will be.

As for the tragedy in New Orleans? George Bush didn't build a city below sea level in an area prone to hurricanes. George Bush didn't alter the wet lands that had previously offered some protection to that city. George Bush didn't line his pockets with the Federal dollars that New Orleans received for decades to fix it's levies. George Bush wasn't the Mayor who declined to issue a timely mandatory evacuation order as a possible category IV hurricane headed directly towards New Orleans. George Bush wasn't one of the idiots that lived in a hurricane prone area yet didn't do the first thing to prepare for an imminent storm. The Federal response to something like a hurricane is ALWAYS slow...that's why if you live in an area like the Gulf you're told constantly to prepare to go days without power, food and water. People suffered in New Orleans because THEY were totally unprepared and then expected FEMA to be there immediately for them. I'm sorry, Joe but you can't fix stupid...and there was a LOT of stupid in New Orleans for Katrina! Blaming the result on Bush is simply another cheap shot.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Once again, Joe...you kind of know a little bit about what you're talking about but your knowledge is so superficial that in the end you're totally clueless.

Bush didn't just give tax cuts to "rich people"...Bush gave tax cuts to everyone. He had this radical concept that the American people should be able to spend their OWN money better than the Federal Government. But since you hate rich people SO much that pisses you off to no end.

No, what pisses me off is that we are going TRILLIONS into debt while the rich are living large at the expense of the rest of us....

The rich didn't need tax cuts. At least not until we paid off the 6 Trillion in debt that Bush's Daddy and Ray-Gun incurred. Instead, Bush gave tax cuts to the rich and then spent Trillions avenging his Daddy on Saddam. So when he left, we had 11 Trillion in debt, a busted economy and now way to pay our obligations. And you think the guy was a good president, apparently.

Only the truly ignorant buy into the notion that Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance and failed to act. The truth is that he was given a vague warning that Al Queda wanted to strike against the US in a daily briefing that was one of many briefings that warned of the same thing. Blaming Bush for failing to act from THAT briefing is a cheap shot. Always was...always will be.

Again, he was given a warning and did ... nothing. Sometimes you got to take the cheap shots because they are so obvious. I'd give Bush a pass for his conduct before 9/11 if his conduct after 9/11 wasn't so much worse. Invading the wrong country, blowing billions of dollars, wasting thousands of lives, ignoring the advice of his generals, torture, spying, and so on.

As for the tragedy in New Orleans? George Bush didn't build a city below sea level in an area prone to hurricanes. George Bush didn't alter the wet lands that had previously offered some protection to that city. George Bush didn't line his pockets with the Federal dollars that New Orleans received for decades to fix it's levies. George Bush wasn't the Mayor who declined to issue a timely mandatory evacuation order as a possible category IV hurricane headed directly towards New Orleans. George Bush wasn't one of the idiots that lived in a hurricane prone area yet didn't do the first thing to prepare for an imminent storm. The Federal response to something like a hurricane is ALWAYS slow...that's why if you live in an area like the Gulf you're told constantly to prepare to go days without power, food and water. People suffered in New Orleans because THEY were totally unprepared and then expected FEMA to be there immediately for them. I'm sorry, Joe but you can't fix stupid...and there was a LOT of stupid in New Orleans for Katrina! Blaming the result on Bush is simply another cheap shot.

This sounds like blaming a rape victim for her attack. "Well, she shouldn't have been dressed like that, in that neighborhood, at that time of night. She really has no one to blame but herself."

Incidently, before they put the Horse Show Guy, Heckava Job Brownie in charge of FEMA, FEMA was pretty good at its job. That's because it had professionals in charge. Not political hacks. And when Obama put professionals back in charge, it did a pretty good job.

Notice that during Sandy, Obama didn't blame Christy and Bloomberg for the problems. The job just got done.

 

[JoeB131]

Seriously, man, you excuse Bush like he wasn't even in charge.

Well, I guess technically Cheney was...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reagan liberated whole countries from Soviet Communism; freeing hundreds of millions of people from its crushing, dehumanizing oppression

 

[JoeB131]

Reagan liberated whole countries from Soviet Communism; freeing hundreds of millions of people from its crushing, dehumanizing oppression

No, those people liberated themselves. And then some of them like the Poles voted the Communists back in when the Free Market guys couldn't produce services.

Ray-Gun had nothing to do with it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reagan liberated whole countries from Soviet Communism; freeing hundreds of millions of people from its crushing, dehumanizing oppression

No, those people liberated themselves. And then some of them like the Poles voted the Communists back in when the Free Market guys couldn't produce services.

Ray-Gun had nothing to do with it.

Reagan openly challenged Soviet Communism and vowed to defeat them.

Some people, like JoeB, love being slaves -- and hate Reagan

 

[JoeB131]

Reagan liberated whole countries from Soviet Communism; freeing hundreds of millions of people from its crushing, dehumanizing oppression

No, those people liberated themselves. And then some of them like the Poles voted the Communists back in when the Free Market guys couldn't produce services.

Ray-Gun had nothing to do with it.

Reagan openly challenged Soviet Communism and vowed to defeat them.

Some people, like JoeB, love being slaves -- and hate Reagan

Actually, I loved Reagan at the time. Campaigned for him and voted for him.

Now I have the benefit of hindsight and perspective.

The point was, Reagan "challenging" the USSR had nothing to do with why it fell. It fell because ultimately, it was stuck with the same design flaw the Tsarist Russian Empire had.

Too few Russians ruling over too few not-Russians. After a certain point, the Russians just didn't think it was worth the bother anymore.

 

[thanatos144]

You know how you know that Reagan was a great President? 30 years later and the Fascist liberals and conspiracy kook libertarians still make lies about him

 

[JoeB131]

You know how you know that Reagan was a great President? #0 years later and the Fascist liberals and conspiracy kook libertarians still make lies about him

You know how sensible people can tell he was an awful president.

Just seeing how much worse off the country was after him than before him.

 

[thanatos144]

You know how you know that Reagan was a great President? #0 years later and the Fascist liberals and conspiracy kook libertarians still make lies about him

You know how sensible people can tell he was an awful president.

Just seeing how much worse off the country was after him than before him.

What the hell would you know about a good president? Your a communist.

 

[JoeB131]

You know how you know that Reagan was a great President? #0 years later and the Fascist liberals and conspiracy kook libertarians still make lies about him

You know how sensible people can tell he was an awful president.

Just seeing how much worse off the country was after him than before him.

What the hell would you know about a good president? Your a communist.

Again, would be more impressed with your political acumen if you knew the difference between "your" and "you're".

your- Second person possessive.

you're - Contraction for "You Are".

got it?

Good.

Now, I know a good president doesn't weaken the middle class, doesn't run up 3 trillion in debt, doesn't trade arms for hostages, to start with.

I think that pretty much eliminates Ray-gun from contention.

 

[Oldstyle]

No, those people liberated themselves. And then some of them like the Poles voted the Communists back in when the Free Market guys couldn't produce services.

Ray-Gun had nothing to do with it.

Reagan openly challenged Soviet Communism and vowed to defeat them.

Some people, like JoeB, love being slaves -- and hate Reagan

Actually, I loved Reagan at the time. Campaigned for him and voted for him.

Now I have the benefit of hindsight and perspective.

The point was, Reagan "challenging" the USSR had nothing to do with why it fell. It fell because ultimately, it was stuck with the same design flaw the Tsarist Russian Empire had.

Too few Russians ruling over too few not-Russians. After a certain point, the Russians just didn't think it was worth the bother anymore.

You can't bring yourself to admit that communism is a failed system...can you, Joe?

If one of my history students had ever handed in a paper with a statement like the one I highlighted I would have circled it in red pencil and asked "The Russians didn't think it was worth the "bother", Joe? Really? On what do you base that comment?"

 

[Oldstyle]

Reagan liberated whole countries from Soviet Communism; freeing hundreds of millions of people from its crushing, dehumanizing oppression

No, those people liberated themselves. And then some of them like the Poles voted the Communists back in when the Free Market guys couldn't produce services.

Ray-Gun had nothing to do with it.

So now your contention is that Poland has gone back to communism, Joe? Really? That's one more statement that would be circled in red pencil with a giant ? next to it.

I'll say this for you...you're consistent. You don't know much...about a whole range of topics!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No, those people liberated themselves. And then some of them like the Poles voted the Communists back in when the Free Market guys couldn't produce services.

Ray-Gun had nothing to do with it.

Reagan openly challenged Soviet Communism and vowed to defeat them.

Some people, like JoeB, love being slaves -- and hate Reagan

Actually, I loved Reagan at the time. Campaigned for him and voted for him.

Now I have the benefit of hindsight and perspective.

The point was, Reagan "challenging" the USSR had nothing to do with why it fell. It fell because ultimately, it was stuck with the same design flaw the Tsarist Russian Empire had.

Too few Russians ruling over too few not-Russians. After a certain point, the Russians just didn't think it was worth the bother anymore.

Sure you did, JoeB

Sure you did.

You and your Cuban emigres who long for Fidel were big Reagan supporters

Keep telling yourself the Berlin Wall just feel from deferred maintenance

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NjNL4Nsa4Q]"Mr. Gorbachev - tear down this wall." - Ronald Reagan, Berlin, 1987 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Toro]

Given how shitty communism was, the Berlin Wall would have fallen from deferred maintenance eventually.

 

[Oldstyle]

[
Once again, Joe...you kind of know a little bit about what you're talking about but your knowledge is so superficial that in the end you're totally clueless.

Bush didn't just give tax cuts to "rich people"...Bush gave tax cuts to everyone. He had this radical concept that the American people should be able to spend their OWN money better than the Federal Government. But since you hate rich people SO much that pisses you off to no end.

No, what pisses me off is that we are going TRILLIONS into debt while the rich are living large at the expense of the rest of us....

The rich didn't need tax cuts. At least not until we paid off the 6 Trillion in debt that Bush's Daddy and Ray-Gun incurred. Instead, Bush gave tax cuts to the rich and then spent Trillions avenging his Daddy on Saddam. So when he left, we had 11 Trillion in debt, a busted economy and now way to pay our obligations. And you think the guy was a good president, apparently.

Only the truly ignorant buy into the notion that Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance and failed to act. The truth is that he was given a vague warning that Al Queda wanted to strike against the US in a daily briefing that was one of many briefings that warned of the same thing. Blaming Bush for failing to act from THAT briefing is a cheap shot. Always was...always will be.

Again, he was given a warning and did ... nothing. Sometimes you got to take the cheap shots because they are so obvious. I'd give Bush a pass for his conduct before 9/11 if his conduct after 9/11 wasn't so much worse. Invading the wrong country, blowing billions of dollars, wasting thousands of lives, ignoring the advice of his generals, torture, spying, and so on.

As for the tragedy in New Orleans? George Bush didn't build a city below sea level in an area prone to hurricanes. George Bush didn't alter the wet lands that had previously offered some protection to that city. George Bush didn't line his pockets with the Federal dollars that New Orleans received for decades to fix it's levies. George Bush wasn't the Mayor who declined to issue a timely mandatory evacuation order as a possible category IV hurricane headed directly towards New Orleans. George Bush wasn't one of the idiots that lived in a hurricane prone area yet didn't do the first thing to prepare for an imminent storm. The Federal response to something like a hurricane is ALWAYS slow...that's why if you live in an area like the Gulf you're told constantly to prepare to go days without power, food and water. People suffered in New Orleans because THEY were totally unprepared and then expected FEMA to be there immediately for them. I'm sorry, Joe but you can't fix stupid...and there was a LOT of stupid in New Orleans for Katrina! Blaming the result on Bush is simply another cheap shot.

This sounds like blaming a rape victim for her attack. "Well, she shouldn't have been dressed like that, in that neighborhood, at that time of night. She really has no one to blame but herself."

Incidently, before they put the Horse Show Guy, Heckava Job Brownie in charge of FEMA, FEMA was pretty good at its job. That's because it had professionals in charge. Not political hacks. And when Obama put professionals back in charge, it did a pretty good job.

Notice that during Sandy, Obama didn't blame Christy and Bloomberg for the problems. The job just got done.

New Orleans was a debacle because local leaders like Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco failed to do THEIR jobs and so many people in the New Orleans area were totally unprepared for a major storm and it's aftermath. I live in hurricane country and I understand what is required when a big one is headed your way. Your choices are clear...you either need to evacuate or if you choose to stay you need to put up enough food and water to survive for a minimum of three days but if you're smart you'll have enough to last a week. People in New Orleans ran out of food and water the day after the storm hit. THAT is not preparedness...that is stupidity. FEMA is not in the business of providing immediate aid to hurricane victims. I'm sorry, but they simply aren't. Their job is the long term recovery from storms.

What's pathetic is that the people in New York and New Jersey...areas the seldom get hit by major hurricanes were FAR better prepared than New Orleans was...a city that is right on the Gulf and gets hit with storms all the time.