Reagan Said It Best

[daveman]

So you're saying Democrats are spineless? That, or you acknowledge they just flat-out lied to you so you'd vote for them.

It's NEVER the Democrats' fault, is it?

No. You don't get it.

I am saying that in this country's history..the President's "power" to get a war that President wants..has never been challenged.

If you want to find something in history that contradicts that, be my guest. It's not a left or right thing..it's simply the way things have been run up until now.

Stop getting so emotional.

The only time he gets emotional is when he's getting his ass handed to him, usually by me.

So yes, he's been getting pretty emotional lately.

The only emotion you inspire is amusement, Skippy.

 

[daveman]

Lunacy and completely naive.

Pure and simple on both counts.

No, it's a fairly accurate assessment.

"Hope" and "change" and "yes we can" are lunatic and completely naive. And you were dumb enough to fall for them.

You don't think Reagan ran on 'hope' and 'change'?

...careful... lol

Yes, he did...and unlike Obama, he actually improved things.

Obama's handed you a shit sandwich, and with every mouthful, you're forced to say it's the best you've ever had.

Hell, you may even believe it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It never stops being funny, in an albeit grim way, that so many gungho pro-Iraq war rightwingers now try to blame the war on the Democrats.

 

[The Rabbi]

No. You don't get it.

I am saying that in this country's history..the President's "power" to get a war that President wants..has never been challenged.

If you want to find something in history that contradicts that, be my guest. It's not a left or right thing..it's simply the way things have been run up until now.

Stop getting so emotional.

The only time he gets emotional is when he's getting his ass handed to him, usually by me.

So yes, he's been getting pretty emotional lately.

The only emotion you inspire is amusement, Skippy.

DaGoose is DaLoser. He can't sustain a debate for 3 posts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, it's a fairly accurate assessment.

"Hope" and "change" and "yes we can" are lunatic and completely naive. And you were dumb enough to fall for them.

You don't think Reagan ran on 'hope' and 'change'?

...careful... lol

Yes, he did...and unlike Obama, he actually improved things.

Obama's handed you a shit sandwich, and with every mouthful, you're forced to say it's the best you've ever had.

Hell, you may even believe it.

Not by this stage in his presidency did he. And Obama has. So **** you. Stop lying.

 

[daveman]

No, it's a fairly accurate assessment.

"Hope" and "change" and "yes we can" are lunatic and completely naive. And you were dumb enough to fall for them.

No, like I posted it is and was lunacy and incredibly naive.

Iraq has cost the United States big. No matter how you slice it. It's put this country in the tank economically, has assured our involvement, militarily, for a long time to come, and destablized a huge source of oil. We are going to spend lots of time and money to keep it pacified. It's crushed our international prestige as a nation that respects others sovereign rights and has allowed for actions such as the invasion of Georgia and the suppression of riots in Tibet to go unabated. We simply didn't or don't have the moral grounding any more to complain about invasions that aren't instigated by real threats.

Do you want us to be the world's policeman, or not? Make up your mind.

Hell, if we're going to be the world's ATM, babysitting service, employment office, and supermarket, we may as well be the world's cop, too.

And as far as North Korea goes..it's nuts to think we can invade. The geopolitical climate doesn't allow for it. There is no way China would go for a united Korea without some kind of concession some where. And that concession might well be Taiwan. That..is simply unacceptable no matter how you cut it.

I guess you missed the part where I said it's not a viable action right now.

 

[daveman]

The Democrats voted against the Iraq war.

But then they kept paying the bills when they could have stopped the money.

I love how you're obfuscating about the necessity to invade North Korea while trying to cling to your belief that the Iraq invasion was necessary.

I'm not obfuscating. I've made my position quite clear. Your inability or unwillingness to understand what I'm saying says more about you than it does me.

You do realize that not all Democrats opposed the Iraq war correct?

"The Democrats voted against the Iraq war." Make up your mind.

 

[daveman]

It never stops being funny, in an albeit grim way, that so many gungho pro-Iraq war rightwingers now try to blame the war on the Democrats.

Incorrect. You're blaming the continuation of the war on Republicans, when the Democrats had the power to stop it.

 

[daveman]

The only time he gets emotional is when he's getting his ass handed to him, usually by me.

So yes, he's been getting pretty emotional lately.

The only emotion you inspire is amusement, Skippy.

DaGoose is DaLoser. He can't sustain a debate for 3 posts.

Has to check the fax machine for talking points from the union hall.

 

[daveman]

You don't think Reagan ran on 'hope' and 'change'?

...careful... lol

Yes, he did...and unlike Obama, he actually improved things.

Obama's handed you a shit sandwich, and with every mouthful, you're forced to say it's the best you've ever had.

Hell, you may even believe it.

Not by this stage in his presidency did he. And Obama has. So **** you. Stop lying.

Obama has? You have seen any news lately?

 

[Sallow]

No, it's a fairly accurate assessment.

"Hope" and "change" and "yes we can" are lunatic and completely naive. And you were dumb enough to fall for them.

You don't think Reagan ran on 'hope' and 'change'?

...careful... lol

Yes, he did...and unlike Obama, he actually improved things.

Obama's handed you a shit sandwich, and with every mouthful, you're forced to say it's the best you've ever had.

Hell, you may even believe it.

Reagan didn't improve anything domestically..he made things worse. The deficit and debt went sky high and the bond markets/banks had to be bailed out.

I will give Reagan credit for seizing an opportunity that was facilitated by the Carter administration's wheat embargo and support for the Muj. Some wouldn't have seen it...but Reagan masterfully played stick/candy politics with the Soviets which led to them giving up on the Warsaw Pact.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You want to really talk about what Reagan said?

How about the following?

In the months and the years that followed, our experience in Lebanon led to the adoption by the administration of a set of principles to guide America in the application of military force abroad, and I would recommend it to future presidents. The policy we adopted included these principles:


1. The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.


2. If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.


3. Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress. (We all felt that the Vietnam War had turned into such a tragedy because military action had been undertaken without sufficient assurances that the American people were behind it.)


4. Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available

Now, Iraq warmongers, let's hear you justify invading Iraq in 2003 while strictly adhering to RONALD REAGAN's principles.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes, he did...and unlike Obama, he actually improved things.

Obama's handed you a shit sandwich, and with every mouthful, you're forced to say it's the best you've ever had.

Hell, you may even believe it.

Not by this stage in his presidency did he. And Obama has. So **** you. Stop lying.

Obama has? You have seen any news lately?

Yep. The recession ended over a year ago. Corporate profits at record levels. Want to know what was going on in November of 1982??

oh, of course, you already know, since you profess to be knowledgeable of the Reagan presidency.

 

[Sallow]

No, it's a fairly accurate assessment.

"Hope" and "change" and "yes we can" are lunatic and completely naive. And you were dumb enough to fall for them.

No, like I posted it is and was lunacy and incredibly naive.

Iraq has cost the United States big. No matter how you slice it. It's put this country in the tank economically, has assured our involvement, militarily, for a long time to come, and destablized a huge source of oil. We are going to spend lots of time and money to keep it pacified. It's crushed our international prestige as a nation that respects others sovereign rights and has allowed for actions such as the invasion of Georgia and the suppression of riots in Tibet to go unabated. We simply didn't or don't have the moral grounding any more to complain about invasions that aren't instigated by real threats.

Do you want us to be the world's policeman, or not? Make up your mind.

Hell, if we're going to be the world's ATM, babysitting service, employment office, and supermarket, we may as well be the world's cop, too.

And as far as North Korea goes..it's nuts to think we can invade. The geopolitical climate doesn't allow for it. There is no way China would go for a united Korea without some kind of concession some where. And that concession might well be Taiwan. That..is simply unacceptable no matter how you cut it.

I guess you missed the part where I said it's not a viable action right now.

Where have I posted that we should be world police? In any case..using that as analogy...it seems the cop in this case beat the crap out of a guy in the street for giving him a harsh look. Bad form really.

And..yeah..missed the "viable action right now part". But given the conditions - it's not a viable action unless the North Koreans decide to go all out.

 

[DaGoose]

Cut off the money. They didn't do that.

It's brought an increasing amount of stability to an unstable region. It's allowed the Iraqi people to have a say in their own future. It's developing an ally and trading partner.

Hint: All those are good things.

You'll have a difficult time convincing me that your opposition to the invasion is more due to concern for our military than opposition to whatever Bush wanted.

That's bullshit my friend. I stood with Bush in the aftermath of 9/11. I supported him when he said we were going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan and I still support that decision.

Ahhh. So you "support the troops but not their mission".

That's like supporting the fire department, but not when they put out fires.

As easy as you making any excuses or accusations to justify your ceaseless support of Bush?

You speak out of ignorance. I've criticized Bush many times.

You, however, are incapable of criticizing Democrats.

What an idiotic assessment. Firemen are required to go. Bush had a choice whether or not to send them.

And yes, I do not support their mission. And your obvious support of the mission and inability to come up with any justification of the necessity shows your lack of support for the troops.

I'm incapable of criticizing Dems? Did you forget my criticizm of Obama recently?

So try again......Please justify the invasion that resulted in the deaths of over 4,000 American troops.

 

[DaGoose]

You want to really talk about what Reagan said?

How about the following?

In the months and the years that followed, our experience in Lebanon led to the adoption by the administration of a set of principles to guide America in the application of military force abroad, and I would recommend it to future presidents. The policy we adopted included these principles:


1. The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.


2. If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.


3. Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress. (We all felt that the Vietnam War had turned into such a tragedy because military action had been undertaken without sufficient assurances that the American people were behind it.)


4. Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available

Now, Iraq warmongers, let's hear you justify invading Iraq in 2003 while strictly adhering to RONALD REAGAN's principles.

Daveman (or anyone else for that matter) has already shown they can't justify the Iraq invasion while strictly adhering to anyone's principles. All they can do is parrot the GOP talking points. (Which is why it's so easy to kick his ass in these discussions.)

Heck, even Bush couldn't justify the invasion and resulting deaths of over 4,000 troops.

 

[The Rabbi]

You don't think Reagan ran on 'hope' and 'change'?

...careful... lol

Yes, he did...and unlike Obama, he actually improved things.

Obama's handed you a shit sandwich, and with every mouthful, you're forced to say it's the best you've ever had.

Hell, you may even believe it.

Reagan didn't improve anything domestically..he made things worse. The deficit and debt went sky high and the bond markets/banks had to be bailed out.

Hmm. Inflation 1979 was about 8.5%. Unemployment was nearly 6%. Discount rate was 12%
Inflation 1988 was 3.6%, uemployment was 5.3%. Discount rate was 6.5%

Nah, Reagan didn't improve anything.
Too bad you weren't around then to see it for yourself.

 

[Sallow]

Yes, he did...and unlike Obama, he actually improved things.

Obama's handed you a shit sandwich, and with every mouthful, you're forced to say it's the best you've ever had.

Hell, you may even believe it.

Reagan didn't improve anything domestically..he made things worse. The deficit and debt went sky high and the bond markets/banks had to be bailed out.

Hmm. Inflation 1979 was about 8.5%. Unemployment was nearly 6%. Discount rate was 12%
Inflation 1988 was 3.6%, uemployment was 5.3%. Discount rate was 6.5%

Nah, Reagan didn't improve anything.
Too bad you weren't around then to see it for yourself.

I was.

The Homeless situation in NYC got far worse. He took a "halfway house" solution for mental patients and opened up the floodgates. We had shanty towns under the FDR and in parks like Thompkins Square. He also put taxes on unemployment and cut SSI to children of dead parents at the age of 18.

And all those economic improvements were thanks to the efforts of Paul Volcker..and nearly every economist agrees on that.

 

[DaGoose]

Reagan didn't improve anything domestically..he made things worse. The deficit and debt went sky high and the bond markets/banks had to be bailed out.

Hmm. Inflation 1979 was about 8.5%. Unemployment was nearly 6%. Discount rate was 12%
Inflation 1988 was 3.6%, uemployment was 5.3%. Discount rate was 6.5%

Nah, Reagan didn't improve anything.
Too bad you weren't around then to see it for yourself.

I was.

The Homeless situation in NYC got far worse. He took a "halfway house" solution for mental patients and opened up the floodgates. We had shanty towns under the FDR and in parks like Thompkins Square. He also put taxes on unemployment and cut SSI to children of dead parents at the age of 18.

And all those economic improvements were thanks to the efforts of Paul Volcker..and nearly every economist agrees on that.

Careful. You'll confuse him with facts.

I was around too and still remember him trying to call ketchup a vegetable.

 

[The Rabbi]

Reagan didn't improve anything domestically..he made things worse. The deficit and debt went sky high and the bond markets/banks had to be bailed out.

Hmm. Inflation 1979 was about 8.5%. Unemployment was nearly 6%. Discount rate was 12%
Inflation 1988 was 3.6%, uemployment was 5.3%. Discount rate was 6.5%

Nah, Reagan didn't improve anything.
Too bad you weren't around then to see it for yourself.

I was.

The Homeless situation in NYC got far worse. He took a "halfway house" solution for mental patients and opened up the floodgates. We had shanty towns under the FDR and in parks like Thompkins Square. He also put taxes on unemployment and cut SSI to children of dead parents at the age of 18.

And all those economic improvements were thanks to the efforts of Paul Volcker..and nearly every economist agrees on that.

The homeless situation in NYC was Reagan's problem??? Are you ******* crazy??? Don't answer that.