Reagan vs Obama

[MaggieMae]

Why don't you factor in the amount that interest rates fell from August of 82 on.

You mean interest rates where lower then than they are now? Interest rates zoomed up during the Carter administration because he thought debasing the currency was a good way to stimulate the economy. It didn't work then, and it isn't working now.

Why don't you factor in how much larger our manufacturing base was in 82 compared to 2009?

In dollar terms, it was about the same. The number of people employed will decrease as efficiency increases. That's inevitable.

Why don't you factor in how much oil prices FELL from 81/82 on?

They fell because Reagan got rid of Carter's silly price controls and rationing schemes. Now they are rising because Obama refuses to allow oil companies to drill anywhere.[/QUOTE]

Obama says they can drill anywhere they want, but that energy exploration shouldn't be solely devoted 95% to oil and 5% to alternatives. It's the states who still have moratoriums, like California and Florida who don't want their pristine beach views messed up by big oil platforms on the horizon.

 

[The T]

Parental rights is why the kid was sent back.

When you come inbetween the most basic right to have your child you are a real partisan hack

If that is the BASE of your argument? I could really throw a monkey wrench in this thread and ask why Parents don't have the right to educate their kids how they see fit? Raise their kids how they see fit, and why does the Government interfere, and blatently undo any teachings parents have done with their own children?

Have a smart answer for this?

Yeah.

The kid was a Cuban national.

He was returned to his father.

Simple as that.

Your first mistake is conferring rights to a Communist State. Why did Clinton give in to Castro?

 

[CRStar]

Parental rights is why the kid was sent back.

When you come inbetween the most basic right to have your child you are a real partisan hack

If that is the BASE of your argument? I could really throw a monkey wrench in this thread and ask why Parents don't have the right to educate their kids how they see fit? Raise their kids how they see fit, and why does the Government interfere, and blatently undo any teachings parents have done with their own children?

Have a smart answer for this?

Yeah.

The kid was a Cuban national.

He was returned to his father.

Simple as that.

I do hope you called that number, I see you vanished and I hope you got that needed help, or did you run off to a truck stop and sell your body to those dirty red neck truck drivers. You will not answer, you will shut up because I own you.

 

[MaggieMae]

Strawmen are based on fallacy.

That was not.

Please..concentrate.

ROLF! I love it when libs act proud of their ignorance.

So tell us where the "strawman" was, genius. Ironically, you bringing up the price of oil is a strawman since that's a fluctuation based on a whole lot of measurements that can't be controlled by any single president.

 

[MaggieMae]

Reagan vs. Obama?

Obama would probably win, Reagan is a dead pile of bones. Although, Obama is dumb enough to lose a thumb wrestling contest with a calcium deposit.

Obama is smarter than any republican who has held office in thrity years.


To pretend that the man is not intelligent is a cheap partisan lie.

You can disagree with him if you wish but to spew lies out of pure hate makes you as dumb as a post.

Obama is a moron. He makes Bush look like Einstein. The guy can't even form a cogent thought without reading it off a teleprompter.

Ah yes, the ol' teleprompter yarn. How else could some of you idiots even enter a conversation without it?

 

[MaggieMae]

I see that Bripat is on a roll again.

Only someone dumber would think so.

 

[Truthmatters]

Yea a moran who got into prestiges colleges and was elected to the Harvard law revues head.


How I wish there was some honesty left on the right.

 

[Truthmatters]

If that is the BASE of your argument? I could really throw a monkey wrench in this thread and ask why Parents don't have the right to educate their kids how they see fit? Raise their kids how they see fit, and why does the Government interfere, and blatently undo any teachings parents have done with their own children?

Have a smart answer for this?

Yeah.

The kid was a Cuban national.

He was returned to his father.

Simple as that.

Your first mistake is conferring rights to a Communist State. Why did Clinton give in to Castro?

Because he was defering to the laws and courts of our country.

 

[Sallow]

1. "He committed treason and lied about it."

Since I like you, I offer the following advice, just so you don't embarrass yourself as you did above...look up the meaning of 'treason.'
Hyperbole is generally reserved for teenage girls.

2. "...so you hate Clinton..."
Again, this hyperbole speaks of one who is less than articulate.
I hate no one.
But I waste no time in revealing their, and your, inequities and transgressions.

3. And, rather than post outside of the subject of the post, how bout offering your carefully considered opinion of the fascist Democrat- Clinton-Reno-Holder attack on Elian Gonzalez in the service of the Communist Dictator Fidel Castro?

It seems that your attack on the great man is higher on you list of priorities than offering any disapproval of the unconstitutional actions of the Left.

1. Reagan bargained with an avowed enemy of the United States. That's treason.

Treason
treason n the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one's country or of assisting its enemies in war Source: NMW

2. Reagan secretly funneled money to terrorists. That's in breach of the Constitution.

3. Clinton showed respect for the Constitution and the Laws of Nations (Which the Constitution fully supports) by returning Elian to his father.

Got it?

Treason, the only crime defined in the Constitution, Art. III section 3... read it.


The great man fought against communism, and did what no other pol could do....defeat the Soviet Union.

Further, I note that you have scurried away from the anti-American nature of the the actions of fascist Democrat- Clinton-Reno-Holder attack on Elian Gonzalez in the service of the Communist Dictator Fidel Castro?

A wise move, since it is indefensible.

Here it is..

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Let's sum up.

Prior to becoming President, Reagan promised the Iranians supplies in exchange for holding the hostages until the election was over. Then he used money from that deal to support the Contras. THAT was the crux of the Iran-Contra "Affair". It was treason. Pure and simple. And he did very little to "fight" communism except to spend a great deal of money to build weapon systems that never materialized. The Soviet Union was going to throw in the towel regardless of who was President. The only thing that Reagan did do was not to **** that up. And he came pretty damned close to screwing that up as well. Gorbachev nearly walked away from the deal because the United States was so openly hostile, but Reagan managed to convince him that all the saber rattling was for the groundlings. Reagan was a lousy President and committed treason. All the myth making is going to change that.

 

[Trajan]

Why don't you factor in the amount that interest rates fell from August of 82 on.

You mean interest rates where lower then than they are now? Interest rates zoomed up during the Carter administration because he thought debasing the currency was a good way to stimulate the economy. It didn't work then, and it isn't working now.



In dollar terms, it was about the same. The number of people employed will decrease as efficiency increases. That's inevitable.

Why don't you factor in how much oil prices FELL from 81/82 on?

They fell because Reagan got rid of Carter's silly price controls and rationing schemes. Now they are rising because Obama refuses to allow oil companies to drill anywhere.

Obama says they can drill anywhere they want,

thats not true and you know it MM.

but that energy exploration shouldn't be solely devoted 95% to oil and 5% to alternatives. It's the states who still have moratoriums, like California and Florida who don't want their pristine beach views messed up by big oil platforms on the horizon.

anwar?

 

[MaggieMae]

Why do you want to raise taxes? Just curious.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

That might help.

The government makes it's money that way. If it's not meeting it's debt obligations..then it has to increase revenue or cut spending.

And you guys love the big shiny military we spend so much on..and we guys love the peeps (You know..Americans?) we spend so much money on.

So? Whatcha gonna do..

jack ass's though it would be years before china interude a stelf fight . and they did that last year .
big shiny military ?

the military is paranoid , but thats its job .
without military researching all the time our technology would be years behind .
no Internet , no flat screens tv really the silicon chip would fine it hard without military research money .

not to mention spinal cord injuries , blood advancement ,
the VA here is really laked , but the research part of VA improves surgery , they they gave us a lot .
but no problem we will always have a government , it a question of who's .

You mean government funding provides incentive for PRIVATE BUSINESSES to develop innovative products and services to sell to THE PUBLIC and make a profit? OMG...surprise surprise. Let's pass that along to those here who continuously say "Government doesn't ever provide jobs!!!!!"

A little hard to read, but you are correct.

IR&D Program

 

[The T]

Yeah.

The kid was a Cuban national.

He was returned to his father.

Simple as that.

Your first mistake is conferring rights to a Communist State. Why did Clinton give in to Castro?

Because he was defering to the laws and courts of our country.

And PC already highlighted the COURT aspect of it...which you are in denial over...

*NEXT*

 

[CRStar]

1. Reagan bargained with an avowed enemy of the United States. That's treason.

2. Reagan secretly funneled money to terrorists. That's in breach of the Constitution.

3. Clinton showed respect for the Constitution and the Laws of Nations (Which the Constitution fully supports) by returning Elian to his father.

Got it?

Treason, the only crime defined in the Constitution, Art. III section 3... read it.


The great man fought against communism, and did what no other pol could do....defeat the Soviet Union.

Further, I note that you have scurried away from the anti-American nature of the the actions of fascist Democrat- Clinton-Reno-Holder attack on Elian Gonzalez in the service of the Communist Dictator Fidel Castro?

A wise move, since it is indefensible.

Here it is..

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Let's sum up.

Prior to becoming President, Reagan promised the Iranians supplies in exchange for holding the hostages until the election was over. Then he used money from that deal to support the Contras. THAT was the crux of the Iran-Contra "Affair". It was treason. Pure and simple. And he did very little to "fight" communism except to spend a great deal of money to build weapon systems that never materialized. The Soviet Union was going to throw in the towel regardless of who was President. The only thing that Reagan did do was not to **** that up. And he came pretty damned close to screwing that up as well. Gorbachev nearly walked away from the deal because the United States was so openly hostile, but Reagan managed to convince him that all the saber rattling was for the groundlings. Reagan was a lousy President and committed treason. All the myth making is going to change that.

Now nit wit, start again. In YOUR own words and not copy and paste. Points will be deducted for profanities and insults....3.2.1....GO.

 

[The T]

1. Reagan bargained with an avowed enemy of the United States. That's treason.

2. Reagan secretly funneled money to terrorists. That's in breach of the Constitution.

3. Clinton showed respect for the Constitution and the Laws of Nations (Which the Constitution fully supports) by returning Elian to his father.

Got it?

Treason, the only crime defined in the Constitution, Art. III section 3... read it.


The great man fought against communism, and did what no other pol could do....defeat the Soviet Union.

Further, I note that you have scurried away from the anti-American nature of the the actions of fascist Democrat- Clinton-Reno-Holder attack on Elian Gonzalez in the service of the Communist Dictator Fidel Castro?

A wise move, since it is indefensible.

Here it is..

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Let's sum up.

Prior to becoming President, Reagan promised the Iranians supplies in exchange for holding the hostages until the election was over. Then he used money from that deal to support the Contras. THAT was the crux of the Iran-Contra "Affair". It was treason. Pure and simple. And he did very little to "fight" communism except to spend a great deal of money to build weapon systems that never materialized. The Soviet Union was going to throw in the towel regardless of who was President. The only thing that Reagan did do was not to **** that up. And he came pretty damned close to screwing that up as well. Gorbachev nearly walked away from the deal because the United States was so openly hostile, but Reagan managed to convince him that all the saber rattling was for the groundlings. Reagan was a lousy President and committed treason. All the myth making is going to change that.

He did? Was George HW Bush comfy in that SR71?

 

[CRStar]

You can't compare Reagan and Obama.....Its like comparing a Lion to a slug....and the slug being Obama.

 

[Truthmatters]

Iran



Iran–Contra affair[1] (Persian: ماجرای مک*فارلین, Spanish: caso Irán-contras) was a political scandal in the United States that came to light in November 1986. During the Reagan administration, senior Reagan Administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, the subject of an arms embargo.[2] Some U.S. officials also hoped that the arms sales would secure the release of hostages and allow U.S. intelligence agencies to fund the Nicaraguan Contras. Under the Boland Amendment, further funding of the Contras by the Reagan administration had been prohibited by Congress.

The scandal began as an operation to free American hostages being held by terrorist groups with Iranian ties. It was planned that Israel would ship weapons to Iran, and then the U.S. would resupply Israel and receive the Israeli payment. The Iranian recipients promised to do everything in their power to achieve the release of six U.S. hostages, who were being held by the Lebanese Shia Islamist group Hezbollah, who in turn were connected to the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. The plan deteriorated into an arms-for-hostages scheme, in which members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of the American hostages.[3][4] Large modifications to the plan were devised by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council in late 1985, in which a portion of the proceeds from the weapon sales was diverted to fund anti-Sandinista and anti-communist rebels, or Contras, in Nicaragua.[5][6]

 

[Sallow]

If that is the BASE of your argument? I could really throw a monkey wrench in this thread and ask why Parents don't have the right to educate their kids how they see fit? Raise their kids how they see fit, and why does the Government interfere, and blatently undo any teachings parents have done with their own children?

Have a smart answer for this?

Yeah.

The kid was a Cuban national.

He was returned to his father.

Simple as that.

Your first mistake is conferring rights to a Communist State. Why did Clinton give in to Castro?

China and Russia (Prior to the break up of the Soviet Union) both have seats in the Security Council. They were and are considered communist. Additionally the law of nations is recognized in the Constitution and there is that little reciprocity thing to consider.

 

[The T]

You can't compare Reagan and Obama.....Its like comparing a Lion to a slug....and the slug being Obama.

There is no comparison. Reagan didn't go on a world tour to apologize for the United States.

 

[The T]

Yeah.

The kid was a Cuban national.

He was returned to his father.

Simple as that.

Your first mistake is conferring rights to a Communist State. Why did Clinton give in to Castro?

China and Russia (Prior to the break up of the Soviet Union) both have seats in the Security Council. They were and are considered communist. Additionally the law of nations is recognized in the Constitution and there is that little reciprocity thing to consider.

No international LAW supercedes US Law. US Constituion is supreme here.

Go back to school buddy.

 

[jgarden]

I'm putting this in Politics because the economic performance is a function of policy, leadership and politics.

Reagan vs. Obama - A Tale of Two Recoveries

Which policies achieved the better result:

And granted, the economy needs to expand by at least 2.5% just to keep up with growth in the labor force. So at 1.8%, we're essentially losing ground, a fact that last week's 429,000 initial jobless claims underscores. But what Goolsbee didn't acknowledge is that the economy could be growing at a much faster rate, and would be if it weren't saddled with Obama's reckless policies.

How do we know this? Compare the two worst post-World War II recessions. Both the 1981-82 and the 2007-09 downturns were long (16 months and 18 months, respectively) and painful (unemployment peaked at 10.8% in 1981-82 and 10.1% in the last one).

What's dramatically different, however, is how each president responded.

Obama massively increased spending, vastly expanded the regulatory state, and pushed through a government takeover of health care. What's more, he constantly browbeats industry leaders, talks about the failings of the marketplace and endlessly advocates higher taxes on the most productive parts of the economy.

In contrast, Reagan pushed spending restraint, deregulated entire industries, massively cut taxes and waxed poetic about the wonders of a free economy.

The result? While the Reagan recovery saw turbocharged growth and a tumbling unemployment rate, Obama's has produced neither....

Editorial: A Tale Of Two Recessions And Two Presidents - Investors.com

"Not since the days of the Roman emperors—and never in the history of the United States Presidency—has an astrologer played such a significant role in the nation's affairs of State."

- Joan Quigley, astrologer to the Reagans

With all due respect, Barrack Obama was deprived of the benefit of having Joan Quigley to "advise" him.

As astrologer to the president, Quigley has never received the "credit" she was due when it came to Reagan's successes in domestic and foreign affairs!