tHE TRUTH ABOUT rEPUBLICAN Keynesians like REAGAN

[CrusaderFrank]

Reagan: Defeated the USSR freeing hundreds of millions from the crushing, inhumane oppression of Communism and revitalized the US economy.

Not bad, not bad at all.

What was Ed saying?

 

[kiwiman127]

With your rant against statism and Keynesian economics, it sounds like you're embracing what us libertarians have said all along. Wonderful. Welcome to the light.

I would consider becoming a libertarian if I could just find a single case where a libertarian economy had worked.

USA until about 1913. More poor became middle class and more middle class became rich than at any time in history.

Becoming a libertarian without that single factor would prove whomever became one to be an idiot. Which you, with your post, have again proven.

So instead we should jump on the central planner bandwagon. Yea, pass. You were saying something about being an idiot...

Actually, the working middle class reached it's earning peak in 1972.
Year Weekly Earnings (1982-84 dollars)

1972 $341.73 (peak)
1975 $314.77
1980 $290.80
1985 $284.96
1990 $271.10
1992 $266.46 (lowest point; 22% below peak)
1995 $267.17
2000 $285.00
2005 $285.05
2010 $297.79
2011 $295.49
2012 $294.83 (still 14% below peak)
Middle Class Political Economist: Real Wages Decline; Literally No One Notices

Notice the continued decline of the earning power of the Middle Class. During that time the wealthy have dramatically increased it's wealth and earning power. So much for the infamous "trickle down" economic theory.
Today, the financial sector, the corporate sector and the wealthy all are on a record pace with increasing their wealth, while the working middle class struggles just to stay close to staying even.
Trickle down? What exactly is that?

 

[jasonnfree]

Believing that the US has ever been a libertarian economy, for instance.

As close as any has ever come. Phenomenally successful too.

Get thee a history book not written by a Progressive.

Jacob Riis maybe was a progressive but the photos of poverty in his book are evidence of wide spread poverty during a more "libertarian" time in America. Was Sinclair Lewis lying about poverty and working conditions in his books?

 

[Rshermr]

Believing that the US has ever been a libertarian economy, for instance.

As close as any has ever come. Phenomenally successful too.

Get thee a history book not written by a Progressive.

Jacob Riis maybe was a progressive but the photos of poverty in his book are evidence of wide spread poverty during a more "libertarian" time in America. Was Sinclair Lewis lying about poverty and working conditions in his books?

Libertarians do not concern themselves with poverty or working conditions. Never part of their consideration. As long as the corporations have no constraints, they are good. As long as the wealthy get more so, why worry about the working class. Not their concern.

 

[oldfart]

MY POV has never been well understood here at USMB, eflat.

that's mostly because this place is dominated by partisans and trolls, so ANY complex POV is lost in the noise of hyperpartisan clatter.

Note how at least one detractor of my thread decides that since I am speaking an unwanted TRUTH about the myth of St. Ronnie, I must therefore be a support of St, Obama?

See how their minds work?

To clueless partisans there is only two sides to every narrative...theirs and the STRAW MAN's they create out of ever other POV that they cannot (or refuse to) understand.

RR spent more money--took a greater share of the nations GDP than CARTER.

Now go ask a "self proclaiming neo-con about that fact.

They think he cut spending. They really do.,

You make a good point. There is a related point regarding the nature of spending. Keynesians are often accused of encouraging wasteful spending. There is a kernel of truth in this as macro theory treats all spending as pretty much the same; it really doesn't matter much in the short term what you pay unemployed people to do, as long as you pay the stimulus effect is realized. After all, the opportunity cost of an unused factor of production is zero (actually negative as it probably degrades due to lack of use) and what project is so bad it is worth than that?

But in the long run it makes a difference whether the spending provided wanted goods or services or created capital assets, or was simply make-work. In the General Theory Keynes spends a lot of time discussing ranking projects by their internal rates of return.

So we get a lot of drivel that all government spending is useless and that anyone favoring it for any purpose is in favor of waste. It's really the reverse of your example, as neo-cons looking at Reagan through a lens that tax cuts and defense spending are intrinsically good and therefore do not have to be paid for, but all other government spending is bad.

 

[Rshermr]

Reagan: Defeated the USSR freeing hundreds of millions from the crushing, inhumane oppression of Communism and revitalized the US economy.

Not bad, not bad at all.

What was Ed saying?

Ah. More of the same from the great con, cf. He thinks reagan defeated the ussr version of communism. Poor guy. Never studied the subject, just believes that rr saying "tear down that wall" made the "communists" quake in their boots.
Proof that ignorance is bliss.
Is totally unaware that the economy got better only after rr RAISED taxes 11 times, TRIPLED the national debt through stimulus spending, and passed on an economic problem for his successor that would be his undoing. Yup, old rr was an economic conservative. Sure he was.

 

[Oldstyle]

Hardly, me boy. Many disagree with me, and we can discuss the facts. Possibly agree to disagree. My best friend and I disagree about MANY things.
You have to earn the title of con tool. Con tool, from my standpoint, means that you get your information (or your "facts" in your mind) from bat shit crazy con web sites. You know, the sites funded by the libertarian nut cases you like so much.
So, it is nothing to worry about. You are simply ignorant. By your own choice. You prefer to believe what you want to believe. Which is a malady that has been scientifically studied in numerous studies. It is a really cool self perpetuating thing in which you believe what you want, read what supports what you want to believe, and believe it more. And, it makes you angry. Which you also like.

Which, of course, you prove in your posts. Like suggesting anyone is talking about libertarian governments. Which, if you think about it, is kind of an oxymoron. But then, thinking is not you strong point. Posting dogma is your strong point. But it is funny that you could suggest that we were discussing libertarian GOVERNMENT, and then suggesting that you have enough understanding about economics to criticize anyone's understanding of economic issues.

But really, me boy, it is ok. It is not your fault. You are part of that small percentage of people who need to be told what to do, where to go, and what to believe. Which makes you ignorant. It is a basic mental issue which is very hard for you to control, and which you actually do not want to control. Not your fault at all. Just plain bad luck.

LOL...God, you're an idiot...

All you post is "dogma"...most of your "knowledge" comes direct from Wikipedia...and then you come on here and declare yourself to be intellectually superior to others while posting drivel.

The sad thing is that I "do" have more understanding about economics than you...AND YOU CLAIM TO HAVE BEEN AN ECONOMICS MAJOR IN COLLEGE AS WELL AS TEACH THE SUBJECT AT THE COLLEGE LEVEL!!! I don't know how to break this to you, Sparky...but just about EVERYONE on this board is smarter than you when it come to the subject of economics. Whenever a discussion on that, does get complex you're in so far over your head it's not funny. Yet you keep coming back for more with your lectures about Libertarian economics that wouldn't pass muster in a grade school class.

Well, now, oldstyle, I would NEVER bother to suggest that I am intellectually superior to you. That would be as inconsiderate as suggesting such a thing to a mental institution resident. Why do such a thing to a poor ignorant dish washer. It is, as I have said, NOT YOUR FAULT. You believe in all sorts of things, I am sure. Probably think that other fanciful things besides successful libertarian economies exist, like unicorns. And that is ok, oldstyle. Because it is Not Your Fault. It is just bad luck.
And really, believing that you are smart is just part of the illness. All stupid people believe that they are very smart. Really, it is probably good for you. Ignorance and delusion are part of the mental defect from which you suffer. Really. It is not your fault.
And please, we all understand why you do not attempt to post economic thought. Because, of course, you believe that economic thought is simply cutting and pasting the drivel from right wing bat shit crazy con web sites. And we understand, doing so is really stretching your limited ability to reason. I mean, that whole copy a thought and post it thing is really about as far reaching as one can get, given your limited mental reasoning ability. And, please, we all try so hard not to laugh at you. Even when you get angry. Because we all understand that it is important for you to believe you are smart. And that you know something. We all want you to feel good about your poor ignorant state. And we all want you to remember, it is just plain bad luck. Not your fault at all.

I'm always amused by your constant whining about "personal attacks" (to you a personal attack is when someone points out that one of your claims, like teaching college level economics as an undergrad, is laughable given your knowledge of the subject) while you accuse others of being mentally defective or (gasp!) a dishwasher. That you don't see the double standard in what you do simply underscores how clueless you truly are.

Take a good hard look at what others contribute to the discussion here (both from the progressive viewpoint or from the conservative view point) and then compare it to what YOU contribute. Even though I may not agree with many of the things that progressives advocate here, I give them credit for presenting their viewpoint with thoughtful posts. I may not think they are right but I can understand the point they are making. You, on the other hand seldom post something "thoughtful". Your posts are filled with nonsense about "cons" and "dogma" which puts you in the same category as the Francos and Deanies of this board. If that's what you're looking for then congratulations...you've achieved your objective!

 

[Oldstyle]

Reagan: Defeated the USSR freeing hundreds of millions from the crushing, inhumane oppression of Communism and revitalized the US economy.

Not bad, not bad at all.

What was Ed saying?

Ah. More of the same from the great con, cf. He thinks reagan defeated the ussr version of communism. Poor guy. Never studied the subject, just believes that rr saying "tear down that wall" made the "communists" quake in their boots.
Proof that ignorance is bliss.
Is totally unaware that the economy got better only after rr RAISED taxes 11 times, TRIPLED the national debt through stimulus spending, and passed on an economic problem for his successor that would be his undoing. Yup, old rr was an economic conservative. Sure he was.

Now you're going to lecture about history? If you actually DID know anything about European history you'd know that Reagan's "Tear down this wall!" speech did in fact make the communists "quake in their boots". The notion that Soviet policies were so bad that they had to build a wall to keep their own people from fleeing is the kind of thing that eventually topples governments. Reagan standing at the Brandenburg Gate and pointing that obvious fact out is the kind of thing that put a glaring spotlight on the failures of Soviet communism.

 

[Rshermr]

LOL...God, you're an idiot...

All you post is "dogma"...most of your "knowledge" comes direct from Wikipedia...and then you come on here and declare yourself to be intellectually superior to others while posting drivel.

The sad thing is that I "do" have more understanding about economics than you...AND YOU CLAIM TO HAVE BEEN AN ECONOMICS MAJOR IN COLLEGE AS WELL AS TEACH THE SUBJECT AT THE COLLEGE LEVEL!!! I don't know how to break this to you, Sparky...but just about EVERYONE on this board is smarter than you when it come to the subject of economics. Whenever a discussion on that, does get complex you're in so far over your head it's not funny. Yet you keep coming back for more with your lectures about Libertarian economics that wouldn't pass muster in a grade school class.

Well, now, oldstyle, I would NEVER bother to suggest that I am intellectually superior to you. That would be as inconsiderate as suggesting such a thing to a mental institution resident. Why do such a thing to a poor ignorant dish washer. It is, as I have said, NOT YOUR FAULT. You believe in all sorts of things, I am sure. Probably think that other fanciful things besides successful libertarian economies exist, like unicorns. And that is ok, oldstyle. Because it is Not Your Fault. It is just bad luck.
And really, believing that you are smart is just part of the illness. All stupid people believe that they are very smart. Really, it is probably good for you. Ignorance and delusion are part of the mental defect from which you suffer. Really. It is not your fault.
And please, we all understand why you do not attempt to post economic thought. Because, of course, you believe that economic thought is simply cutting and pasting the drivel from right wing bat shit crazy con web sites. And we understand, doing so is really stretching your limited ability to reason. I mean, that whole copy a thought and post it thing is really about as far reaching as one can get, given your limited mental reasoning ability. And, please, we all try so hard not to laugh at you. Even when you get angry. Because we all understand that it is important for you to believe you are smart. And that you know something. We all want you to feel good about your poor ignorant state. And we all want you to remember, it is just plain bad luck. Not your fault at all.

I'm always amused by your constant whining about "personal attacks" (to you a personal attack is when someone points out that one of your claims, like teaching college level economics as an undergrad, is laughable given your knowledge of the subject) while you accuse others of being mentally defective or (gasp!) a dishwasher. That you don't see the double standard in what you do simply underscores how clueless you truly are.

Take a good hard look at what others contribute to the discussion here (both from the progressive viewpoint or from the conservative view point) and then compare it to what YOU contribute. Even though I may not agree with many of the things that progressives advocate here, I give them credit for presenting their viewpoint with thoughtful posts. I may not think they are right but I can understand the point they are making. You, on the other hand seldom post something "thoughtful". Your posts are filled with nonsense about "cons" and "dogma" which puts you in the same category as the Francos and Deanies of this board. If that's what you're looking for then congratulations...you've achieved your objective!

Yes, indeed. I have seen your contributions over time. Including the constant ones against me, which I have disproven numerous times. Like this one you make for what, the 40th time by now. Disproven multiple times. Because, of course, I did not say that I taught an economic class as an undergraduate. As you well know. But you lie. Over and over and over. Sad, me boy. Too bad you can not actually think for yourself, Too bad you have no integrity. But then, that is just you. Thing is, as a con tool, you are only capable of ignorant personal attacks. Again, not your fault. Just plain bad luck me boy.

 

[Rshermr]

Reagan: Defeated the USSR freeing hundreds of millions from the crushing, inhumane oppression of Communism and revitalized the US economy.

Not bad, not bad at all.

What was Ed saying?

Ah. More of the same from the great con, cf. He thinks reagan defeated the ussr version of communism. Poor guy. Never studied the subject, just believes that rr saying "tear down that wall" made the "communists" quake in their boots.
Proof that ignorance is bliss.
Is totally unaware that the economy got better only after rr RAISED taxes 11 times, TRIPLED the national debt through stimulus spending, and passed on an economic problem for his successor that would be his undoing. Yup, old rr was an economic conservative. Sure he was.

Now you're going to lecture about history? If you actually DID know anything about European history you'd know that Reagan's "Tear down this wall!" speech did in fact make the communists "quake in their boots". The notion that Soviet policies were so bad that they had to build a wall to keep their own people from fleeing is the kind of thing that eventually topples governments. Reagan standing at the Brandenburg Gate and pointing that obvious fact out is the kind of thing that put a glaring spotlight on the failures of Soviet communism.

Of course, it did, me poor ignorant con tool. Perhaps you have an impartial sourse for your statement??? Nah, of course not.
But, cool thing is, you always prove exactly what I say. I say it happens, you come along and prove the fact. Funny.
Again, it is ok. As a con tool, you simply believe what the bat shit crazy con sites tell you. Because that is what you do. You need, as con tools do, to be told what to believe and what to say and what to do. Makes life so much easier. No need to actually study the subject.
Again, not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reagan: Defeated the USSR freeing hundreds of millions from the crushing, inhumane oppression of Communism and revitalized the US economy.

Not bad, not bad at all.

What was Ed saying?

Ah. More of the same from the great con, cf. He thinks reagan defeated the ussr version of communism. Poor guy. Never studied the subject, just believes that rr saying "tear down that wall" made the "communists" quake in their boots.
Proof that ignorance is bliss.
Is totally unaware that the economy got better only after rr RAISED taxes 11 times, TRIPLED the national debt through stimulus spending, and passed on an economic problem for his successor that would be his undoing. Yup, old rr was an economic conservative. Sure he was.

Now you're going to lecture about history? If you actually DID know anything about European history you'd know that Reagan's "Tear down this wall!" speech did in fact make the communists "quake in their boots". The notion that Soviet policies were so bad that they had to build a wall to keep their own people from fleeing is the kind of thing that eventually topples governments. Reagan standing at the Brandenburg Gate and pointing that obvious fact out is the kind of thing that put a glaring spotlight on the failures of Soviet communism.

The "American" Left never quite grasps that communism sucked so badly they built walls to keep people IN

 

[Rshermr]

Ah. More of the same from the great con, cf. He thinks reagan defeated the ussr version of communism. Poor guy. Never studied the subject, just believes that rr saying "tear down that wall" made the "communists" quake in their boots.
Proof that ignorance is bliss.
Is totally unaware that the economy got better only after rr RAISED taxes 11 times, TRIPLED the national debt through stimulus spending, and passed on an economic problem for his successor that would be his undoing. Yup, old rr was an economic conservative. Sure he was.

Now you're going to lecture about history? If you actually DID know anything about European history you'd know that Reagan's "Tear down this wall!" speech did in fact make the communists "quake in their boots". The notion that Soviet policies were so bad that they had to build a wall to keep their own people from fleeing is the kind of thing that eventually topples governments. Reagan standing at the Brandenburg Gate and pointing that obvious fact out is the kind of thing that put a glaring spotlight on the failures of Soviet communism.

The "American" Left never quite grasps that communism sucked so badly they built walls to keep people IN

So you like to believe. I know of no single progressive that does not know exactly how bad the ussr administration and economics were. Only foolish, illiterate don tools believe what you believe. Again, me boy, you are proving my statements. You are incapable of actual rational thought.
Communism, like libertarianism, never has had and never will have a chance to succeed. Simply goes against what the people of any nation want. And in the end, the people will get rid of either communism or libertarianism. Only neo-cons believe differently.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

communism like libertarianism, never has had and never will have a chance to succeed.

dear, can you be that slow. Communism involves transfer of all ownership to the state and then to the people as the state disappears. No one can imagine that happening or would dare try to make it happen, but

libertarianism simply involves shrinking the government more and more as prosperity and freedom increases so it is very very incremental, possible, feasible, and self-perpetuating.

Still over your head?

 

[Rshermr]

communism like libertarianism, never has had and never will have a chance to succeed.

dear, can you be that slow. Communism involves transfer of all ownership to the state and then to the people as the state disappears. No one can imagine that happening or would dare try to make it happen, but

libertarianism simply involves shrinking the government more and more as prosperity and freedom increases so it is very very incremental, possible, feasible, and self-perpetuating.

Still over your head?

Wow, ed. We are so proud of you. You know that libertarianism and communism are diametrically opposed (look up any words you have problems with). We all know that, me poor ignorant boy. The point that you missed is that neither works.
But it is ok, ed. We all know you are a congenital idiot. And congenital idiots are not expected to be able to take part in rational discussions. And really, your problem is congenital. So it is not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The point that you missed is that neither works.

why would you say libertarianism doesn't work when America grew to be the greatest country in human history with a tiny tiny government? And lets not forget China just eliminated 40% of world poverty by shrinking its government more and more.

 

[eflatminor]

You are avoiding your problem, me boy. You are following an economic policy that does not work.

Actually, it worked beautifully.

I did not say anything that is not truth.

Yes, you did. You said the US was not a libertarian economy before the Progressive movement. That is not true.

Which is why you can not find an actual libertarian economy that worked for any period of time.

You're repeating your lies, again.

America until the early twentieth century for starters. Those economies doing best today, while not true libertarian economies, are a damn site closer than the more centrally planned economies that are failing all around us. Which economies are doing better...Greece, Italy, Portugal (central planners all of them) or Hong Kong, Singapore, Estonia, Switzerland (far more libertarian like)?

You insist that the us is that country, up till the early 1900's. Problem is, that is your opinion. And you have no rational support. No link.

"It was in America that the ideas and practices of liberty initially went furthest— and thus it is not surprising that the modern libertarian movement arose here."

The Roots of Modern Libertarian Ideas | Cato Institute

Golly, that was easy.

Now, the reason you can not find a link from an impartial source backing you up is interesting

Lots of links out there. Your Google search engine broken?

Must be lousy following an economic theory that never lasts for any length of time

1780 until about 1913. Pretty long time. It is true that the nanny staters sucking up to the central planners eventually do infect a good society. Time to rid us of the cancer. Cut it out for good.

 

[eflatminor]

The point that you missed is that neither works.

why would you say libertarianism doesn't work when America grew to be the greatest country in human history with a tiny tiny government? And lets not forget China just eliminated 40% of world poverty by shrinking its government more and more.

I don't think it's interested in facts.

 

[Rshermr]

Quote: Originally Posted by Rshermr View Post
You are avoiding your problem, me boy. You are following an economic policy that does not work.
Actually, it worked beautifully.
Sorry, eflat. You have been unable to bring any impartial source to prove your statement. Just your opinion.
There have been many startup economies that may have had some libertarian charactoristics. But saying that the us was libertarian is a stretch that you will only find support for on nut case libertarian sitesd. So, you go to CATO. A libertarian supporting site with plenty of writers that would like to push your ideas. But no impartial ones.
How about a non libertarian source:
[

QUOTE]The roots of socialism in America can be traced to the arrival of German immigrants in the 1850s when Marxian socialist unions began, such as the National Typographic Union in 1852, United Hatters of 1856, and Iron Moulders` Union of North America in 1859. Theodore H. White, author of Fire in the Ashes: Europe in Mid-Century (1953) wrote, "Socialism is the belief and the hope that by proper use of government power, men can be rescued from their helplessness in the wild cycling cruelty of depression and boom."
Socialism in America

[/QUOTE]
Quote:
I did not say anything that is not truth.
Yes, you did. You said the US was not a libertarian economy before the Progressive movement. That is not true.

Again, your opinion. Not substantiated by a single non partial source. You loose again.

Quote:
Which is why you can not find an actual libertarian economy that worked for any period of time.
You're repeating your lies, again.
No lies, step. You still can not find a single impartial source that backs you up. Just libertarian and other right wing bat shit sites. Sad.

America until the early twentieth century for starters. Those economies doing best today, while not true libertarian economies, are a damn site closer than the more centrally planned economies that are failing all around us. Which economies are doing better...Greece, Italy, Portugal (central planners all of them) or Hong Kong, Singapore, Estonia, Switzerland (far more libertarian like)?

Quote:
You insist that the us is that country, up till the early 1900's. Problem is, that is your opinion. And you have no rational support. No link.
"It was in America that the ideas and practices of liberty initially went furthest— and thus it is not surprising that the modern libertarian movement arose here."

The Roots of Modern Libertarian Ideas | Cato Institute

Golly, that was easy.
Always easy, of course, to find a bat shit crazy con site to back up your statements. Still no impartial source.

Quote:
Now, the reason you can not find a link from an impartial source backing you up is interesting
Lots of links out there. Your Google search engine broken?

See above. And there are many others. Impartial ones, at that. Now, you are the one making the statement. Just can not back up your statement. Perhaps you have the broken browser, me boy. No impartial source at all.

Quote:
Must be lousy following an economic theory that never lasts for any length of time
1780 until about 1913. Pretty long time. It is true that the nanny staters sucking up to the central planners eventually do infect a good society. Time to rid us of the cancer. Cut it out for good.

Sorry. Even most other libertarians do not agree with you. Calling the us libertarian is a joke. We could suggest that it was libertarian, and ended in the great depression. But actually, even that was not true. As always, the people of the country would not go along with the push by cons to libertarianism.

But still, that good old man made libertarian island is on the way. Maybe you can find room.

 

[Rshermr]

The point that you missed is that neither works.

why would you say libertarianism doesn't work when America grew to be the greatest country in human history with a tiny tiny government? And lets not forget China just eliminated 40% of world poverty by shrinking its government more and more.

I don't think it's interested in facts.

All you have to do is find a couple sites backing you up, me boy. Not my fault that you can not. Saying the us was libertarian is simply a statement from bat shit crazy con web sites.
Now, I could go to moveon.org, and find some opposite statements. but then, I prefer as much integrity as possible. Obviously, you could care less about integrity.

Here is a more scholarly explanation of cato. Where you get your ideas, apparently:
But in the meantime another very wealthy Jewish family, the Koch family (see 'the Zionist Billionaires that Control Politics'), had taken over the organization of Libertarianism and Austrian Economics.

Fred Koch founded the John Birch Society in 1958. Ed Griffin was educated there. He later wrote a famous book, "The Creature of Jekyll Island". This was a rehash of Eustace Mullins' brilliant 'Secrets of the Federal Reserve', with one exception: it left out all Mullins' analysis of the Gold Standard as a Banker operation and how Britain's demand for taxes paid in Gold were the cause of the war of Independence. Instead it called for the reinstatement of a Gold Standard. This is a key part of the story OF how Austrian Economics managed to take over the 'Truth Movement'.

Koch's son Charles Koch founded the CATO Institute, together with Murray Rothbard. The CATO Institute remains to this day a leading Libertarian outlet. - See more at: Proof Libertarianism is an Illuminati Ploy - henrymakow.com

Your proof of what I said. Only nut case far right wing bat shit crazy con sites back your ideas. I am sure you love CATO. But to those who understand, CATO is a joke when it comes to impartial information.

 

[Oldstyle]

Ah. More of the same from the great con, cf. He thinks reagan defeated the ussr version of communism. Poor guy. Never studied the subject, just believes that rr saying "tear down that wall" made the "communists" quake in their boots.
Proof that ignorance is bliss.
Is totally unaware that the economy got better only after rr RAISED taxes 11 times, TRIPLED the national debt through stimulus spending, and passed on an economic problem for his successor that would be his undoing. Yup, old rr was an economic conservative. Sure he was.

Now you're going to lecture about history? If you actually DID know anything about European history you'd know that Reagan's "Tear down this wall!" speech did in fact make the communists "quake in their boots". The notion that Soviet policies were so bad that they had to build a wall to keep their own people from fleeing is the kind of thing that eventually topples governments. Reagan standing at the Brandenburg Gate and pointing that obvious fact out is the kind of thing that put a glaring spotlight on the failures of Soviet communism.

Of course, it did, me poor ignorant con tool. Perhaps you have an impartial sourse for your statement??? Nah, of course not.
But, cool thing is, you always prove exactly what I say. I say it happens, you come along and prove the fact. Funny.
Again, it is ok. As a con tool, you simply believe what the bat shit crazy con sites tell you. Because that is what you do. You need, as con tools do, to be told what to believe and what to say and what to do. Makes life so much easier. No need to actually study the subject.
Again, not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

I don't have to go to a "site" to know about European history...because it was my major in college, you blathering idiot! Unlike you...I actually LEARNED something when I was in school!

Now did you want to dispute the point about Reagan's speech going to the very heart of why that wall was a symbol of the failure of Soviet communism? If so...let's hear it.

Or you can do what you normally do when you're in over your head intellectually...and start babbling about "con tools" and "bat shit crazy sites".

I'm guessing it will be the latter. The chances of getting a thought provoking post from you is about the same as Anthony Weiner making a political comeback any time soon.