7 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst President of our lifetime

[JD Barleycorn]

Pretty neat trick using CBS to do your dirty work. I looked at a few more sights and found a discrepancy; they don't agree on what is a vacation and what isn't. Seems that CBS doesn't include Obama going to India for no particular reason (to quote Forest Gump) as a vacation, or his trip to Copenhagen to beg for an Olympics in Chicago, or Michelle's little jaunt to Spain and South Africa with a plane full of hangers on. You're going to have to do better. How about a day by day itinerary? Can you include total cost. Don't forget to average it for a man who had eight years in office to a many with three years in office. I wish there was someone way to figure all the cost of security on a beachfront property (using the Navy and Coast Guard) as opposed to a ranch in the middle of Texas. I also find it curious why you are going after George Bush again. What did he do to you? Historically, the president and Congress went home almost half the year. Maybe you should check on their records rather allow CBS to do your thinking for you.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

COG, you forgot Reuters, LOL!!!!

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Associated Press - State controlled media

Where do you two get your news when your tin foil hats are in the shop for repair? Lee Atwater ran Ronal Reagan's 1980 campaing. He used a symbolic racist stratgey. He admitted it. And then did it again in 1988. Hey , whatever it takes to get your guy elected. I have no problem with it.

What I find funny and really really ignorant is that you two do not believe the man who said that that in fact was exactly what he did. You two act like the news misreported what is factual record.

Do you believe the Holocaust happened. The President from Iran thinks the media made it up. That is how ignorant you two sound on this matter.



http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/30/obituaries/lee-atwater-master-of-tactics-for-bush-and-gop-dies-at-40.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm




Mr. Dukakis was the target of a campaign advertisment about Willie Horton, a black convicted murderer who escaped from the Massachusetts prison system while on a weekend furlough and raped a white woman and stabbed her husband. The advertisement became a central focus of the 1988 campaign.
"In 1988, fighting Dukakis, I said that I 'would strip the bark off the little bastard' and 'make Willie Horton his running mate,' " Mr. Atwater said in the Life article.
"I am sorry for both statements: the first for its naked cruelty, the second because it makes me sound racist, which I am not."
Asked today about Mr. Atwater's apology, Mr. Bush replied: "I found that very interesting and very enlarging. I think as he took stock of his life, he wanted to make things right and heal some wounds, and that was a very noble thing."
Mr. Dukakis called the death a tragedy. "We obviously were on opposite sides of a tough and negative campaign, but at least he had the courage to apologize," Mr. Dukakis said. "That says a lot for the man. My heart goes out to his family."
The Bush organization, which campaigned relentlessly on the Horton case, was widely criticized as appealing to racial fears.
But the Bush campaign was admired for its technical virtuosity even as it was condemned for its use of symbolic issues to depict Mr. Dukakis as a liberal who polluted Boston Harbor and refused to require the Pledge of Allegiance in school.
Mr. Atwater conceded after the election that his campaign plan was conceived before the Democrats had even picked their candidate

[JD Barleycorn]

I guess you are unaware of the geneology of Willie Horton. The first public figure to bring it up as a weapon was....AL GORE JR.! it was picked up by Mario Cuomo for a short time until he decided he didn't have the guts to run. Finally the issue was picked up by the Bush 41 campaign. So you have a great examply of democrat on democrat racism and violence.

As for prostitution; don't argue with me, argue with the PhD.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I guess you are unaware of the geneology of Willie Horton. The first public figure to bring it up as a weapon was....AL GORE JR.! it was picked up by Mario Cuomo for a short time until he decided he didn't have the guts to run. Finally the issue was picked up by the Bush 41 campaign. So you have a great examply of democrat on democrat racism and violence.

.

That has nothing to do with the fact that Cutiepie and dilbert firestone do not believe that Lee Atwater did that.

See I believe what you said to be true even though it would have been nice for you to provide a link, though I am quite capable of finding out myself. It sounds very believable though.

Now here is an interesting question, Would cutiepie and dilbert then believe the AP if it reported that Al Gore and Cumo did the exact same thing?

That is the point JD. For someone that acts like they know wtf they are talking about, you sure miss and twist a shit pile of points.

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

As for prostitution; don't argue with me, argue with the PhD.

I was not arguing with you about prostitution. I said I am better versed on the subject and from the discussion we had had up to that point, I still know that to be true.
I did not argue with your progressive point. So , so far you have bought up one good point about prostitution and one stupid point in this thread. . When you say things steeped in facts, i will not argue. Do not confuse me with others and I will not have to explain this yet again to you.

You can call all the radio stations you want, both the left and the right have converged on this prostitution issue. It is really sad. IMHO Both sides find it repulsive and have common ground on the prostitution issue. Though they are both steeped in half truths and out and out lies and distortions. They both want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

[JD Barleycorn]

Wasn't the idea of the legalization of drugs abhorrent 20 years ago? What changed? We have porno stars running for the office of governor of California. We have porno stars making the change to legitimate actors. No, there is no direct comparison between prostitution and adult acting (???) but there seems to be a change in attitudes that I can see. My experience says that the public really doesn't care anymore. This is the politicians and police doing their thing to get attention. Things we can do; make it a point to separate drug use and crime from prostitution, to separate sex slavery from voluntary choices by independent women, point out that men going to prostitutes is not a public matter (interested in by law) but a personal matter (a good dem should know this) between a man and his family. This are inarguably valid points that are not getting out into the public because we are not forcing the issue. Maybe the danger and excitement turns you on but ask the ladies. This is their business, making money beats the excitement of going to jail.

[dilbert firestorm]

Ahem, looks like I'm going to have pop WTF's balloon.

WTF, show me where I said anything about Lee Atwater other than a reference to a news organization I mentioned.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Associated Press - State controlled media

Like this? Yeah, I know what you mean. He says AP is state controlled (while offering no proof) and uses vel craft as his source. It has stories over a year and a half old it treats like they are new. Many of the "stories" present themselves as hard news when they are nothing more than opinions that generally have no links to facts to back them up.

Originally Posted by WTF

The irony will be lost on these folks...

Look Munch, no amount of facts nor logic will help these folks. They are as bad as the Bush haters they detest. The best you can do is shake your head at them and say , "Bless their hearts...". Or you can do like me and make fun of their ignorance. They hate it and I get a kick out of it.

When I gave Cutiepie some facts where Reagan's campaign coordinator admitted to using the so called Southern Strategy, he said he did not trust the AP as a source. Now I can see how the President of Iran can deny the holocaust happened. They all are in denial. This group reminds me of the kids that ignores the facts by stomping on the ground with his/her finger in their ears!

So while I wish you more luck than I had teaching this group of righties the difference between fact and opinion, history is not on your side!



Oh and they also will deny that Reagan did not promise to sale arms to Iran and then follow through!

I do it all for me. And I don't get tired of it.
Someone who continually says things they can't back up with fact either is seldom challenged because they think they are the big turd in a little toilet or they are basement dwellers and no one hears what they say. Or cares.
With the anonymity of the internet, no one really knows much about the other posters.

Know this of me. I don't like turds or the assholes they emanate from. I love to pull the chain, watch the turds go into a spiral, and sneer at them as they disappear. I have a Maytag repairman type job and plenty of time to research dubious claims or "facts". You know, google a subject and ignore any and all blogs while looking for answers. An interesting side note is that when checking a typical vel craft story you find it repeated over and over on blogs that collect such stories. Not to say the liberals don't have similar sites but they don't seem to weigh in on similar subjects.
Pseudo-intellectuals like barleycorn are a source of great amusement. Many of his posts are based on incorrect facts that after posting them a second time become your everyday lie. Opinion is opinion and subject to discussion. It may change or may not. Facts are different. In my business it is more important to not be wrong than to be right. Several answers might be workable but the wrong answer will fuck things up. Basic cover your ass.
That's why I include links. Don't argue with me, find a link that proves me wrong. Barleycorn offers a "target-rich" environment but offers no links. Kind of a ECCIE version of the "Mariannas Turkey Shoot".


PS Isn't a gnadfly one of those little bugs you see flying around a guy's balls and asshole in an outdoor porn movie?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Reagan got full credit for the Iranian Embassy hostages being released. 6 hours into his presidency. He didn't even say yes.

The Iranians weren't afraid of Don Knotts, but as early as November the Iranians had heard Mr. T was for sure coming in to take over as bouncer.

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Truman was President less than a month when Germany surrendered. He didn't have anything to do with nuking Japan other than saying "yes". He gets credit for being the President who won the war. One word can be pretty powerful.

Truman's decision was considerably more difficult. Millions of lives - Japanese and American - depended on Truman's decision to the use of the A-bomb. It was a new technology, so would it actually work? Should the Japanese be warned of the horrid capabilities of the new technology? Should the Japanese be given a demonstration of the horrid capabilities of the new technology? What if the demonstration failed? Should the U.S. notify the Soviets? So it was more than a word for Truman.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Pretty neat trick using CBS to do your dirty work.

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

My dirty work? It’s dirty work proving, again, that you are talking out of your ass? It’s no trick, just using something called research. Try it sometime. I can see why you would call proving you to be a liar dirty work. I looked at a few more sights and found a discrepancy; they don't agree on what is a vacation and what isn't. And of course you don’t include a single one. Seems that CBS doesn't include Obama going to India for no particular reason (to quote Forest Gump) as a vacation, or his trip to Copenhagen to beg for an Olympics in Chicago, or Michelle's little jaunt to Spain and South Africa with a plane full of hangers on. What the fuck are you talking about? The link I posted was about Bush. How much was spent or where Obama went has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Which is you lying again. Post a new thread all about Obama once you have got proof. We’ll go from there. You're going to have to do better. How about a day by day itinerary? Can you include total cost. Don't forget to average it for a man who had eight years in office to a many with three years in office. I did more than good enough. I have you twisting and squirming like Peter North is looking over your shoulder with a grin on his face. You claim you researched but you offer no proof as usual. You are trying to turn this into a discussion about Obama. It’s not. You brought up Bush in your statement. You lied about Bush and Obama in your statement. I am calling you a liar. I showed proof you are lying. You have offered many diversions to get off the subject of you lying. What more do I need to say? I wish there was someone way to figure all the cost of security on a beachfront property (using the Navy and Coast Guard) as opposed to a ranch in the middle of Texas. I also find it curious why you are going after George Bush again. Your statement That vacation record was broken a long time ago by Obama. I wasn’t going after Bush. I was going after you. You brought Bush up. You lied about the vacation record. Your attempts at changing the subject are pathetic. What did he do to you? Historically, the president and Congress went home almost half the year. Maybe you should check on their records rather allow CBS to do your thinking for you. Yep. Pathetic. CBS didn’t do my thinking, they just added up some numbers. And speaking of thinking, you might give CBS or ABC a try at doing yours for you. You are not doing well on your own.

Do you have anything to add? Or should I say do you have anything to add that is both relevant and true?

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The Iranians weren't afraid of Don Knotts, but as early as November the Iranians had heard Mr. T was for sure coming in to take over as bouncer. Truman's decision was considerably more difficult. Millions of lives - Japanese and American - depended on Truman's decision to the use of the A-bomb. It was a new technology, so would it actually work? Should the Japanese be warned of the horrid capabilities of the new technology? Should the Japanese be given a demonstration of the horrid capabilities of the new technology? What if the demonstration failed? Should the U.S. notify the Soviets? So it was more than a word for Truman.

The Iranians got 6 billion dollars. Reagan talked tough and talk is cheap. He had no war record that indicated he was willing to attack a country that held live hostages. If they were afraid of him they would have released them the day he was elected.
This has nothing to do with who got credit. Nor does the difficulty of a decision. Of course Truman's was more difficult. So what? If he had said no he still would have gotten credit for winning the war when it was over.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The Iranians weren't afraid of Don Knotts, but as early as November the Iranians had heard Mr. T was for sure coming in to take over as bouncer. Truman's decision was considerably more difficult. Millions of lives - Japanese and American - depended on Truman's decision to the use of the A-bomb. It was a new technology, so would it actually work? Should the Japanese be warned of the horrid capabilities of the new technology? Should the Japanese be given a demonstration of the horrid capabilities of the new technology? What if the demonstration failed? Should the U.S. notify the Soviets? So it was more than a word for Truman.

Plus don’t forget that a rescue mission that would have made it so there were no hostages to be returned, failed. Was it Carter’s fault that the mission failed due to the result of what was basically a traffic accident in the parking lot? No it wasn’t. But he took the fall for it.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Wasn't the idea of the legalization of drugs abhorrent 20 years ago? And it still is in the eyes of the law What changed? We have porno stars running for the office of governor of California. We have porno stars making the change to legitimate actors. No, there is no direct comparison between prostitution and adult acting (???) but there seems to be a change in attitudes that I can see. My experience says that the public really doesn't care anymore. My experience states otherwise. Nobody in any community wants it there, other than that many people are immune to it. But if you can not set up shop anywhere, how the fuc are you going to make it legal? This country...with folks like you, is turning to thev right. We are not a liberal nation anymore, we are a warmongering nation. Not to be confused with Whoremongering. This is the politicians and police doing their thing to get attention. Things we can do; make it a point to separate drug use and crime from prostitution, to separate sex slavery from voluntary choices by independent women, point out that men going to prostitutes is not a public matter (interested in by law) but a personal matter (a good dem should know this) between a man and his family. I understand all this, my point was that you have to be living under a rock not to see that you are losing that fight. I had a huge fight in D&T with both hookers and Johns over this very issue. They think there is this huhge problem in the United States of sex slavery. There is not but if women in the business are not even smart enough to realize wtf is going on then I do not expect politicans to liberlize their stance, no matter how many radio stations you call. This are inarguably valid points that are not getting out into the public because we are not forcing the issue. Maybe the danger and excitement turns you on but ask the ladies. This is their business, making money beats the excitement of going to jail.

Maybe you are talking out of your fucking ass as usual. Are you that ignorant? I do not have to ask a lady what she would like to happen. I am just stating the reality. The reality is that it is not going to happen and in fact is swinging the other way. I do not like that fact but it is what it is.

While the public is indifferent to the issue (unless there is an SOB located in their neighborhood) they do not want to legalize it. That is just a fact. I was a major donor for a city councilman run for office on the SOB issue many years ago. I will never again waste my money on such an endeavor.

Had we not had some local Howard Stern type DJ's put the issue out there and stop the stupid things they were trying to enact it would many more stupid laws would have been enacted. But that was before the media was bought by clearchannel and other big business and nobody will rock that boat anymore.

Unless you can figure out how to seperate the GOP Bible thumpers and the progressive butch liberals you and me are fuc'd on any chance of this becoming legal. We have the same wants but Tinkerbell kicked the bucket long agog in my reality based world.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The Iranians weren't afraid of Don Knotts, but as early as November the Iranians had heard of Mr. T was for sure coming in to take over as bouncer.

Or , Mr T could have cut a deal with Iran before the election because an October suprise would have probably gotten Carter re-elected.

Suprise....Reagan shipped arms to Iran through guess what country?

Now if that is true, who were the Iranians more scared of Don Knotts or Mr T?

http://consortiumnews.com/2011/07/14...ence-surfaces/




Carter’s failure to pull off an “October surprise” by winning release of the hostages was a key factor in Reagan’s landslide victory in 1980. Reagan got another boost when the Iranians released the hostages immediately after he was sworn in on Jan. 20, 1981.
Though Reagan talked tough about Iran – and his handlers suggested that fear of him was why the Iranians surrendered the hostages on Inauguration Day – the reality was different. His administration soon was giving secret approval to Israel to ship U.S.-manufactured weaponry to Iran. It had the look of a payoff.
Reagan’s politically risky move of secretly arming Iran was nearly exposed when one of the Israeli flights strayed into Soviet airspace in July 1981 and crashed. To cover the administration’s tracks, misleading press guidance was issued, according to Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East Nicholas Veliotes.
The U.S.-Israeli arms pipeline to Iran stayed secret from the American people until November 1986 when – despite Reagan’s long-running insistence that he would never trade arms with a terrorist state like Iran – the operation was exposed. The scandal became known as the Iran-Contra Affair.
Yet even after the existence of the secret U.S.-Israeli arms pipeline was revealed, the Reagan-Bush administrations and congressional Republicans kept the investigative focus on the later chapter of the arms shipments, from 1985 to 1986, not the earlier phase that Veliotes and other insiders said could be traced back to Campaign 1980.
The reasons were obvious. While the secret arms sales to Iran in 1985-86 were legally questionable, any deal that predated Reagan’s inauguration as president could be viewed as treasonous.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

The Iranians got 6 billion dollars. Reagan talked tough and talk is cheap. He had no war record that indicated he was willing to attack a country that held live hostages. If they were afraid of him they would have released them the day he was elected.

Not necessarily. Reagan wasn't sworn in as C-in-C yet.

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

This has nothing to do with who got credit.

The point is, this thread was started merely to counterpose the one started by Whirlaway (http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=348174) wherein Whirlaway cited Obama's unsubstantiated claim on CBS' 60 Minutes that he, Obama, had achieved more than all but three other administrations. Obama didn't mention Truman and holds himself superior to Truman and at least a score of other presidents that achieved as much or more than Obama has accomplished.

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Nor does the difficulty of a decision. Of course Truman's was more difficult. So what? If he had said no he still would have gotten credit for winning the war when it was over.

Invasion plans projected the war might have lasted until late 1946 (Operation Coronet was not scheduled to begin until March 1946) were it not for the A-bombs. Truman might have been blamed for prolonging the war, especially if it was revealed that the U.S. possessed a costly, top-secret weapon Truman elected not to use.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Or , Mr T could have cut a deal with Iran before the election because an October suprise would have probably gotten Carter re-elected.

Suprise....Reagan shipped arms to Iran through guess what country?

Now if that is true, who were the Iranians more scared of Don Knotts or Mr T?

http://consortiumnews.com/2011/07/14...ence-surfaces/




Carter’s failure to pull off an “October surprise” by winning release of the hostages was a key factor in Reagan’s landslide victory in 1980. Reagan got another boost when the Iranians released the hostages immediately after he was sworn in on Jan. 20, 1981.
Though Reagan talked tough about Iran – and his handlers suggested that fear of him was why the Iranians surrendered the hostages on Inauguration Day – the reality was different. His administration soon was giving secret approval to Israel to ship U.S.-manufactured weaponry to Iran. It had the look of a payoff.
Reagan’s politically risky move of secretly arming Iran was nearly exposed when one of the Israeli flights strayed into Soviet airspace in July 1981 and crashed. To cover the administration’s tracks, misleading press guidance was issued, according to Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East Nicholas Veliotes.
The U.S.-Israeli arms pipeline to Iran stayed secret from the American people until November 1986 when – despite Reagan’s long-running insistence that he would never trade arms with a terrorist state like Iran – the operation was exposed. The scandal became known as the Iran-Contra Affair.
Yet even after the existence of the secret U.S.-Israeli arms pipeline was revealed, the Reagan-Bush administrations and congressional Republicans kept the investigative focus on the later chapter of the arms shipments, from 1985 to 1986, not the earlier phase that Veliotes and other insiders said could be traced back to Campaign 1980.
The reasons were obvious. While the secret arms sales to Iran in 1985-86 were legally questionable, any deal that predated Reagan’s inauguration as president could be viewed as treasonous.

Gary Sick’s “October Surprise” story and book was a fraudulent hoax. A 1992 Senate investigation and a 1993 House investigation both exonerated Reagan of this hoax.

Plus: “Based on a review of exclusive documentation it appears that none of [Gary] Sick's key informants had any original knowledge of the October Surprise counterplot, an alleged Reagan campaign attempt in 1980 to head off a preelection release of the 52 American hostages then being held in Tehran. Only by swapping rumors and tacking with the latest ones--a process that the Voice has traced in detail--were they able to create an impression that they knew of this event firsthand.”

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992...24-october.htm