Up yours USMC!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

What is it about Reagan and his legacy that forces WTF and FuckZup to return to this one thread to flagellate themselves?

Reagan legacy to the realists among us is that he tripled the national debt. That he was a pretend soldier that never asked for a waiver to go overseas is secondary , if that. That he embellished his stories is just fact....kinda like Hillary dodging sniper fire. She embellished her stories too. Reagan wrote this in his book. He was going home to his wife every night!

"by the time I got out of the Army Air Corps all I wanted to do--in common with several million other veterans--was to rest up, make love to my wife."

In his autobiography he wrote "by the time I got out of the Army Air Corps all I wanted to do--in common with several million other veterans--was to rest up, make love to my wife." But as Michael Schaller wrote in his book Reckoning with Reagan, "This obscured the fact that unlike most of the "several million other veterans," Reagan had left neither home nor wife while in military service." http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/top-...litary-service

-------------------------------

Other examples abound: During a 1983 Congressional Medal of Honor ceremony Reagan told a story about military heroism that New York Daily News columnist Lars-Erik Nelson wrote never happened. Nelson had checked the citations on all 434 Congressional Medals of Honor awarded during WWII. The scene Reagan described did appear, however, in the 1944 film A Wing and a Prayer. Larry Speakes’ response? “If you tell the same story five times, it’s true.”


----------------------------------------------------------------
"In spite of the wildly speculative and false stories of arms for hostages and alleged ransom payments, we did not—repeat, did not—trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we."

- Ronald Reagan, denying the Iran-Contra Affair, November 198654
"A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not."

- Ronald Reagan, admitting the Iran-Contra Affair, March 198755

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Are you fucking kidding? Did you sleepwalk through the 1980s? Do you follow the economy at all? Evidently not, or you wouldn't be asking such dumb questions. Here you go, slinky - here are just a few of the good things that happened to the economy between Jan. 1981 and Jan. 1989. No name-calling, just FACTS:

1. Annual inflation (CPI) slowed from 12.5% to 4.2%.

2. Unemployment dropped from 7.5% to 5.4%.

3. The labor force participation rate rose from 63.9% to 66.5% as new entrants flooded the labor force, encouraged by the availability of jobs.

4. Total employment increased by 16 million.

5. Employment rose by 25% among African Americans.

6. Real GDP expanded by 31%.

7. Real per capita disposable income went up by 18%.

8. Federal tax revenues swelled by 76%.

9. The prime interest rate fell from 21.5% to 10.5%.

10. The national average price of a gallon of gasoline dipped from $1.36 to $1.00.

11. The Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed by 135%.


I'm just getting warmed up, but I think you get the big picture. That's just a look at the economy. I haven't even mentioned foreign policy successes during the Reagan years. By the way, slinkman, I am not "mesmerized" by Reagan. Nor do I try to inflate his record out of proportion. But I deeply resent libtard assholes like WTFagboy who keep trying to tear down and distort his record. The FACTS speak for themselves. Instead of asking why conservatives are "mesmerized" by Reagan, you should ask why are libtards so obsessed with denying his obvious record of success. Any Democrat with the same record would be bragging and shouting it from the mountaintops.

.

First of all why did you say no name calling while you were name calling?
Secondly why did you omit that the federal debt nearly tripled under Reagan?

Also
I would say he was the beginning of the end for the wall street bust. His way of getting it done was to put all the eggs in the Wall street basket.
Granted he did pull us out of a recession but there was a consequence for it because of the way he did it.

Below are the Mean Real household income numbers from 81 to 89

Poorest 20% +7.6%
Second 20% +11.3%
Third 20% +12.0%
Fourth 20% +13.8%
Richest 20% +27.0%
(The top 5% was 44%)
Notice the rich made almost twice the gain as the fourth. If you looked at it in dollar amounts it would be more than the lower 95% put together.

I will reiterate, his way did work to an extent but the problem with it is it left the 80% behind and never trickled down to them as promised. Once the Rich got back on their feet they did not want to give back the tax break or do anything to return the favor.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

As I was in the service when Reagan ran things;

Reagan gave us a average 12% pay increase when we needed it badly.
Reagan rebuilt the US military and made us proud to be Americans again.
Reagan defeated the Soviet Union without firing a shot.
Reagan brought back the battleships.
Reagan got all the ships working again instead of having so many as floating paperweights.

Yes Reagan did cut every budget and move it and then some to the Military. But it had no effect on the Cold War. Mikhail Gorbachev had more to do with it ending than Reagan.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by slingblade

Yes Reagan did cut every budget and move it and then some to the Military. But it had no effect on the Cold War. Mikhail Gorbachev had more to do with it ending than Reagan.

You're a moronic, lib-retarded revisionist, slingblade, and your asinine POV is equivalent to claiming that the U.S. played less of a role in ending WWII than Hitler shooting himself in the head. But here's the reality, slingblade, like Hitler during WWII, Gorbachev was forced to deal with the fact that the U.S. -- as manifested under Reagan's policies -- was able to seriously outpace the U.S.S.R. militarily. Gorbachev recognized that fact and dealt with it in a realistic manner, unlike you, slingblade.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by slingblade

Yes Reagan did cut every budget and move it and then some to the Military. But it had no effect on the Cold War. Mikhail Gorbachev had more to do with it ending than Reagan.

You really should cut back on the Kool Aid. Even the historians disagree with you.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You really should cut back on the Kool Aid. Even the historians disagree with you.

You mean the historians you happen to agree with, right?

The whole republican-created myth that the stumbling old fool Reagan was responsible for winning the Cold War is just that......GOP myth. Gomers like the admiral can get all misty-eyed remembering the supposed good old days when Ronnie was POTUS that never actually existed. While conveniently ignoring the fact that Reagan would be ostracized by the GOP today regarding his positions on gun control (how about that one admiral? You take the position that Murthy isn't qualified to be the surgeon general of the US solely because he is in favor of some forms of gun control. Does that mean Reagan wasn't qualified to be POTUS because he felt the same way? And was instrumental in actually passing some gun control legislation? I'll wait for your answer on this one.) and the fact that he raised taxes and believed in working with Democrats to get things accomplished for the good of the country.

Reagan wouldn't survive the first round of Republican primaries in 2016. He's not a "Republican" as that term is understood today.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You're a moronic, lib-retarded revisionist, slingblade, and your asinine POV is equivalent to claiming that the U.S. played less of a role in ending WWII than Hitler shooting himself in the head. But here's the reality, slingblade, like Hitler during WWII, Gorbachev was forced to deal with the fact that the U.S. -- as manifested under Reagan's policies -- was able to seriously outpace the U.S.S.R. militarily. Gorbachev recognized that fact and dealt with it in a realistic manner, unlike you, slingblade.

There you go with the name calling. It seems like that is all you have besides throwing out an analogy to try to detract from the fact I am right about what Reagan accomplished and what he did not. He talked a good game and sometimes that is what we need. In those days He was the best choice for us. He was not the mastermind of anything. He done as he was told by the powers that be. Years later we are still paying the price or at least the lower 80% are. Even Bush (41) started fixing the damage as best he could in 4 years. Had he won the 2nd election he would have had a better legacy than Reagan by not abandoning the American(working class) people.

[marathonrunner]

How can anyone, get upset about a salute?

Get a life folks.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by timpage

The whole republican-created myth that the stumbling old fool Reagan was responsible for winning the Cold War is just that......GOP myth.

Ok, timmytard. Two questions on this so-called myth:

1. Assume the Cold War had dragged on a few more years and the Soviet bloc had imploded under Clinton. Wouldn't Bubba be taking credit? Would that be a myth?

2. The Cold War began under Truman and ended under Reagan. That's eight Presidents. Tell us how what percentage of the credit for winning it YOU would allocate to each President, and why. (Your percentages have to add up to 100.) No historian I know would fail to give Reagan his fair share, if not the lion's share.

.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by marathonrunner

How can anyone, get upset about a salute?

Get a life folks.

Amen

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by slingblade

There you go with the name calling. It seems like that is all you have besides throwing out an analogy to try to detract from the fact I am right about what Reagan accomplished and what he did not. He talked a good game and sometimes that is what we need. In those days He was the best choice for us. He was not the mastermind of anything. He done as he was told by the powers that be. Years later we are still paying the price or at least the lower 80% are. Even Bush (41) started fixing the damage as best he could in 4 years. Had he won the 2nd election he would have had a better legacy than Reagan by not abandoning the American(working class) people.

You're a revisionist moron, slingblade, and I spelled out why you're a moron. It's a simple matter of "cause and effect", slingblade. The U.S.S.R.'s -- Gorbachev's -- actions were in reaction to what Reagan was doing, and you cannot change that fact no matter how much dissembling you do, slingblade. Care to consider how much another two decades of Cold War militarism would have cost, slingblade?

Originally Posted by timpage

You mean the historians you happen to agree with, right?

The whole republican-created myth that the stumbling old fool Reagan was responsible for winning the Cold War is just that......GOP myth. Gomers like the admiral can get all misty-eyed remembering the supposed good old days when Ronnie was POTUS that never actually existed. While conveniently ignoring the fact that Reagan would be ostracized by the GOP today regarding his positions on gun control (how about that one admiral? You take the position that Murthy isn't qualified to be the surgeon general of the US solely because he is in favor of some forms of gun control. Does that mean Reagan wasn't qualified to be POTUS because he felt the same way? And was instrumental in actually passing some gun control legislation? I'll wait for your answer on this one.) and the fact that he raised taxes and believed in working with Democrats to get things accomplished for the good of the country.

Reagan wouldn't survive the first round of Republican primaries in 2016. He's not a "Republican" as that term is understood today.

"Cause and effect" Little Timmie-tard. Reagan's actions prompted a corresponding reaction from the U.S.S.R., and that "reaction", Little Timmie-tard, was submission.

Originally Posted by marathonrunner

How can anyone, get upset about a salute?

Get a life folks.

Odumbo's half-ass, coffee-in-hand salute was a conspicuous slight to the men and women in the service. If you don't see it as such, then you're probably one of the no-life, low-life MFers who are part and parcel to why that ingrate is holding office.

[i'va biggen]

Please don't forger Reagan and the killer trees...LOL

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

The reason the chicken shit did not serve overseas was because he was chicken shit...

Here is how a real fucking man navigates the system and gets put on the front lines.


Much to his chagrin, due to his celebrity status and extensive flight expertise (having tallied over 400 flight hours before even joining the military), Stewart was initially assigned to various “behind the lines” type duties such as training pilots and making promotional videos in the states. Eventually, when he realized they were not going to ever put him in the front line, he appealed to his commanding officer and managed to get himself assigned to a unit overseas.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index....-u-s-military/

Originally Posted by WTF

Stewart asked to be sent overseas just as Reagan could have gotten a waiver to contribute overseas. You are trying to mix up the issues to defend that chickenshit.

According to the Defense Media Network:

"Due to his nearsightedness, he was classified for limited service, which meant he couldn’t go overseas... Reagan tried to get a waiver that would permit him to serve in a war zone but the Army refused."

Sounds like Reagan tried to get a waiver just like our pal Jimmy Stewart did. So tell me, fagboy - what more could the guy have done to prove he wasn't chickenshit? Disobey orders? Sneak onto an Army troopship as a stowaway?

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/s...-world-war-ii/

.

[IIFFOFRDB]

A WDF Bandwidth Special... Stay tuned more to come!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

According to the Defense Media Network:

"Due to his nearsightedness, he was classified for limited service, which meant he couldn’t go overseas... Reagan tried to get a waiver that would permit him to serve in a war zone but the Army refused."

Sounds like Reagan tried to get a waiver just like our pal Jimmy Stewart did. So tell me, fagboy - what more could the guy have done to prove he wasn't chickenshit? Disobey orders? Sneak onto an Army troopship as a stowaway?

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/s...-world-war-ii/

.

Prove that with the actual request that he tried to get a waiver...not some pro Reagan revisionist history site. In fact Reagan had enough pull to go overseas... had he wanted to.