• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Sol Rosenberg

Nixon Still Victimized by Media

54 posts in this topic

Cons don't want reminders about Vietnam and vacating the office in shame. Another inconvenient coincidence! Give them another chance and they promise to do better than Nixon and GW. Really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cons don't want reminders about Vietnam and vacating the office in shame. Another inconvenient coincidence! Give them another chance and they promise to do better than Nixon and GW. Really.

You keep mixing up Republicans and conservatives. They are far from the same.

 

And Nixon was just misunderstood! He wouldn't be welcome in The Party if he were just starting out today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cons don't want reminders about Vietnam and vacating the office in shame. Another inconvenient coincidence! Give them another chance and they promise to do better than Nixon and GW. Really.

You associate Nixon most with Vietnam?

 

That's very interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cons don't want reminders about Vietnam and vacating the office in shame. Another inconvenient coincidence! Give them another chance and they promise to do better than Nixon and GW. Really.

You associate Nixon most with Vietnam?

 

That's very interesting.

When I think of Nixon and Vietnam, I think of the end of the war, for the US, and a lesson for those who would be inclined to learn it, about messing about in other countries' affairs. That lesson served us pretty well for the better part of 30 years, until The People Who Were Always Wrong got us mired in another fiasco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You associate Nixon most with Vietnam?

 

That's very interesting.

 

Sure, he was the face I saw on TV constantly during that era talking about the war.

He suggested we use nukes there. Invaded Laos and Cambodia........and then, finally, lost the war - although these days we call "lost" wars by other names like "Vietnamization"....

 

I was too young to follow the news then LBJ build the thing up...so Nixon is who I saw at the helm and who I protested against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They like to say that only a Nixon could have gone to China.

 

At the time, China was killing our troops, and was nearly as crazy as North Korea is now. He had to hide the fact he was going from the Pentagon chiefs of staff, and they smelled a rat and began running their own espionage operation against him, but it failed to uncover the plot in time. He was in China before they knew he had left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nixon got us the fuck out of LBJ's and Jack Kennedy's war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cons don't want reminders about Vietnam and vacating the office in shame. Another inconvenient coincidence! Give them another chance and they promise to do better than Nixon and GW. Really.

 

You really are an idiot sometimes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nixon got us the fuck out of LBJ's and Jack Kennedy's war.

 

After six years of running it himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems Nixon ran against Humphrey claiming he could win that way in which the Democrats were mired.

 

Seems McGovern was running on a platform that included getting the fuck out of Vietnam and Nixon's platform was to stay the course and save South east Asia from the spread of communism.

 

 

Like W...Nixon inherited a balanced budget from his democrat predecessor and as president never presented a siongle balanced budget to the congress.for consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This, from near the end of the article, sums up the real issue from my perspective:

 

His secret tapes — and what they reveal — will probably be his most lasting legacy. On them, he is heard talking almost endlessly about what would be good for him, his place in history and, above all, his grudges, animosities and schemes for revenge. The dog that never seems to bark is any discussion of what is good and necessary for the well-being of the nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nixon got us the fuck out of LBJ's and Jack Kennedy's war.

 

Word of history is that JFK was somewhat interested in getting us OUT, but that Texas Oil-Man run LBJ changed that.

 

Nixon did the laos, cambodia, carpet bombing, etc...didn't he?

 

During his 68 election he claimed he would end the war. So, let's compare that against Obama and Iraq. How long did it take Obama to keep his promise? How about Nixon (5 years?).

 

I think there have also recently been discoveries that Nixon purposely derailed the peace process in 1968....

 

"That Nixon sabotaged peace to win the 1968 election can no longer be dismissed as speculation, theory, or even Nixon-bashing, however. The documents provide the smoking-gun. It's history. It happened.According to Nixon's memoirs (and verified by the public opinion polls at the time), LBJ's bombing halt and his declared intention to enter peace negotiations, "resulted in a last-minute surge of support for Humphrey" which was "dampened on November 2, when President Thieu announced his government would not participate in the negotiations Johnson was proposing." Nixon won the election by a narrow margin and the war continued."

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nixon got us the fuck out of LBJ's and Jack Kennedy's war.

 

Word of history is that JFK was somewhat interested in getting us OUT, but that Texas Oil-Man run LBJ changed that.

 

Nixon did the laos, cambodia, carpet bombing, etc...didn't he?

 

During his 68 election he claimed he would end the war. So, let's compare that against Obama and Iraq. How long did it take Obama to keep his promise? How about Nixon (5 years?).

 

I think there have also recently been discoveries that Nixon purposely derailed the peace process in 1968....

 

"That Nixon sabotaged peace to win the 1968 election can no longer be dismissed as speculation, theory, or even Nixon-bashing, however. The documents provide the smoking-gun. It's history. It happened.According to Nixon's memoirs (and verified by the public opinion polls at the time), LBJ's bombing halt and his declared intention to enter peace negotiations, "resulted in a last-minute surge of support for Humphrey" which was "dampened on November 2, when President Thieu announced his government would not participate in the negotiations Johnson was proposing." Nixon won the election by a narrow margin and the war continued."

 

Obama simply abided by a treaty negotiated by the Bush Admin.

 

A better comparison to Nixon would be Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan including increased attacks inside Pakistan.

 

 

24goj14.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama simply abided by a treaty negotiated by the Bush Admin.

 

 

Ah, you gotta love it.

Nixon purposely derails a peace process LBJ is heavily involved in.....and he gets a pass.

Obama keeps his promise to get out of Iraq - and it is because of Bush!

 

RD, perhaps you were on extended leave, but Bush said MANY MANY MANY times we'd be finished in Iraq in 2005 and 2006, etc. etc. etc.

Yet, you only credit him with the promise that SOMEONE ELSE kept??

 

Amazing. C'mon, you know better! If Obama wanted to keep Iraq going forever (like McCain did) he could have done so with no questions asked. A "treaty" we sign with our installed puppets is not exactly the Geneva Conventions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama simply abided by a treaty negotiated by the Bush Admin.

 

 

Ah, you gotta love it.

Nixon purposely derails a peace process LBJ is heavily involved in.....and he gets a pass.

Obama keeps his promise to get out of Iraq - and it is because of Bush!

 

RD, perhaps you were on extended leave, but Bush said MANY MANY MANY times we'd be finished in Iraq in 2005 and 2006, etc. etc. etc.

Yet, you only credit him with the promise that SOMEONE ELSE kept??

 

Amazing. C'mon, you know better! If Obama wanted to keep Iraq going forever (like McCain did) he could have done so with no questions asked. A "treaty" we sign with our installed puppets is not exactly the Geneva Conventions.

 

The promise was made by an agreement between the US and Iraq. That agreement was made in late 2008 under then President Bush. If Obama had pulled our troops out in 2009, you would have a valid point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama simply abided by a treaty negotiated by the Bush Admin.

 

 

Ah, you gotta love it.

Nixon purposely derails a peace process LBJ is heavily involved in.....and he gets a pass.

Obama keeps his promise to get out of Iraq - and it is because of Bush!

 

RD, perhaps you were on extended leave, but Bush said MANY MANY MANY times we'd be finished in Iraq in 2005 and 2006, etc. etc. etc.

Yet, you only credit him with the promise that SOMEONE ELSE kept??

 

Amazing. C'mon, you know better! If Obama wanted to keep Iraq going forever (like McCain did) he could have done so with no questions asked. A "treaty" we sign with our installed puppets is not exactly the Geneva Conventions.

 

The promise was made by an agreement between the US and Iraq. That agreement was made in late 2008 under then President Bush. If Obama had pulled our troops out in 2009, you would have a valid point.

 

The Status of Forces Agreement was never presented to the Senate for ratification, there was nothing binding in the treaty that Bush and al-Maliki negotiated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama simply abided by a treaty negotiated by the Bush Admin.

 

 

Ah, you gotta love it.

Nixon purposely derails a peace process LBJ is heavily involved in.....and he gets a pass.

Obama keeps his promise to get out of Iraq - and it is because of Bush!

 

RD, perhaps you were on extended leave, but Bush said MANY MANY MANY times we'd be finished in Iraq in 2005 and 2006, etc. etc. etc.

Yet, you only credit him with the promise that SOMEONE ELSE kept??

 

Amazing. C'mon, you know better! If Obama wanted to keep Iraq going forever (like McCain did) he could have done so with no questions asked. A "treaty" we sign with our installed puppets is not exactly the Geneva Conventions.

 

The promise was made by an agreement between the US and Iraq. That agreement was made in late 2008 under then President Bush. If Obama had pulled our troops out in 2009, you would have a valid point.

So things that happened in late 2008 were Bush's responsibility. We agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama simply abided by a treaty negotiated by the Bush Admin.

 

 

Ah, you gotta love it.

Nixon purposely derails a peace process LBJ is heavily involved in.....and he gets a pass.

Obama keeps his promise to get out of Iraq - and it is because of Bush!

 

RD, perhaps you were on extended leave, but Bush said MANY MANY MANY times we'd be finished in Iraq in 2005 and 2006, etc. etc. etc.

Yet, you only credit him with the promise that SOMEONE ELSE kept??

 

Amazing. C'mon, you know better! If Obama wanted to keep Iraq going forever (like McCain did) he could have done so with no questions asked. A "treaty" we sign with our installed puppets is not exactly the Geneva Conventions.

 

Go to war with the government we created? IMO, there might have been some questions asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, there might have been some questions asked.

Ya think? Look at all the Neo-Hippies that popped up when we took action in Libya, and all of the principled folks willing to go on record when asked what action Obama should take wrt this or that, lest they end up in agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama simply abided by a treaty negotiated by the Bush Admin.

 

 

Ah, you gotta love it.

Nixon purposely derails a peace process LBJ is heavily involved in.....and he gets a pass.

Obama keeps his promise to get out of Iraq - and it is because of Bush!

 

RD, perhaps you were on extended leave, but Bush said MANY MANY MANY times we'd be finished in Iraq in 2005 and 2006, etc. etc. etc.

Yet, you only credit him with the promise that SOMEONE ELSE kept??

 

Amazing. C'mon, you know better! If Obama wanted to keep Iraq going forever (like McCain did) he could have done so with no questions asked. A "treaty" we sign with our installed puppets is not exactly the Geneva Conventions.

 

The promise was made by an agreement between the US and Iraq. That agreement was made in late 2008 under then President Bush. If Obama had pulled our troops out in 2009, you would have a valid point.

 

The Status of Forces Agreement was never presented to the Senate for ratification, there was nothing binding in the treaty that Bush and al-Maliki negotiated.

 

Oh. My bad. Tip o the hat to Obama.

 

Putz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama simply abided by a treaty negotiated by the Bush Admin.

 

 

Ah, you gotta love it.

Nixon purposely derails a peace process LBJ is heavily involved in.....and he gets a pass.

Obama keeps his promise to get out of Iraq - and it is because of Bush!

 

RD, perhaps you were on extended leave, but Bush said MANY MANY MANY times we'd be finished in Iraq in 2005 and 2006, etc. etc. etc.

Yet, you only credit him with the promise that SOMEONE ELSE kept??

 

Amazing. C'mon, you know better! If Obama wanted to keep Iraq going forever (like McCain did) he could have done so with no questions asked. A "treaty" we sign with our installed puppets is not exactly the Geneva Conventions.

 

The promise was made by an agreement between the US and Iraq. That agreement was made in late 2008 under then President Bush. If Obama had pulled our troops out in 2009, you would have a valid point.

So things that happened in late 2008 were Bush's responsibility. We agree.

 

As long as things that happened in 2009 are Obama's?

 

Jesus Christ, Sol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama simply abided by a treaty negotiated by the Bush Admin.

 

 

Ah, you gotta love it.

Nixon purposely derails a peace process LBJ is heavily involved in.....and he gets a pass.

Obama keeps his promise to get out of Iraq - and it is because of Bush!

 

RD, perhaps you were on extended leave, but Bush said MANY MANY MANY times we'd be finished in Iraq in 2005 and 2006, etc. etc. etc.

Yet, you only credit him with the promise that SOMEONE ELSE kept??

 

Amazing. C'mon, you know better! If Obama wanted to keep Iraq going forever (like McCain did) he could have done so with no questions asked. A "treaty" we sign with our installed puppets is not exactly the Geneva Conventions.

 

The promise was made by an agreement between the US and Iraq. That agreement was made in late 2008 under then President Bush. If Obama had pulled our troops out in 2009, you would have a valid point.

So things that happened in late 2008 were Bush's responsibility. We agree.

 

As long as things that happened in 2009 are Obama's?

 

Jesus Christ, Sol.

That's what I've been saying all along. Minus the Jesus stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's summarize this.

 

Nixon was probably mentally ill and could have even let loose the dogs of nuclear war. He cared about no one but himself. He reportedly was an alcoholic and also abused prescription drugs (got and used them heavily without a prescription)

 

He committed crimes in office and was the only President in modern times to have to resign in disgrace....

 

BUT, all that aside he is being "victimized by the media".

 

I think I get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's summarize this.

 

Nixon was probably mentally ill and could have even let loose the dogs of nuclear war. He cared about no one but himself. He reportedly was an alcoholic and also abused prescription drugs (got and used them heavily without a prescription)

 

He committed crimes in office and was the only President in modern times to have to resign in disgrace....

 

BUT, all that aside he is being "victimized by the media".

 

I think I get it.

He was just misunderstood. We would know that if folks wanted to talk about him more, but he is not a popular topic of conversation for some reason. It's as if his presidency didn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are inconvenient facts! GW is misunderstood also.....between him and Nixon that's almost 15 years of "let's forget".

If they bring up IKE, they have to discuss why he warned against the Military Industrial Complex, had tax rates of 75 to 90% and wanted to build infrastructure with public money. Even the Kochs (John Birch Society) called IKE a communist.

 

That leaves us with Gerald Ford who pardoned Nixon...and, of course, God Himself who created piss-down economics and brought about larger debt than all Presidents before him in history....also famous for union busting and outsourcing......the great one, Reagan! Some thought him a good actor, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dubya did some good things. There was a thread on it. He looked good in a suit and rode bikes with that autistic kid, and a couple of other things. Nixon was far better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's summarize this.

 

Nixon was probably mentally ill and could have even let loose the dogs of nuclear war. He cared about no one but himself. He reportedly was an alcoholic and also abused prescription drugs (got and used them heavily without a prescription)

 

He committed crimes in office and was the only President in modern times to have to resign in disgrace....

 

BUT, all that aside he is being "victimized by the media".

 

I think I get it.

 

Run with it.

 

My opinion of Nixon is highly influenced by two events as I was growing up in the suburbs of DC. The first was the almost sudden absence of POW bracelets at my school when the POW's came home. The second was after Nixon was forced from office. My 12 year old next door neighbor was crying because she didn't understand why people were being so mean to the man who brought her daddy home.

 

The Vietnam war wasn't his idea. Like Obama in Afghanistan, when Nixon took office he increased troops and expanded a conflict not of his making. Those are simple facts. Perhaps you should focus your ire on the current occupant of the White House for his Nixoness ways instead of whining about what might have been 30 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are inconvenient facts! GW is misunderstood also.....between him and Nixon that's almost 15 years of "let's forget".

If they bring up IKE, they have to discuss why he warned against the Military Industrial Complex, had tax rates of 75 to 90% and wanted to build infrastructure with public money. Even the Kochs (John Birch Society) called IKE a communist.

 

That leaves us with Gerald Ford who pardoned Nixon...and, of course, God Himself who created piss-down economics and brought about larger debt than all Presidents before him in history....also famous for union busting and outsourcing......the great one, Reagan! Some thought him a good actor, though.

 

Have you taken a look at the size of the debt under Obama? I don't mind political spin, but outright lying is pretty low, even for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dubya did some good things. There was a thread on it. He looked good in a suit and rode bikes with that autistic kid, and a couple of other things. Nixon was far better.

he did help with the aids campaign in africa...that was helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brought about larger debt than all Presidents before him in history.

 

Have you taken a look at the size of the debt under Obama? I don't mind political spin, but outright lying is pretty low, even for you.

 

Please read what I wrote - actually, let me even add to that.

 

Reagan created more debt than all the Presidents before him in history COMBINED.

 

That is a truism. Oh, and he didn't have the Great Recession and a couple wars to deal with - just a regular recession!

 

I don't lie if I can help it. If you can show me any real reasons why Reagan had to build up this much deficit......while also outsourcing our country (that's when all the factories closed, etc.), I'm all ears. Did he have an emergency like wars to deal with which cost trillions?

 

Nah.

 

He built up debt for two reasons. First, to give tax cuts to everyone, but especially the wealthy. Secondly, to pump up the Welfare State which we call the MIL (Military Industrial Complex) by throwing unlimited money at Star Wars and other such debacles.

 

Anyway, my point is that Reagan is, according to "cons", their Best of Breed. This is despite these 10 things. I call foul....that cons are using different standards to measure him than they should....

 

1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president,Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.

 

2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.”

 

3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts.Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut.

 

4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously.

 

5. Reagan did little to fight a woman’s right to choose. As governor of California in 1967, Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state’s abortion laws that “resulted in more than a million abortions.”

 

6. Reagan was a “bellicose peacenik.” He wrote in his memoirs that “[m]y dream…became a world free of nuclear weapons.

 

7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants.

 

8. Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran.

 

9. Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act. which placed sanctions on South Africa and cut off all American trade with the country.

 

10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brought about larger debt than all Presidents before him in history.

 

Have you taken a look at the size of the debt under Obama? I don't mind political spin, but outright lying is pretty low, even for you.

 

Please read what I wrote - actually, let me even add to that.

 

Reagan created more debt than all the Presidents before him in history COMBINED.

 

That is a truism. Oh, and he didn't have the Great Recession and a couple wars to deal with - just a regular recession!

 

I don't lie if I can help it. If you can show me any real reasons why Reagan had to build up this much deficit......while also outsourcing our country (that's when all the factories closed, etc.), I'm all ears. Did he have an emergency like wars to deal with which cost trillions?

 

Nah.

 

He built up debt for two reasons. First, to give tax cuts to everyone, but especially the wealthy. Secondly, to pump up the Welfare State which we call the MIL (Military Industrial Complex) by throwing unlimited money at Star Wars and other such debacles.

 

Anyway, my point is that Reagan is, according to "cons", their Best of Breed. This is despite these 10 things. I call foul....that cons are using different standards to measure him than they should....

 

1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan "signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then." Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president,Reagan "raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office," including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan "a dear friend," told NPR, "Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there." "Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes," said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan's memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is "false mythology," Brinkley said.

 

2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, "roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether."

 

3. Unemployment soared after Reagan's 1981 tax cuts.Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut.

 

4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously.

 

5. Reagan did little to fight a woman's right to choose. As governor of California in 1967, Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state's abortion laws that "resulted in more than a million abortions."

 

6. Reagan was a "bellicose peacenik." He wrote in his memoirs that "[m]y dream…became a world free of nuclear weapons."

 

7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants.

 

8. Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran.

 

9. Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act. which placed sanctions on South Africa and cut off all American trade with the country.

 

10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden.

 

 

 

 

Nice cut and paste from "Think Progress". I don't have time to go through point by point, but since you posted without the link, I assume you are prepared to defend your position. How exactly did Reagan "create the Taliban and Bin Laden"? As a partisan hack, you might not comprehend the concept that perhaps some of the other items on the list are what made him popular with the majority of Americans. I have a problem with ignorant extremists on either side. You have as much credibility with me as Happy Jack. You are both part of the problem.

 

Obama is not only emulating Reagan, he's one upping him --

 

54236326_us_debt_464_corr.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How exactly did Reagan "create the Taliban and Bin Laden"?

 

Mein Gott! You really don't know your history! You probably never even saw Rambo III

 

Short and sweet - the USA under Reagan armed, trained and supported the Mujahadeen (which included Bin Laden) - even giving them Stinger Missiles and other advanced equipment.....in order to hurt the Soviets.

"The mujahideen were significantly financed, armed and trained by the United States [Central Intelligence Agency] (CIA) during the administrations of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan,"

"Under Reagan, U.S. support for the mujahideen evolved into an official U.S. foreign policy, known as theReagan Doctrine, which included support for anti-Soviet movements in Afghanistan"

I am most definitely ready to defend my claims. It's recent history. Reagan created and financed Bin Laden and the Mujahadeen and then, just like Bush I did later, pulled out on them and ignored them......left them to fester. MANY of the Taliban and other fighters today are the sons and grandsons of those fighters. Same people....but now our enemies! What else is new?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As a partisan hack, you might not comprehend the concept that perhaps some of the other items on the list are what made him popular with the majority of Americans.

 

Is educating you about recent history that I lived through extreme?

 

Which items made him popular? Outsourcing? Death Squads in Central America? Trading with the enemy?

 

I will give you that his union busting was popular, but what about those 10 things? I don't see many of them as being popular with the conservatives who say he is the "best we've had".

 

I like his anti-nuke stance. But would modern conservatives?

I like that he left reproduction in the hands of the women doing it. But would conservatives of today?

 

How about the total amnesty? Would conservatives like a candidate who would claim to do that?

 

I'm asking you to defend your position. Was Reagan, based on his record, a great conservative? Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How exactly did Reagan "create the Taliban and Bin Laden"?

 

Mein Gott! You really don't know your history! You probably never even saw Rambo III

 

Short and sweet - the USA under Reagan armed, trained and supported the Mujahadeen (which included Bin Laden) - even giving them Stinger Missiles and other advanced equipment.....in order to hurt the Soviets.

"The mujahideen were significantly financed, armed and trained by the United States [Central Intelligence Agency] (CIA) during the administrations of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan,"

"Under Reagan, U.S. support for the mujahideen evolved into an official U.S. foreign policy, known as theReagan Doctrine, which included support for anti-Soviet movements in Afghanistan"

I am most definitely ready to defend my claims. It's recent history. Reagan created and financed Bin Laden and the Mujahadeen and then, just like Bush I did later, pulled out on them and ignored them......left them to fester. MANY of the Taliban and other fighters today are the sons and grandsons of those fighters. Same people....but now our enemies! What else is new?

 

 

 

I read "Charlie Wilson's War" a number of years ago, which I think gave a very accurate picture of what transpired at that time and place. I think Carter and Reagan chose the lesser of two evils at the time, and I think they both made the right choice. Even without knowing what the indigenous population of Afghanistan would do with their arms after the Soviets bailed out, their actions in Afghanistan were worth the risk for the results achieved, IMO.

 

You really should crack a book from time to time instead of getting your history from lefty web sites and Sylvester Stallone movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's summarize this.

 

Nixon was probably mentally ill and could have even let loose the dogs of nuclear war. He cared about no one but himself. He reportedly was an alcoholic and also abused prescription drugs (got and used them heavily without a prescription)

 

He committed crimes in office and was the only President in modern times to have to resign in disgrace....

 

BUT, all that aside he is being "victimized by the media".

 

I think I get it.

Doubt it

 

The only time the US Strategic Nuclear forces were put on DEFCON2 was when JFK was waving his dick over Cuba.

And as for abusing prescription drugs, there was Dr Max Jacobson, JFK's Dr Feelgood, who kept him supplied with speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a partisan hack, you might not comprehend the concept that perhaps some of the other items on the list are what made him popular with the majority of Americans.

 

Is educating you about recent history that I lived through extreme?

 

Which items made him popular? Outsourcing? Death Squads in Central America? Trading with the enemy?

 

I will give you that his union busting was popular, but what about those 10 things? I don't see many of them as being popular with the conservatives who say he is the "best we've had".

 

I like his anti-nuke stance. But would modern conservatives?

I like that he left reproduction in the hands of the women doing it. But would conservatives of today?

 

How about the total amnesty? Would conservatives like a candidate who would claim to do that?

 

I'm asking you to defend your position. Was Reagan, based on his record, a great conservative? Why?

 

You couldn't educate me on anything but political hackery.

 

I think you'd find the 80% of us in the middle of the political spectrum hold Reagan in high esteem.

 

If extremists like you could convince Obama to vilify Reagan - game, set, match.

 

I think you are BG's sock puppet. BG wears the knee-pads dreaming about the day when he can pull down Obama's zipper, while craigri is there in leather chaps beating the crap out of anything conservative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'd find the 80% of us in the middle of the political spectrum hold Reagan in high esteem.

 

If extremists like you could convince Obama to vilify Reagan - game, set, match.

 

Oh - now we are talking about whether a President was popular???

 

I thought we were discussing actions.

 

So let me summarize so far. You agree that Reagan armed, financed and supported the pre-taliban mujahadeen and bin laden was one of the heros of that movement. So we agree on that 100%.

 

You asked me to stand behind the accusation - I did and you agree!

 

As to "popular", I thought we were discussing on a slightly higher level than that. GW was quite popular also.

 

Reagan is probably going to end up somewhere in the higher middle of the pack of history - but certainly not close to the level of the "greats". In fact, using current data, he is coming in behind Obama - but, admittedly, you have to wait some time before these Historians and experts settle down from current events and look back.

 

Eisenhower, IMHO, is the last GOP President who make it into the top. His daughter, who is an expert in foreign policy and a chip off the old block, is a big Obama supporter and claims Obama is much closer to her dads outlook than the GOP (McCain, etc.).

 

Anyways, Nixon was a crook and a madman. I stand by that opinion and am prepared to defend it.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'd find the 80% of us in the middle of the political spectrum hold Reagan in high esteem.

 

If extremists like you could convince Obama to vilify Reagan - game, set, match.

 

Oh - now we are talking about whether a President was popular???

 

I thought we were discussing actions.

 

So let me summarize so far. You agree that Reagan armed, financed and supported the pre-taliban mujahadeen and bin laden was one of the heros of that movement. So we agree on that 100%.

 

You asked me to stand behind the accusation - I did and you agree!

 

As to "popular", I thought we were discussing on a slightly higher level than that. GW was quite popular also.

 

Reagan is probably going to end up somewhere in the higher middle of the pack of history - but certainly not close to the level of the "greats". In fact, using current data, he is coming in behind Obama - but, admittedly, you have to wait some time before these Historians and experts settle down from current events and look back.

 

Eisenhower, IMHO, is the last GOP President who make it into the top. His daughter, who is an expert in foreign policy and a chip off the old block, is a big Obama supporter and claims Obama is much closer to her dads outlook than the GOP (McCain, etc.).

 

Anyways, Nixon was a crook and a madman. I stand by that opinion and am prepared to defend it.

 

1. Osama had been thrown out of the mujahadeen in 1988. The Taliban wou;d not be foemed until 1994.

 

2 Just WTF is this Eisenhower daughter? Some unknown sprog of Kay Summersby?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'd find the 80% of us in the middle of the political spectrum hold Reagan in high esteem.

 

If extremists like you could convince Obama to vilify Reagan - game, set, match.

 

Oh - now we are talking about whether a President was popular???

 

I thought we were discussing actions.

 

So let me summarize so far. You agree that Reagan armed, financed and supported the pre-taliban mujahadeen and bin laden was one of the heros of that movement. So we agree on that 100%.

 

You asked me to stand behind the accusation - I did and you agree!

 

As to "popular", I thought we were discussing on a slightly higher level than that. GW was quite popular also.

 

Reagan is probably going to end up somewhere in the higher middle of the pack of history - but certainly not close to the level of the "greats". In fact, using current data, he is coming in behind Obama - but, admittedly, you have to wait some time before these Historians and experts settle down from current events and look back.

 

Eisenhower, IMHO, is the last GOP President who make it into the top. His daughter, who is an expert in foreign policy and a chip off the old block, is a big Obama supporter and claims Obama is much closer to her dads outlook than the GOP (McCain, etc.).

 

Anyways, Nixon was a crook and a madman. I stand by that opinion and am prepared to defend it.

 

1. Osama had been thrown out of the mujahadeen in 1988. The Taliban wou;d not be foemed until 1994.

Hadn't heard that before. He split with Maktab al-Khidamat to form AQ but MAK wasn't mujahadeen let alone *the* mujahadeen. Gotta cite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'd find the 80% of us in the middle of the political spectrum hold Reagan in high esteem.

 

If extremists like you could convince Obama to vilify Reagan - game, set, match.

 

Oh - now we are talking about whether a President was popular???

 

I thought we were discussing actions.

 

So let me summarize so far. You agree that Reagan armed, financed and supported the pre-taliban mujahadeen and bin laden was one of the heros of that movement. So we agree on that 100%.

 

Yes. Reagan continued Jimmy Carter's initiative to fund the Mujahadeen, and in doing so continued to fund Bin Laden.

 

You asked me to stand behind the accusation - I did and you agree!

 

As to "popular", I thought we were discussing on a slightly higher level than that. GW was quite popular also.

 

Reagan is probably going to end up somewhere in the higher middle of the pack of history - but certainly not close to the level of the "greats". In fact, using current data, he is coming in behind Obama - but, admittedly, you have to wait some time before these Historians and experts settle down from current events and look back.

 

We do agree there. I think Obama's greatest legacy will be that he was the first black President of the US. That says a lot about the US and I'm proud that inside 150 years we went from slavery to a black President, even though he had some white in him.

 

Eisenhower, IMHO, is the last GOP President who make it into the top. His daughter, who is an expert in foreign policy and a chip off the old block, is a big Obama supporter and claims Obama is much closer to her dads outlook than the GOP (McCain, etc.).

 

Anyways, Nixon was a crook and a madman. I stand by that opinion and am prepared to defend it.

Please defend the "madman". I'll check in tomorrow. Idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They like to say that only a Nixon could have gone to China.

 

At the time, China was killing our troops, and was nearly as crazy as North Korea is now. He had to hide the fact he was going from the Pentagon chiefs of staff, and they smelled a rat and began running their own espionage operation against him, but it failed to uncover the plot in time. He was in China before they knew he had left.

 

How has Nixon going to China made things better for the US?

 

We would all be better off today if the Chinese economy was still mired in communism. What's good for the Chinese people isn't necessarily good for Americans, and it all started with Nixon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having met his Milhous's in 1980 - I'm with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How has Nixon going to China made things better for the US?

 

We would all be better off today if the Chinese economy was still mired in communism. What's good for the Chinese people isn't necessarily good for Americans, and it all started with Nixon.

 

China is General Motors second biggest market, and what's good for GM is good for Amercia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They like to say that only a Nixon could have gone to China.

 

At the time, China was killing our troops, and was nearly as crazy as North Korea is now. He had to hide the fact he was going from the Pentagon chiefs of staff, and they smelled a rat and began running their own espionage operation against him, but it failed to uncover the plot in time. He was in China before they knew he had left.

 

How has Nixon going to China made things better for the US?

 

We would all be better off today if the Chinese economy was still mired in communism. What's good for the Chinese people isn't necessarily good for Americans, and it all started with Nixon.

 

Kudos, Wabbit, for a double gainer and half twist into a pool full of retard.

 

You should encourage Obama to bring back our ambassador and close the embassy.

 

The Chinese people will be OK with their lack of employment and Wall-mart will shut down overnight. The poor in our country will have to get their clothing at JCrew, who has plants in Indonesia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They like to say that only a Nixon could have gone to China.

 

At the time, China was killing our troops, and was nearly as crazy as North Korea is now. He had to hide the fact he was going from the Pentagon chiefs of staff, and they smelled a rat and began running their own espionage operation against him, but it failed to uncover the plot in time. He was in China before they knew he had left.

 

How has Nixon going to China made things better for the US?

 

We would all be better off today if the Chinese economy was still mired in communism. What's good for the Chinese people isn't necessarily good for Americans, and it all started with Nixon.

 

Kudos, Wabbit, for a double gainer and half twist into a pool full of retard.

 

You should encourage Obama to bring back our ambassador and close the embassy.

 

The Chinese people will be OK with their lack of employment and Wall-mart will shut down overnight. The poor in our country will have to get their clothing at JCrew, who has plants in Indonesia.

 

us-trade-in-goods-with-china.jpg

 

How has this made life better for the average American?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They like to say that only a Nixon could have gone to China.

 

At the time, China was killing our troops, and was nearly as crazy as North Korea is now. He had to hide the fact he was going from the Pentagon chiefs of staff, and they smelled a rat and began running their own espionage operation against him, but it failed to uncover the plot in time. He was in China before they knew he had left.

 

How has Nixon going to China made things better for the US?

 

We would all be better off today if the Chinese economy was still mired in communism. What's good for the Chinese people isn't necessarily good for Americans, and it all started with Nixon.

 

In the context of the times, it changed the entire dynamic of the cold war. Normalizing relations between the US and China screwed the Soviets, ended our RW's dreams of "unleashing Chang K Shek", and created a theoretical reason for NV to settle the fuck down and let SV be. The "red scare" was significantly lessened. China's leadership needed the gesture to see it through. A true masterstroke. Only a guy with McCarthy cred could have done that without being drawn and quartered by the war-mongers here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit crazy and ironic that Communist China is now becoming the envy of most of the world and is out-capitalistic-ing the USA.....

 

Trade is good, though. But unfair trade is not. Having them make shit for us and dump the chemicals in the river so it is cheaper is not a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 Just WTF is this Eisenhower daughter? Some unknown sprog of Kay Summersby?

 

Quite an experienced person:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Eisenhower

 

"Although a lifelong member of the Republican Party, Eisenhower endorsed Barack Obama for president of the United States in 2008. Eisenhower announced on August 21, 2008 that she was leaving the Republican Party and becoming an independent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
p1314140686477668.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit crazy and ironic that Communist China is now becoming the envy of most of the world and is out-capitalistic-ing the USA.....

 

Trade is good, though. But unfair trade is not. Having them make shit for us and dump the chemicals in the river so it is cheaper is not a good thing.

Not so sure about being the envy, they have a host of problems, the least of is income disparity - the rate there makes us look good.

 

imo the Chinese adopted capitalism as a method to retain control by bringing some financial stability/wealth to the people. Now they are dealing with a disparity not seen for decades and it's getting worse. Party officials/families/friends at the top and farmers at the bottom.

 

I am in agreement with the trade dumping having worked in an industry decimated by Chinese imports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They like to say that only a Nixon could have gone to China.

 

At the time, China was killing our troops, and was nearly as crazy as North Korea is now. He had to hide the fact he was going from the Pentagon chiefs of staff, and they smelled a rat and began running their own espionage operation against him, but it failed to uncover the plot in time. He was in China before they knew he had left.

 

How has Nixon going to China made things better for the US?

 

We would all be better off today if the Chinese economy was still mired in communism. What's good for the Chinese people isn't necessarily good for Americans, and it all started with Nixon.

 

Kudos, Wabbit, for a double gainer and half twist into a pool full of retard.

 

You should encourage Obama to bring back our ambassador and close the embassy.

 

The Chinese people will be OK with their lack of employment and Wall-mart will shut down overnight. The poor in our country will have to get their clothing at JCrew, who has plants in Indonesia.

 

us-trade-in-goods-with-china.jpg

 

How has this made life better for the average American?

 

Why hasn't Obama done anything to stop this? Why do we, as Americans, buy a broom made in China for $12 instead of a broom made by a US union member for $35?

 

I know, I know....It's Nixon's fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, I know....It's Nixon's fault.

 

 

Welcome to the 12,000 posts club Mr sailing puppy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They like to say that only a Nixon could have gone to China.

 

At the time, China was killing our troops, and was nearly as crazy as North Korea is now. He had to hide the fact he was going from the Pentagon chiefs of staff, and they smelled a rat and began running their own espionage operation against him, but it failed to uncover the plot in time. He was in China before they knew he had left.

 

How has Nixon going to China made things better for the US?

 

We would all be better off today if the Chinese economy was still mired in communism. What's good for the Chinese people isn't necessarily good for Americans, and it all started with Nixon.

 

Kudos, Wabbit, for a double gainer and half twist into a pool full of retard.

 

You should encourage Obama to bring back our ambassador and close the embassy.

 

The Chinese people will be OK with their lack of employment and Wall-mart will shut down overnight. The poor in our country will have to get their clothing at JCrew, who has plants in Indonesia.

 

us-trade-in-goods-with-china.jpg

 

How has this made life better for the average American?

 

Why hasn't Obama done anything to stop this? Why do we, as Americans, buy a broom made in China for $12 instead of a broom made by a US union member for $35?

 

I know, I know....It's Nixon's fault.

 

Congratulations on the milestone RD, meanwhile, you can get your American made Libman broom here for $12.00. I wish you wouldn't throw your money away on the inferior Chinese product, our union members need your money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites