Obama, Donald Young murder, Update, Chicago Police, Larry Sinclair, detective contact, Drudge Report, Scott Covington, Obama campaign desperation.
Larry Sinclair has an update on the Chicago Police investigation into the death of TUCC gay choir director, Donald Young. Obama supporters are getting desperate to discredit Larry Sinclair and his allegations of drug use and gay sex with Obama in November 1999 and alleged contact by Donald Young shortly before he was murdered.
Liberals are anti-semitism, “Hamas’ charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.” Israel is right to attack Hamas in Gaza. The Palestinians are wrong to have elected Hamas as their leaders. Like the Taliban in Afghanistan, Gaza is being lead by an illegitimate terrorist organization bent on the destruction of Israel. (as are all the liberals in this room)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The Debt Ceiling under President Reagan was raised eighteen times to a total of $1.85 trillion (See Table 7.3). This is less than the $3 trillion-plus already raised under President Obama! Raising the Ceiling 18 times during the eight Reagan years meant a Ceiling battle every 5.3 months (on average), with an average rise of only $102 billion per increase. So… does Obama really want to get the Reagan Treatment?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@conspunk The Repugs are going to lose the House in 2012, because they continued to increase spending despite slashing social programs . For the record, Carter lowered unemployment more in 4 years than Reagan did in 8. Yeah, that information's there for everyone to look up, too.
If you cut taxes aren't you also suppose to curtail spending. The GOP claims it's the dems fault the spending never decreased. But as REPUBLICANS SHOWED WHEN THEY HAD FULL CONTROL from 2001-2007, cutting spending was never a big interest to them. Just that rich people pay as little taxes as possible. Hell they even cut taxes for the wealthy during the Iraq war, who in his right mind cuts GOV revenue during wartime.
I understand Reagan raised taxes but he also lowered them in other parts. Why do you not tell the entire story if you feel that you are on the side of truth? Total Tax increases was 132.7 Billion Dollars and cuts were at 275.3 Billlion Dollars. Source: Office of Management and Budget, US Gov. Look it up for yourself. The fact that you leave most of the truth out worries me about your brain and agenda.
nothing hotter than a liberal guy speaking the truth and getting the truth out there. I am so tired of the hate mongers and their evil anti American rhetoric which includes Beck ,O Reilly, Limbo and the Fox (Fake) Network. When is this going to stop?
Reagan did away with free TUITION in state universities,raided the social security fund,killed FAIR&BALANCED NEWS by ending the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE,allowed corporations to monopolize by not enforcing the SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT, espoused DEREGULATION,stopped PENALIZING employers that hired the undocumented in order to break the backs of unions&the MIDDLE CLASS.Touted the MAGIC HAND OF THE FREE MARKET(code words4BILLIONAIRES),YES HAPPY BIRTHDAY RONNIE YOU REPUBLICAN CLOWN GOD
after watching these terrible damages that Reagan had done to US economy,, image of preceding President should have been shown:
Jimmy Carter : Miss Me Yet ?
(he might be unpopular and bad administrator, but he didn't send US down the rat hole with spiraling debt, or massively financing Mujahidin/Taliban like Reagan)
[how many fools have followed that trap – for 30 years]
and base their –‘beliefs on it !
-
Reagan often told the story of a so-called “welfare queen” in Chicago who drove a Cadillac and had ripped off $150,000 from the government using 80 aliases, 30 addresses, a dozen social security cards and four fictional dead husbands. Journalists searched for this “welfare cheat” in the hopes of interviewing her and discovered that she didn’t exist.
Conflation, distraction and deception - from white collar crimes caused by banking deregulation - a few years later, when President Bush bailed out the Savings & Loans industry with $500 billion of the taxpayer's money -‘enough to fund 20 years’- of federal AFDC [welfare].
The Reagan administration ... 1981 Economic Recovery Act by ... cut taxes by 30 percent, increase defense spending by three-quarters of a trillion dollars, and achieve a balanced budget within three years. Budget director David Stockman ..., "None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers" and that supply-side economics "was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate."
I also like how you think you're debunking supply side economics, by citing GHWB as calling it "vodoo economics". Let's ignroe the fact they created millions of jobs. Let's ignore the fact interest rates fell, and the fact that Reagan reduced inflation from the historic highs of Carter's administration. Let's ignore the prosperity and GDP growth. Let's ignore the fact Americans got wealthier.
This video=huge fail. Try to do more research next time instead of being a brainwashed idiot
Reagan agreed to tax increases because Congress promised for every dollar in tax increase, they'll reduce 3 dollars in spending. He did this to try to reduce the deficit.
You also criticize him for pulling out of Lebanon. I'm sure liberals would've hated Bush for pulling out of Iraq, am I right? Also, let's ignore the fact that he took down the Soviet Union. Yes, he founded the Mujahideen to do it,but the USSR was a bigger threat. After all, didn't we side with Stalin to take down Hitler?
@CommanderGene Who took down the USSR? They ran out of money and resources. Their military buildup (familiar?) downgraded their domestic obligations to obsoletion and their economy stagnated to the point of no return, despite reforms.
The video is to cite that the Executive Office, though it may be filled by different people, doesn't allow them to do as their parties dictate. Electees find that when they get into office, not everything is black and white. Take it for what it is.
The military buildup did indeed destroy the USSR, something Reagan knew full well, hence why he initiated the arms race in the first place. The USSR couldn't handle it; we could. Besides, we had more prosperity in the 80s than we do now, and the standard of living was higher at the time, despite the military build up. And our economy certainly didn't stagnate.
@CommanderGene Reagan initiated the arms race? I believe the arms race was something that had been the cornerstone of all political maneuvering of the 20th century -- starting with the Moroccan crisis of 1905, in which France and Germany took up militarily defensive stances. The rest, as they say, is history.
The USD has had steady purchasing power increases for at least 30 years save for two years ago. To date, purchasing power has trumped 2008. Check online at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
No one had ever accelerated the arms race in the 20th century to the degree that Reagan did. If you read Soviet newspapers from the time period, you'll see that they were all panicked about things like SDI, which they admitted bankrupted them. SDI alone drove them to desperation and made them willing to negotiate more freely
@CommanderGene Why then would we offer SDI to the Soviets to help in negotiations to reduce nuclear arms? And USSR refuse?
Gorbachev knew it was a waste. They already had A35 Aldan. USSR was already on a bad road by the time the SDIO was organized. All SDI did was try to resolidify the image of US dominance over a dissolving and troubled Union. More subtle tactics, like Arab oil dropping their prices, were more effective and less costly. SDI was "shock and awe" and fantasy.
If Gorbachev knew it was a waste, why did he constantly insist that Reagan shelve SDI? Why did Gorbachev say the Soviets felt threatened by SDI? Why did he claim that the USSR would have to expand their defensive and offensive systems to meet the new SDI threat? Why did so many Soviet newspapers in the time admit this was an attempt to bankrupt the USSR? The Soviets seemed pretty damn scared of a silly fantasy
@CommanderGene I would assume it was partly a fear of the US actually obtaining a new revolution in their search for SDI. The concept of SDI is far more dangerous in some eyes then the previous MAD that had existed at that point. If SDI, or something similar to it, did end up online, it would give the US or USSR something neither Reagan nor Gorbachev wanted: The ability to rule the destructive force of nuclear devices as less a concern. They both wanted disarmament, not casual nukes. That's why.
Now, let me see if I've got this right: You, a liberal, are criticizing Ronald Reagan for doing the very kinds of things that you, a liberal, vigirously support! Higher taxes, cut-and-run, large deficits, amnesty, etc. In condemning Reagan you merely condemn yourself. Are you so politically blind you can't see your own hyprocriscy?
Did I mention that tax revenues actually INCREASED during Reagan's tenure? The deficits were actually caused by profligate spending programs designed to expand by economically-inept liberals in the 30s and 60s. Reagan tried to attack social security, but the suckling pig welfare recipients on your side would have none of it.
And why attack him for raising taxes when the net impact of his policies was a massive cut? You are intellectually dishonest and a coward for not showing your face.
"magical new revenue that was supposed to be generated by lower taxes never materialized. "
Never materialized? From 1982-1989, 18.7 million new jobs in the United states were created-a new world record over any comparable time period.The unemployment rate fell to just over 5%, the lowest level in 15 years.The amount of wealth created during this perio --some $30 trillion--was also a world record. Net asset values increased by $5 trillion, or over 50%. We had 86 months of growth,also a record.
@Eagles2777 It is also noted that the 80's are considered the least productive time in US history... It doesn't mean much when you give jobs that don't add anything of great value. Ah yes, just hold onto that dream of diminished expectations, Reaganers. Oh, by the way, he also hamstrung the US Dollar with the palace accords. Please.
@seanvwolf Noted by whom? I list economic facts and you rebut with unsupportable prevarication. Keep voting Democrat. They desperately need their poor hipster/poor minority demographic.
How were the 80s the least productive? Reagan didn't put in useless government jobs into the economy like Obama's doing, he deregulated and relaxed economic controls, which let businesses provide more (productive) jobs. Also, the GDP increase, reduced inflation and interest rates, and reduced unemployment made for one damn prosperous economy. It must've been magical that we could do all that while there was no productivity
@CommanderGene This is essentially the argument of job growth vs productivity. Although aggregate employment rose sharply in the 80's, unskilled labor unemployment rates rose and participation rates in the labor force hit critical lows. Compensation, benefits, and job security broke down, resulting in less-skilled workers and is the evidence of poor labor quality. In essence, we hired two nurses to do the job of one surgeon, or called two security guards instead of one sheriff. Inefficient.
And yet the GDP has increased at an average rate of 3.5% per year, which is above the historic average. I fail to see how production can decrease, but the economic output and standard of living of a country still rise. Where did you get your information?
@CommanderGene There is a working paper abstract published by Senior Economist Susan Houseman from the Upjohn Institute which specializes in the causes and effects of unemployment in the workforce. The paper is listed in their publications link as [Job Growth and the Quality of Jobs in the U.S. Economy].
As for GDP, compare all major players from 1980 to 1989. You'll see that nearly all of them had significant increases in GDP, and many of them doubled during the decade.
About the GDP... so? Why does it matter who else had GDP increases? Does that negate America's prosperity under Reagan? Or the fact that America under Reagan pulled from the recession caused by Carter precisely because he pursued free market policies?
@CommanderGene It does matter who else had GDP increases. It shows that growth happened without Reagan's in every country.
The "recession caused by Carter" occurred after Reagan's supply-side tax cuts and fed reg enforcement moratoriums. If the private sector followed pro-con theories, then the private sector should have been elated. Study Fed Reserve tactics on holding money supplies to illicit intentional recessions in an effort to fight off inflation and you'll have the real reason in hand.
How could Carter's recession have been caused by Reagan?? There was high unemployment and inflation during Carter's stay in office, unemployment and inflation that went down under Reagan. The Federal Reserve restricting the money supply in the 80s didn't "illicit an intentional recession", it lowered inflation. All these factors point to the fact the growth was achieved thanks to Reagan.
Reagan should have been impeached and removed ! Selling illegal weapons to a terrorists nation such as Iran especially after Iran was declared responsible for the murder of over 200 American marines in Beruit is simply unforgetable - unless you are a right winger who consistently supports Ronnie and who has developed amnesia !
Don't ever mention that the US economy had record inflation under Carter and our military was in shambles and many military families were on food stamps!!!!
dude, put down the comic books and pick up history books. my dad was in the air force as a father of 3 kids. president reagan gave the highest pay raise to the military in '81
High oil prices throughout the 70s caused and prolonged the recession and were the main cause of the high inflation. The recession of the '70s was caused by the '73-'74 OPEC Oil Embargo and exacerbated by the 1979 Oil Crisis following the Iranian Revolution. Inflation started to spike under Nixon and soared under Ford and Carter. In fact it was Carter's anti-inflation policy, continued by Reagan, that ended the stagflation of the '70s.
Watergate, the Vietnam War and the Stagflation of the '70s eroded public confidence. Carter's talk of malaise and wearing sweaters made him seem out of touch.
My father, a lifelong Republican and Vietnam veteran, once told me that Carter was remembered unfairly. He and Nixon actually had alot of good policies, but Watergate destroyed Nixon's career and Carter had everything plus the kitchen sink thrown at him.
All US Presidents in some form and shape get treated unfairly. These are men trying to do what they think is best. I'm glad you and I can chat about this. Carter tended to overanalyze everything then to reverse some of his decisions. President Ford got a bum rap.
Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Chairman from August 1979 to August 1987, implemented a policy of ratcheting up interest rates to tighten the money supply. Rates reached record highs of 21.5% in 1981. This action caused the recession of '81 but ended "stagflation." The loosening of those rates and the sharp decline in oil prices during the end of Reagans first term helped cause the economic boom of the mid to late 80s.
I agree with you. President Reagan also did this as a governor. It created a surplus and this was the first time any state/federal government gave a rebate.
He had to raise state taxes because there was a deficit prior to him taking office. When they found out it created a surplus, many officials wanted to to keep it. Reagan said that is the taxpayers money and gave the extra money back.
Don't ever mention about that his foreign policy led to the Soviet Union collasping yet Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter provided billions in aid and food which kept them going.!!!!
even president nixon did this also. look it up. president reagan thought this was dumb. he and CIA director william casey know that the soviet union couldnt survive based on their economy
Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev had more to do with the fall of the Soviet Union than Reagan did. Reagan's policies actually made it harder for Gorbachev to try and reform the USSR.
Gorbachev worked "with" President Reagan. The Central Bureau selected him because of his economics background. They knew that the previous hardliners didn't scare President reagan.
Gorbachev's policies opened up the USSR and attempted to liberalized its economic and political systems. Gorbachev showed the people of Russia what real freedom meant and when the Oligarches tried to undo all his advances the people revolted and overthrew them.
Reagan moderated much of his policy toward the USSR mainly in his second term. He still made grand proclamations against them, but his overall approach changed and became more diplomatic. This gave Gorbachev the room to launch his reforms.
I've seen videos of Kremlin officials talk about Reagan's toughness. Many don't realize he was the president of the Screen Actor's Guild so he was an union man and negotiator. Also, he had an economics degree and not a law degree.
And the Berlin wall came down...You know you need to spend more time condemning the actual dictatorships and terrorists instead of just complaining about how much you think the U.S. supported them. But no. Somehow everything is our fault. What do you say about the millions slaughtered in Cambodia by the North Vietnamese after we left Vietnam? The nutty left wanted us out it it cost millions of lives. We didn't lose that war on the battlefield. We lost it here at home...
The US helped install them. Of course I will complain when a nation that I live in engages in those actions. I never said everything was the US's fault. Once again you are going back to your talking points "Hate America" "Blame America first". I outlined where the US has supported dictatorhips.
He genius. If the Soviet Union had been able to stay in control of Eastern Europe and had been able to spread their influence and power over Countries in the Middle East and Central America as they intended, they never would have dissolved. If they wouldn't have had to attempt to outspend Reagan in the arms race, they never would have dissolved. Common sense tells you that Reagan played a huge part in the demise of the Soviet Union & the end of the cold war.
The Soviets didn't have plans to invade the Middle East. Watch that history channel video clip I gave you and go to part 1-4 and it speaks about that. The Soviets would have had to reform. Central planning, militarism, combined with authortarianism (all of which are terrible ideas) lead to failure. Reagan just helped speed it along as he put the US in gaint debt.
I'm putting your puzzle together. We should not have entered Vietnam. We should not have armed the Afghan's against the Soviets, and it was our fault the Soviets invaded. We should not have aided or supported the contras. You are an defender and an apologist of communism. Not a big surprise...
Not at all. I oppose militarism because it is a part of statism. I am taking issue with your premises because they are faulty. "The US came to the defense of the Afgans after the Soviets invaded" when it was the US who started funding the reggressives first.
Minh was not allied closely with the Soviets or Chinese until the French and US entered trying to re colonize the nation. The Contras were terrorists funded by the Reagan adm. that tried to overthrow a popular movement against a former dictator. I have my own problems with these governments but the US's interventions and those it supported were even worse in many cases.
So you are naive enough to believe that you would be living in a free country, with free markets and less gov't that you supposedly support, without the military? Now we're back at square one. You are living in the land of oz..... I came to my premise from your own words.
You are free to shrill of your catch phrases but I never have once stated that authortarianism or communism was a good system to live under. I stated the US's inverentions were not about freedom but about control and its regimes were in many cases worse.
No we live in a nation that is more free relative to numerous other nations. We are not free, we do not have free markets, and we do not have a small amount of government. If you add up local, state, and central taxes it takes up around half of ones income. The US military has not made us free. The only war that was needed was WWII and the after effects brought on prolonged taxes even after the war debt was paid off.
Of course WWII could have been prevented if the French and British hadn't punished Germany so hardly after WWI which caused massive inflation and debt which lead to the rise of Hitler.
It depends how you define free. As I stated relative to the rest of the world we are free. But does the soverignity lay with the indiviual? No, it doesn't. The soverignity lies with the state structure and those in power. The US does not have a free market.
As I stated the Governments steals half of ones income, gives away 75 billion dollars a year in corporate welfare, has barriers to entry, tarrifs, social restrictions on non violent activities, and most of all it has a monopolistic state with no ability to opt out and form a competeting or differing government.
Btw, add to that list central involuntary banking, deficit spending (supposedly enslaving future generations), and coercively funded welfare programs.
The US state should have never entered Vietnam nor canceled the elections or help the French imperialists relcaim their colony. Ho Chi Minh had his own problems but he was supportered by most Vietnamese, especially over the dictator the US and French installed and supportered as they bombed and killed millions.
Pol Pot was a criminal statist and should be held responisble for his crimes but he was only able to get into power after the CIA destablized Cambodia with a coup and put in an incompentant leader which lead to economic disaster and the rise of Pol Pot.
If you support free markets and less gov't as you say, there isn't anyone that supported those ideas more than Reagan. So you're either lying about what you really believe in or you an idiot.
No Reagan was coercive statist, not a libertarian. He ran up the largest deficit in US history since Bush, was for standing armies, was against free trade and pro protectionism, and supported brutal regimes worldwide.
I just gave you facts about what the US government has done in the past and will gladly provide you with more evidence. I didn't go off on a tangent making remarks that weren't related to the history.
Oh Reagan ran up the deficit? The Dem's in congress couldn't spend all the revenue pouring in to the gov't(thanks to Reagan's tax cuts) fast enough. Yeah Reagan spent on the military buildup, but that helped end the cold war.
Yes and he signed the bills after the Democratic Congress passed them. The Cold War would have ended without it but it did helped. The Soviet Union was a bloated cow that its own people hated and whose politicans even evenually tried to reform but it ended up in its destruction.
The country was founded on Judeo-Christian values, dork. To any intellectually honest person, it is obvious that the Founders wanted very much to keep God in the public arena, even uppermost in the thoughts of the populace. What the Founders did not want was any one religion imposed by the gov't. That is what separation of church and state means.
Yes that is what the separation and church means. I love to see you show how liberities are based off any monotheistic dogma. The bible nor the Talmund make mention of liberty from the state. The ideas of the US were based off ancient Greek and Roman thought, as well as the enlightenment.
The basis for liberities at that time known as nautral rights did not come from jewish or christian traditions. It came from the englightenment and ancient Greek and Roman traditions. No where in the Bible or Talmund does it say one has freedom from state tryanny.
The tax cuts didn't help? Man you are delusional. It brought us out of the Carter recession. Double digit employment, double digit inflation. Starting in '84, the economy began an unprecedented run of prosperity....Yeah you liberals like to say the Soviet Union was almost bankrupt in the 70's. Explain how the began the biggest military and arms buildup in history during the 80's? Also Reagan, along with the Pope, pushed for solidarity in Poland and much of Eastern Europe was freed.
You are just adding in ideas I never stated. The tax cuts didn't help by giving the government more than it spent, it lead to a deficit. The Soviet Union fell manily due to internal problems including the economic problems and dissent from within because of the structure its state had.
Btw, I just wanted to state to the poster of this video that Reagan did not host the Taliban. The organization did not exist when he was President. However, he did help fund the more extreme elements in Afg. where some later joined the Taliban.
That's right. Reagan didn't fund the Taliban. Thank you for exposing another lie from another liberal loon. He armed the Afghan's in their war against the Soviet Union, just as Carter did. It was the right thing to do. As I've said, no way could we allow the Soviets to concur the middle east. But you saying he 'funded the more extreme elements of in afg' is misleading. Of coarse, everything you say could be considered misleading and/or a lie.
No it really wasn't. The US government sponsored Islamic regressive before the Soviets even invaded. It was the US sponsorship of the Islamists against the Marxist Afghan government that made the Soviets decide to invade. The US funded the most extreme elements even after the war was almost over. I will link you to a history channel video if you don't believe me. watch?v=DhZ4sQ1myGw
You support the ideas the U.S. was founded on? It wasn't founded on secularism fool. I'm sure Jefferson and Franklin would just be thrilled to hear what you have to say about the U.S. They were about fighting for liberty and freedom, which is something we've always done. I don't need to see your stupd youtube video. I know my history.
Freedom of religion is a secular idea...The Bible and the Quran are not for freedom of religion. Keep the church and state separate is a secular idea so that neither interferes with the other. I am for the freedom of the individual so I am not against individuals being religious as long as they do not try to ram legislation through based on religion. Franklin and Jefferson were both Deists, not Christians.
Carter was a pussy that just sat back and watched as Shah was removed from power. That's why Iran took the Americans hostage. They knew Carter was a pussy. So did the Soviets, that's why the invaded Afghanistan. The thing that scares most about Obama is that he reminds me of Carter.
You far left loons sympathize with the Iran, the Taliban, and terrorists in general. So when you continue to complain that Reagan, and the U.S. in general, supported them, it's hilarious. Many of America's actions over the last 60 years were an effort to curb communist influence throughout the world. Many of you loons fail to mention that, because the communist philosophy and secularism is something you generally support.
I do not support communism at all. I support a 100% free market and voluntarism unlike what we have now. You are just repeating American conservative phrases. I do support secularism but I do not want to force people to give up their religions. The US commited numerous crimes to rule over others just as the Soviets did by justifying their aggression by pointing to the US and vis versa.
Two more liberal talking points: The Contras were "Terrorists" and the America "Committed numerous crimes". The Contras made some mistakes. But most were good people who were fighting the communists. Don't overlook the commies terrorist acts....America has made some mistakes as every Nation has. But there has never been a Nation in the history of the world that has freed more people than the United States....By the way, who do we "rule over" as you say?
Many of the contras were former members of the former dictator's nationial guard that was brutal to the people which caused the revolution. The Sandistas had their own problems but the contras were even worse. They terrorized and killed tens of thousands.
Oh really....give me some examples. You've got to be kidding right? We helped rebuild Japan and Germany after WWII. We saved Europe's ass in WWII. We defended South Korea. Reagan helped free millions in Eastern Europe and helped bring down the Soviet Union. We removed Iraq from Kuwait. We removed Saddam from Iraq and are now giving the Iraqi people a chance at freedom....and on and on.
I already gave one, Iran in 53. Guatemala in 54, Congo in 60, Indonesia in 65, Chile in 73, Vietnam in the 60s, Nicaragua in 81, Panama in the 80's, and more in between and after. The US did a good job overall in my opinion after the war in Germany and Japan. The US reinstalled the dictatorship in Kuwait after the state left and armed Saddam as well as stated nothing when he committed his crimes in Iran and against the Kurds.
Reagan was the one who helped give Saddam battlefield intelligence when Saddam invaded Iran even though he knew Iraq was using chemical weapons and he later tried to fudge UN reports showing this. Reagan also backed the military coup in South Korea that had destroyed the democratic government earlier. He also supported the Apartheid regime in South Africa.
Reagan is widely regarded as one of the best president's in U.S. history. Some of the accusations you make against him are ridiculous. If all were true, he would not be regarded as such. He's certainly a threat to you, which is why you and other loons attempt to discredit him. Good luck. He will continue to go down in history as the President that brought American pride and confidence back. Brought the economy back. Helped bring our military back. Helped free millions, and ended the cold war
No, they are true. Just spend even 5 minutes google searching or look for jounral articles and you will find it to be true. Just because you haven't learned about it doesn't mean it is or isn't true. Numerous people have written about the myths of Reagan, one being that he ended the Cold War.
Vietnam? You mean the war where we were trying to save south vietnam from the communist north? Panama, when we removed the dictator Noriega? All the others, we were either fighting the communists or supporting the contras. As I said before, mistakes have been made. They are made in every war. But overall, the U.S. is a noble nation. But not to far left loons like you. Reagan supported Saddam when Iraq was at war with Iran. Iraq was the lesser of two evils at that time. That's common knowledge.
Magic you are just repeating your nonsense. I would beat I support a freer market and less government than you. The US canceled elections in Vietnam because Ho Chi Minh was expected to win by 80% so the US instead decided to fund along with the French imperialists a dictatorship in the South that brutalized its own people.
The US helped Noriega come to power and helped him trade narcotics in exchange for being a puppet. The government only turned against him after he hosted talks against US intervention in Latin American and after he would not abolish the treaty made with Carter giving Panama the Panama Canal. Saddam invaded Iran, not the other way around.
Isn't it interesting though that Iran released the hostages just minutes after Reagan was sworn in to office. They knew that Reagan wouldn't appease them the way Carter had
No it was because Reagan made a deal with the Islamic regime before. Look into it and Iran contra. The US overthrew a popular government and helped to install a dictatorship that held Iran hostage for decades with torture, corporate welfare, and political repressions. The CIA supported the Islamists before the Soviets invaded.
The US government armed Shah Reza with millions of dollars worth of weapons and taught his secret police Nazi torture techniques. I would agree that innocent Americans shouldn't be taken hostage who had no part in the crime but many of those in the embassy helped the terrorist Shah.
Holy shit man you are living in the Land of OZ....I have some advice for you. Think for yourself. Use some common sense. Don't let the hatred of your country blind you from reality.... So that's what the looney collage professors are teaching you these days.....Think for yourself. Otherwise, say "hi" to Dorothy and Toto for me.
I am not giving a slogan like you are about college professors and "hatred for your country". I have learned this history outside of college which doesn't do a very great job in my opinion. You can choose to ignore the crimes of the US while attacking others for reacting but I will not. I do not endorse the killing of Americans, especially those who had nothing to do with the crimes of the US state. I will link you to history channel videos or websites if you need them.
You don't have to send me any links. I've studied history and I'm smart enough to know that there are people who will spin history any way they can to make America look like the bad guy. If it fits your ideology, you'll take it in hook, line, and sinker. I'm sorry if you felt what I said was an attack. My intention wasn't to attack you. I enjoy the debate but once common sense has been dismissed I no longer have any desire to continue....
You are just giving out talking points. Of course history can be spinned. These however are historical facts (the coup of 53, the support of the Shah's terrorism, Iran Contra).
You call the Shah a dictator and a terrorist, as if not every leader in Iran hasn't fit that bill in the last 60 years. When the Shah led Iran, he was a strong ally of America. But our liberal press and politicians thought he was too undemocratic, so they helped to drive him from power. As he was falling, America gave him little or no support.
Then, in 1979, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini overthrew the shah. Khomeini established Iran as the worlds number-one state sponsor of terrorism.
Yes I said that Iran got another deadly regime (even more deadly) after the Shah. You have you understand why though and it goes back to the coup in 53 where we overthrew a more democratic leader to control the oil and make a client state out of Iran.
Talk about following talking points. Every time we're involved in the Middle East liberals like to say it's "all about the oil." Bullshit. There's no doubt that's part of it, but unless you liberal loons want to pay $10 a gallon for gas you better start accepting off shore drilling as well as drilling in Alaska. Liberals seem to bitch the most when gas prices go up but they aren't willing to do anything about it.
What are you saying you liberals? Unless you mean liberal in the classic sense (and even more extreme) than I am not a liberal. I do not oppose drilling as long as it does not endager people and other creatures around it.
After Khomeini died, Hashemi Rafsanjani became president and intensified Irans international network of terrorism. It was only then that some observers began to see what a terrible mistake liberals had made in assisting the shahs downfall.
The goal of the coup 53 was to install a pro-western, less secular leader in Iran to prevent Iran Gov't from being taken over by the Soviet Union.
Despite many investigations, Reagan was never found of any wrong doing in Iran Contra. Reagan wanted to help the Contras, where were fighting the communists in Central America. The Democratic congress cut of funding to them, so Reagan told his advisors to do everything they could to help the Contras, and free the hostages, within the law. Reagan never approved the sale of weapon's to Iran.
That is because they shreded the tapes as Oliver North admitted. The contras were terrorits that attacked schools and houses. His adminstration made negotations with Iran which is why they were released when he took office after Carter's failed recuse missions.
If what North did was such a crime, why isn't he in prison? Tell me, what law did he break? If you want to talk about shredding documents, let's talk about the Clinton's....What proof do you have that Reagan cut a deal with Iran to release the hostages? If you know of such a deal, what was the deal? Was it that we wouldn't bomb the living shit out of them as long as they released the hostages? If so, that's a good deal...
We don't have to discuss the Clintons. I despise Bill Clinton and the crimes he commited. The evidence was shredded about Reagan and North crimes. As for the deal of Reagan and the Islamic theocracy google Reagan arms for hostage deal
if I still hold to the truth, you would hunt me down, arrest me, torture me, then execute me for staying with the truth without a word out to the media, because YOU and YOUR little pals control
In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. In 1984, a tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. In 1985, The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. In 1986, the Tax Reform Act raised the net tax for at least 2 years.
Reagan left a deficit bigger than Carter did, and said himself that he was not concerned about deficits.
Reagan gave America good advice, but didn't follow through with it himself.
Any prosperity attained during the 1980's was achieved by loading up the national debt.
Reagan quadrupled our national debt from 700 Billion to 3 Trillion!
There's nothing conservative,
anti-socialist or small government about that, our government became enormous under Reagan. Our children and grandchildren will be forced to pay REAGAN's DEBT their entire lives.
The Reagan fairytale is slowly evaporating and Reagan's final legacy is:
I ususally like your stuff but, this one was a bit weak. Let's talk about McCain and his amnesty policy that seems to have hidden for the time being. McCain was butchered by every major conservative media man and woman. That is until he won the nomination. Since then Hannity and the rest of them have 100% pro McCain.
Obama, Donald Young murder, Update, Chicago Police, Larry Sinclair, detective contact, Drudge Report, Scott Covington, Obama campaign desperation.
Larry Sinclair has an update on the Chicago Police investigation into the death of TUCC gay choir director, Donald Young. Obama supporters are getting desperate to discredit Larry Sinclair and his allegations of drug use and gay sex with Obama in November 1999 and alleged contact by Donald Young shortly before he was murdered.
footstomp1 1 month ago 8
Liberals are anti-semitism, “Hamas’ charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.” Israel is right to attack Hamas in Gaza. The Palestinians are wrong to have elected Hamas as their leaders. Like the Taliban in Afghanistan, Gaza is being lead by an illegitimate terrorist organization bent on the destruction of Israel. (as are all the liberals in this room)
footstomp1 1 month ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Except on letting down his black voters, Obama is the true heir of Ronald Reagan.
Fridaey13txhOktober 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Debt Ceiling under President Reagan was raised eighteen times to a total of $1.85 trillion (See Table 7.3). This is less than the $3 trillion-plus already raised under President Obama! Raising the Ceiling 18 times during the eight Reagan years meant a Ceiling battle every 5.3 months (on average), with an average rise of only $102 billion per increase. So… does Obama really want to get the Reagan Treatment?
vechorik 6 months ago
Remember that a dollar was worth much more under Reagan than under Obama.
An item costing 100 S in 1981 would cost circa 249.6 S today.
Fridaey13txhOktober 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@conspunk The Repugs are going to lose the House in 2012, because they continued to increase spending despite slashing social programs . For the record, Carter lowered unemployment more in 4 years than Reagan did in 8. Yeah, that information's there for everyone to look up, too.
TheFauxpas42 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Reagan still holds the prize for highest unemployment rates of the last half century, too.
TheFauxpas42 8 months ago
hahahaha Let it out!
Less sirens though please....
noogetful 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@conspunk -'article after article in the Chicago tribune, NY Times, AP, etc. ..'-
-
All the alleged -'links'- you claim are non-existent ....
Still all lies ...
-
... got any credible proof ?
NO !!!
blevr1234 11 months ago 3
conspunk
-
... got any credible proof ? no !!!
blevr1234 11 months ago 2
@conspunk -'...Her name was ...'-
- B.S. ... got any credible proof ?
-
Just another delusion, superstition, fantasy, in the long line of Reagan
distortions, lies, and exaggerations - elevated to a religion ....
-
Reagan - welfare queen – insidious '-gender and race-baiting'-
[how many fools have fallen for that trap – for 30 years]
and base their –‘BELIEFS on it !
21tikcah 11 months ago 3
If you cut taxes aren't you also suppose to curtail spending. The GOP claims it's the dems fault the spending never decreased. But as REPUBLICANS SHOWED WHEN THEY HAD FULL CONTROL from 2001-2007, cutting spending was never a big interest to them. Just that rich people pay as little taxes as possible. Hell they even cut taxes for the wealthy during the Iraq war, who in his right mind cuts GOV revenue during wartime.
stormblast49 11 months ago
@conspunk Facts mean very little to most people or we wouldn't be where we are today.
reneh 11 months ago
I understand Reagan raised taxes but he also lowered them in other parts. Why do you not tell the entire story if you feel that you are on the side of truth? Total Tax increases was 132.7 Billion Dollars and cuts were at 275.3 Billlion Dollars. Source: Office of Management and Budget, US Gov. Look it up for yourself. The fact that you leave most of the truth out worries me about your brain and agenda.
reneh 11 months ago
nothing hotter than a liberal guy speaking the truth and getting the truth out there. I am so tired of the hate mongers and their evil anti American rhetoric which includes Beck ,O Reilly, Limbo and the Fox (Fake) Network. When is this going to stop?
LAchickee 11 months ago
Reagan did away with free TUITION in state universities,raided the social security fund,killed FAIR&BALANCED NEWS by ending the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE,allowed corporations to monopolize by not enforcing the SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT, espoused DEREGULATION,stopped PENALIZING employers that hired the undocumented in order to break the backs of unions&the MIDDLE CLASS.Touted the MAGIC HAND OF THE FREE MARKET(code words4BILLIONAIRES),YES HAPPY BIRTHDAY RONNIE YOU REPUBLICAN CLOWN GOD
poindexterwitkowsky 1 year ago 3
people who look to government to solve their problems are usufull idiots who dont want to look first at their own lack of self reliance.
MrJo71gtx 1 year ago
Comment removed
cirelan1974 1 year ago
after watching these terrible damages that Reagan had done to US economy,, image of preceding President should have been shown:
Jimmy Carter : Miss Me Yet ?
(he might be unpopular and bad administrator, but he didn't send US down the rat hole with spiraling debt, or massively financing Mujahidin/Taliban like Reagan)
ryviuz 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Reagan - welfare queen – insidious race-baiting
[how many fools have followed that trap – for 30 years]
and base their –‘beliefs on it !
-
Reagan often told the story of a so-called “welfare queen” in Chicago who drove a Cadillac and had ripped off $150,000 from the government using 80 aliases, 30 addresses, a dozen social security cards and four fictional dead husbands. Journalists searched for this “welfare cheat” in the hopes of interviewing her and discovered that she didn’t exist.
Cont
21tikcah 1 year ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
...
Conflation, distraction and deception - from white collar crimes caused by banking deregulation - a few years later, when President Bush bailed out the Savings & Loans industry with $500 billion of the taxpayer's money -‘enough to fund 20 years’- of federal AFDC [welfare].
Cont
21tikcah 1 year ago 3
...
Balance the Budget And Increase Defense Spending?
The Reagan administration ... 1981 Economic Recovery Act by ... cut taxes by 30 percent, increase defense spending by three-quarters of a trillion dollars, and achieve a balanced budget within three years. Budget director David Stockman ..., "None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers" and that supply-side economics "was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate."
-
just, Whoring for his largest donors !
21tikcah 1 year ago 3
So are you saying that you like Reagan or that you like the Neocons?
DSXmachine 1 year ago
I also like how you think you're debunking supply side economics, by citing GHWB as calling it "vodoo economics". Let's ignroe the fact they created millions of jobs. Let's ignore the fact interest rates fell, and the fact that Reagan reduced inflation from the historic highs of Carter's administration. Let's ignore the prosperity and GDP growth. Let's ignore the fact Americans got wealthier.
This video=huge fail. Try to do more research next time instead of being a brainwashed idiot
CommanderGene 1 year ago
Reagan agreed to tax increases because Congress promised for every dollar in tax increase, they'll reduce 3 dollars in spending. He did this to try to reduce the deficit.
You also criticize him for pulling out of Lebanon. I'm sure liberals would've hated Bush for pulling out of Iraq, am I right? Also, let's ignore the fact that he took down the Soviet Union. Yes, he founded the Mujahideen to do it,but the USSR was a bigger threat. After all, didn't we side with Stalin to take down Hitler?
CommanderGene 1 year ago
@CommanderGene Who took down the USSR? They ran out of money and resources. Their military buildup (familiar?) downgraded their domestic obligations to obsoletion and their economy stagnated to the point of no return, despite reforms.
The video is to cite that the Executive Office, though it may be filled by different people, doesn't allow them to do as their parties dictate. Electees find that when they get into office, not everything is black and white. Take it for what it is.
seanvwolf 1 year ago
@seanvwolf
The military buildup did indeed destroy the USSR, something Reagan knew full well, hence why he initiated the arms race in the first place. The USSR couldn't handle it; we could. Besides, we had more prosperity in the 80s than we do now, and the standard of living was higher at the time, despite the military build up. And our economy certainly didn't stagnate.
CommanderGene 1 year ago
@CommanderGene Reagan initiated the arms race? I believe the arms race was something that had been the cornerstone of all political maneuvering of the 20th century -- starting with the Moroccan crisis of 1905, in which France and Germany took up militarily defensive stances. The rest, as they say, is history.
The USD has had steady purchasing power increases for at least 30 years save for two years ago. To date, purchasing power has trumped 2008. Check online at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
seanvwolf 1 year ago
@seanvwolf
No one had ever accelerated the arms race in the 20th century to the degree that Reagan did. If you read Soviet newspapers from the time period, you'll see that they were all panicked about things like SDI, which they admitted bankrupted them. SDI alone drove them to desperation and made them willing to negotiate more freely
CommanderGene 1 year ago
@CommanderGene Why then would we offer SDI to the Soviets to help in negotiations to reduce nuclear arms? And USSR refuse?
Gorbachev knew it was a waste. They already had A35 Aldan. USSR was already on a bad road by the time the SDIO was organized. All SDI did was try to resolidify the image of US dominance over a dissolving and troubled Union. More subtle tactics, like Arab oil dropping their prices, were more effective and less costly. SDI was "shock and awe" and fantasy.
seanvwolf 1 year ago
@seanvwolf
If Gorbachev knew it was a waste, why did he constantly insist that Reagan shelve SDI? Why did Gorbachev say the Soviets felt threatened by SDI? Why did he claim that the USSR would have to expand their defensive and offensive systems to meet the new SDI threat? Why did so many Soviet newspapers in the time admit this was an attempt to bankrupt the USSR? The Soviets seemed pretty damn scared of a silly fantasy
CommanderGene 1 year ago
@CommanderGene I would assume it was partly a fear of the US actually obtaining a new revolution in their search for SDI. The concept of SDI is far more dangerous in some eyes then the previous MAD that had existed at that point. If SDI, or something similar to it, did end up online, it would give the US or USSR something neither Reagan nor Gorbachev wanted: The ability to rule the destructive force of nuclear devices as less a concern. They both wanted disarmament, not casual nukes. That's why.
seanvwolf 1 year ago
spread it!!!!!
1stTrillionaire 1 year ago
Now, let me see if I've got this right: You, a liberal, are criticizing Ronald Reagan for doing the very kinds of things that you, a liberal, vigirously support! Higher taxes, cut-and-run, large deficits, amnesty, etc. In condemning Reagan you merely condemn yourself. Are you so politically blind you can't see your own hyprocriscy?
dog1701 1 year ago
Did I mention that tax revenues actually INCREASED during Reagan's tenure? The deficits were actually caused by profligate spending programs designed to expand by economically-inept liberals in the 30s and 60s. Reagan tried to attack social security, but the suckling pig welfare recipients on your side would have none of it.
And why attack him for raising taxes when the net impact of his policies was a massive cut? You are intellectually dishonest and a coward for not showing your face.
Eagles2777 1 year ago
"magical new revenue that was supposed to be generated by lower taxes never materialized. "
Never materialized? From 1982-1989, 18.7 million new jobs in the United states were created-a new world record over any comparable time period.The unemployment rate fell to just over 5%, the lowest level in 15 years.The amount of wealth created during this perio --some $30 trillion--was also a world record. Net asset values increased by $5 trillion, or over 50%. We had 86 months of growth,also a record.
Eagles2777 1 year ago
@Eagles2777 It is also noted that the 80's are considered the least productive time in US history... It doesn't mean much when you give jobs that don't add anything of great value. Ah yes, just hold onto that dream of diminished expectations, Reaganers. Oh, by the way, he also hamstrung the US Dollar with the palace accords. Please.
seanvwolf 1 year ago
@seanvwolf Noted by whom? I list economic facts and you rebut with unsupportable prevarication. Keep voting Democrat. They desperately need their poor hipster/poor minority demographic.
Eagles2777 1 year ago
@seanvwolf
How were the 80s the least productive? Reagan didn't put in useless government jobs into the economy like Obama's doing, he deregulated and relaxed economic controls, which let businesses provide more (productive) jobs. Also, the GDP increase, reduced inflation and interest rates, and reduced unemployment made for one damn prosperous economy. It must've been magical that we could do all that while there was no productivity
CommanderGene 1 year ago
@CommanderGene This is essentially the argument of job growth vs productivity. Although aggregate employment rose sharply in the 80's, unskilled labor unemployment rates rose and participation rates in the labor force hit critical lows. Compensation, benefits, and job security broke down, resulting in less-skilled workers and is the evidence of poor labor quality. In essence, we hired two nurses to do the job of one surgeon, or called two security guards instead of one sheriff. Inefficient.
seanvwolf 1 year ago
@seanvwolf
And yet the GDP has increased at an average rate of 3.5% per year, which is above the historic average. I fail to see how production can decrease, but the economic output and standard of living of a country still rise. Where did you get your information?
CommanderGene 1 year ago
@CommanderGene There is a working paper abstract published by Senior Economist Susan Houseman from the Upjohn Institute which specializes in the causes and effects of unemployment in the workforce. The paper is listed in their publications link as [Job Growth and the Quality of Jobs in the U.S. Economy].
As for GDP, compare all major players from 1980 to 1989. You'll see that nearly all of them had significant increases in GDP, and many of them doubled during the decade.
seanvwolf 1 year ago
@seanvwolf
About the GDP... so? Why does it matter who else had GDP increases? Does that negate America's prosperity under Reagan? Or the fact that America under Reagan pulled from the recession caused by Carter precisely because he pursued free market policies?
CommanderGene 1 year ago
@CommanderGene It does matter who else had GDP increases. It shows that growth happened without Reagan's in every country.
The "recession caused by Carter" occurred after Reagan's supply-side tax cuts and fed reg enforcement moratoriums. If the private sector followed pro-con theories, then the private sector should have been elated. Study Fed Reserve tactics on holding money supplies to illicit intentional recessions in an effort to fight off inflation and you'll have the real reason in hand.
seanvwolf 1 year ago
@seanvwolf
How could Carter's recession have been caused by Reagan?? There was high unemployment and inflation during Carter's stay in office, unemployment and inflation that went down under Reagan. The Federal Reserve restricting the money supply in the 80s didn't "illicit an intentional recession", it lowered inflation. All these factors point to the fact the growth was achieved thanks to Reagan.
CommanderGene 1 year ago
@Eagles2777 Paul Volker.
89Djm 1 year ago
Great video!
afannell 1 year ago
Great vid!!!
CalJennings 1 year ago
"Ketchup is a vegetable" - The "Great" Ronald Reagan
kipptumor 1 year ago
@kipptumor
Well, Ronald Reagan was a pretty good vegetable, too.
professor2442 1 year ago
Reagan should have been impeached and removed ! Selling illegal weapons to a terrorists nation such as Iran especially after Iran was declared responsible for the murder of over 200 American marines in Beruit is simply unforgetable - unless you are a right winger who consistently supports Ronnie and who has developed amnesia !
skowheganme 1 year ago
@skowheganme
had we had the internet & blogs back then he would have been impeached.
afannell 1 year ago
This guy on the video- sounds like Milton from Office Space....Excuse me, I believe you have my stapler...
But Milton would kick his ass.
papageorgio419 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
President Reagan- the best president in my lifetime. I have great respect for this man.
papageorgio419 2 years ago
"I don't worry about the deficit." - Ronald Reagan
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
WHILE FREEING EASTERN EUROPE, DUH
AbitaVets 2 years ago
classic !!!!
beartraxent 2 years ago 3
Great vid!
TsarSamuil 2 years ago
*favorited*
Reagan was the devil
GonzoTheGreat3000 2 years ago
I'm horny. Let's have sex.
ForSale113 2 years ago
Don't ever mention that the US economy had record inflation under Carter and our military was in shambles and many military families were on food stamps!!!!
keithstkd1 2 years ago
Wrong.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
dude, put down the comic books and pick up history books. my dad was in the air force as a father of 3 kids. president reagan gave the highest pay raise to the military in '81
keithstkd1 2 years ago
The part about Carter was wrong.
High oil prices throughout the 70s caused and prolonged the recession and were the main cause of the high inflation. The recession of the '70s was caused by the '73-'74 OPEC Oil Embargo and exacerbated by the 1979 Oil Crisis following the Iranian Revolution. Inflation started to spike under Nixon and soared under Ford and Carter. In fact it was Carter's anti-inflation policy, continued by Reagan, that ended the stagflation of the '70s.
...
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
As in terms of foreign policy and US confidence, Nixon and Carter put the US in a downward spiral. Carter was the worst president in modern times.
keithstkd1 2 years ago
Watergate, the Vietnam War and the Stagflation of the '70s eroded public confidence. Carter's talk of malaise and wearing sweaters made him seem out of touch.
My father, a lifelong Republican and Vietnam veteran, once told me that Carter was remembered unfairly. He and Nixon actually had alot of good policies, but Watergate destroyed Nixon's career and Carter had everything plus the kitchen sink thrown at him.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
All US Presidents in some form and shape get treated unfairly. These are men trying to do what they think is best. I'm glad you and I can chat about this. Carter tended to overanalyze everything then to reverse some of his decisions. President Ford got a bum rap.
keithstkd1 2 years ago
Ford pardoned Nixon. That single move ensured Ford couldn't get elected in '76 no matter what else he did.
Warren G. Harding is the most unfairly treated President in US history. If it wasn't for Teapot-Dome he might be remembered as one of our best.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
...
Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Chairman from August 1979 to August 1987, implemented a policy of ratcheting up interest rates to tighten the money supply. Rates reached record highs of 21.5% in 1981. This action caused the recession of '81 but ended "stagflation." The loosening of those rates and the sharp decline in oil prices during the end of Reagans first term helped cause the economic boom of the mid to late 80s.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
I got that from a history book.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
I agree with you. President Reagan also did this as a governor. It created a surplus and this was the first time any state/federal government gave a rebate.
keithstkd1 2 years ago
Surplus?
As governor maybe, but as president Reagan had anything but a surplus. Governor Reagan raised taxes by the then record amount of $1 billion.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
He had to raise state taxes because there was a deficit prior to him taking office. When they found out it created a surplus, many officials wanted to to keep it. Reagan said that is the taxpayers money and gave the extra money back.
keithstkd1 2 years ago
Don't ever mention about that his foreign policy led to the Soviet Union collasping yet Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter provided billions in aid and food which kept them going.!!!!
keithstkd1 2 years ago
Wrong.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
even president nixon did this also. look it up. president reagan thought this was dumb. he and CIA director william casey know that the soviet union couldnt survive based on their economy
keithstkd1 2 years ago
Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev had more to do with the fall of the Soviet Union than Reagan did. Reagan's policies actually made it harder for Gorbachev to try and reform the USSR.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
Gorbachev worked "with" President Reagan. The Central Bureau selected him because of his economics background. They knew that the previous hardliners didn't scare President reagan.
keithstkd1 2 years ago
Gorbachev's policies opened up the USSR and attempted to liberalized its economic and political systems. Gorbachev showed the people of Russia what real freedom meant and when the Oligarches tried to undo all his advances the people revolted and overthrew them.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
Reagan moderated much of his policy toward the USSR mainly in his second term. He still made grand proclamations against them, but his overall approach changed and became more diplomatic. This gave Gorbachev the room to launch his reforms.
Thrasher9996 2 years ago
I've seen videos of Kremlin officials talk about Reagan's toughness. Many don't realize he was the president of the Screen Actor's Guild so he was an union man and negotiator. Also, he had an economics degree and not a law degree.
keithstkd1 2 years ago
And the Berlin wall came down...You know you need to spend more time condemning the actual dictatorships and terrorists instead of just complaining about how much you think the U.S. supported them. But no. Somehow everything is our fault. What do you say about the millions slaughtered in Cambodia by the North Vietnamese after we left Vietnam? The nutty left wanted us out it it cost millions of lives. We didn't lose that war on the battlefield. We lost it here at home...
magicreagan 3 years ago
The US helped install them. Of course I will complain when a nation that I live in engages in those actions. I never said everything was the US's fault. Once again you are going back to your talking points "Hate America" "Blame America first". I outlined where the US has supported dictatorhips.
overmind25 3 years ago
He genius. If the Soviet Union had been able to stay in control of Eastern Europe and had been able to spread their influence and power over Countries in the Middle East and Central America as they intended, they never would have dissolved. If they wouldn't have had to attempt to outspend Reagan in the arms race, they never would have dissolved. Common sense tells you that Reagan played a huge part in the demise of the Soviet Union & the end of the cold war.
magicreagan 3 years ago
The Soviets didn't have plans to invade the Middle East. Watch that history channel video clip I gave you and go to part 1-4 and it speaks about that. The Soviets would have had to reform. Central planning, militarism, combined with authortarianism (all of which are terrible ideas) lead to failure. Reagan just helped speed it along as he put the US in gaint debt.
overmind25 3 years ago
I'm putting your puzzle together. We should not have entered Vietnam. We should not have armed the Afghan's against the Soviets, and it was our fault the Soviets invaded. We should not have aided or supported the contras. You are an defender and an apologist of communism. Not a big surprise...
magicreagan 3 years ago
Not at all. I oppose militarism because it is a part of statism. I am taking issue with your premises because they are faulty. "The US came to the defense of the Afgans after the Soviets invaded" when it was the US who started funding the reggressives first.
overmind25 3 years ago
Minh was not allied closely with the Soviets or Chinese until the French and US entered trying to re colonize the nation. The Contras were terrorists funded by the Reagan adm. that tried to overthrow a popular movement against a former dictator. I have my own problems with these governments but the US's interventions and those it supported were even worse in many cases.
overmind25 3 years ago
So you are naive enough to believe that you would be living in a free country, with free markets and less gov't that you supposedly support, without the military? Now we're back at square one. You are living in the land of oz..... I came to my premise from your own words.
magicreagan 3 years ago
I'll say it again. You are an apologist for communism.
magicreagan 3 years ago
You are free to shrill of your catch phrases but I never have once stated that authortarianism or communism was a good system to live under. I stated the US's inverentions were not about freedom but about control and its regimes were in many cases worse.
overmind25 3 years ago
No we live in a nation that is more free relative to numerous other nations. We are not free, we do not have free markets, and we do not have a small amount of government. If you add up local, state, and central taxes it takes up around half of ones income. The US military has not made us free. The only war that was needed was WWII and the after effects brought on prolonged taxes even after the war debt was paid off.
overmind25 3 years ago
*WWII, Revolutnary war,
Of course WWII could have been prevented if the French and British hadn't punished Germany so hardly after WWI which caused massive inflation and debt which lead to the rise of Hitler.
overmind25 3 years ago 2
We are not free? My God....You liberals talk in circles. The more you attempt to explain your way of thinking, the less sense you make.
But it is entertaining
magicreagan 3 years ago
It depends how you define free. As I stated relative to the rest of the world we are free. But does the soverignity lay with the indiviual? No, it doesn't. The soverignity lies with the state structure and those in power. The US does not have a free market.
overmind25 3 years ago
As I stated the Governments steals half of ones income, gives away 75 billion dollars a year in corporate welfare, has barriers to entry, tarrifs, social restrictions on non violent activities, and most of all it has a monopolistic state with no ability to opt out and form a competeting or differing government.
overmind25 3 years ago
*the State steals
overmind25 3 years ago
Btw, add to that list central involuntary banking, deficit spending (supposedly enslaving future generations), and coercively funded welfare programs.
overmind25 3 years ago
The US state should have never entered Vietnam nor canceled the elections or help the French imperialists relcaim their colony. Ho Chi Minh had his own problems but he was supportered by most Vietnamese, especially over the dictator the US and French installed and supportered as they bombed and killed millions.
overmind25 3 years ago
Pol Pot was a criminal statist and should be held responisble for his crimes but he was only able to get into power after the CIA destablized Cambodia with a coup and put in an incompentant leader which lead to economic disaster and the rise of Pol Pot.
overmind25 3 years ago
I haven't even mentioned how Reagan's relationship with Gorbachev and the Soviets being terrified of SDI helped lead to the end of the cold war
magicreagan 3 years ago
Just about every liberal I talk to attempts to act like someone they are not. That in itself speaks volumes.
magicreagan 3 years ago
It must suck waking up every day thinking of another way to put down and hate your country.
magicreagan 3 years ago
Another baseless smokescreen. I support the ideas the US was founded on, not some goofy leader like Reagan or any other corrupt political leader.
"It is the duty of the Patriot to protect his country from its government."-Thomas Paine, father of the American Revolution
overmind25 3 years ago
If you support free markets and less gov't as you say, there isn't anyone that supported those ideas more than Reagan. So you're either lying about what you really believe in or you an idiot.
magicreagan 3 years ago
No Reagan was coercive statist, not a libertarian. He ran up the largest deficit in US history since Bush, was for standing armies, was against free trade and pro protectionism, and supported brutal regimes worldwide.
overmind25 3 years ago
You can spin history any way you want to fit your warped ideology....Yeah, you're such a patriot aren't you? ha ha....
magicreagan 3 years ago
I just gave you facts about what the US government has done in the past and will gladly provide you with more evidence. I didn't go off on a tangent making remarks that weren't related to the history.
overmind25 3 years ago
Oh Reagan ran up the deficit? The Dem's in congress couldn't spend all the revenue pouring in to the gov't(thanks to Reagan's tax cuts) fast enough. Yeah Reagan spent on the military buildup, but that helped end the cold war.
magicreagan 3 years ago
Yes and he signed the bills after the Democratic Congress passed them. The Cold War would have ended without it but it did helped. The Soviet Union was a bloated cow that its own people hated and whose politicans even evenually tried to reform but it ended up in its destruction.
overmind25 3 years ago
*but it did help
The government under the Dem Congress and Reagan spent more than it took in so the tax cuts didn't really help. They just put it on the deficit.
overmind25 3 years ago
The country was founded on Judeo-Christian values, dork. To any intellectually honest person, it is obvious that the Founders wanted very much to keep God in the public arena, even uppermost in the thoughts of the populace. What the Founders did not want was any one religion imposed by the gov't. That is what separation of church and state means.
magicreagan 3 years ago
Yes that is what the separation and church means. I love to see you show how liberities are based off any monotheistic dogma. The bible nor the Talmund make mention of liberty from the state. The ideas of the US were based off ancient Greek and Roman thought, as well as the enlightenment.
overmind25 3 years ago
WTF?!?
magicreagan 3 years ago
"WFT?"
The basis for liberities at that time known as nautral rights did not come from jewish or christian traditions. It came from the englightenment and ancient Greek and Roman traditions. No where in the Bible or Talmund does it say one has freedom from state tryanny.
overmind25 3 years ago
*"WTF"
*jewish or christian texts.
*Greek and Roman texts
overmind25 3 years ago
*I'd
overmind25 3 years ago
The tax cuts didn't help? Man you are delusional. It brought us out of the Carter recession. Double digit employment, double digit inflation. Starting in '84, the economy began an unprecedented run of prosperity....Yeah you liberals like to say the Soviet Union was almost bankrupt in the 70's. Explain how the began the biggest military and arms buildup in history during the 80's? Also Reagan, along with the Pope, pushed for solidarity in Poland and much of Eastern Europe was freed.
magicreagan 3 years ago
You are just adding in ideas I never stated. The tax cuts didn't help by giving the government more than it spent, it lead to a deficit. The Soviet Union fell manily due to internal problems including the economic problems and dissent from within because of the structure its state had.
overmind25 3 years ago
Btw, I just wanted to state to the poster of this video that Reagan did not host the Taliban. The organization did not exist when he was President. However, he did help fund the more extreme elements in Afg. where some later joined the Taliban.
overmind25 3 years ago
That's right. Reagan didn't fund the Taliban. Thank you for exposing another lie from another liberal loon. He armed the Afghan's in their war against the Soviet Union, just as Carter did. It was the right thing to do. As I've said, no way could we allow the Soviets to concur the middle east. But you saying he 'funded the more extreme elements of in afg' is misleading. Of coarse, everything you say could be considered misleading and/or a lie.
magicreagan 3 years ago
No it really wasn't. The US government sponsored Islamic regressive before the Soviets even invaded. It was the US sponsorship of the Islamists against the Marxist Afghan government that made the Soviets decide to invade. The US funded the most extreme elements even after the war was almost over. I will link you to a history channel video if you don't believe me. watch?v=DhZ4sQ1myGw
overmind25 3 years ago
You support the ideas the U.S. was founded on? It wasn't founded on secularism fool. I'm sure Jefferson and Franklin would just be thrilled to hear what you have to say about the U.S. They were about fighting for liberty and freedom, which is something we've always done. I don't need to see your stupd youtube video. I know my history.
magicreagan 3 years ago
Freedom of religion is a secular idea...The Bible and the Quran are not for freedom of religion. Keep the church and state separate is a secular idea so that neither interferes with the other. I am for the freedom of the individual so I am not against individuals being religious as long as they do not try to ram legislation through based on religion. Franklin and Jefferson were both Deists, not Christians.
overmind25 3 years ago
Carter was a pussy that just sat back and watched as Shah was removed from power. That's why Iran took the Americans hostage. They knew Carter was a pussy. So did the Soviets, that's why the invaded Afghanistan. The thing that scares most about Obama is that he reminds me of Carter.
magicreagan 3 years ago
You far left loons sympathize with the Iran, the Taliban, and terrorists in general. So when you continue to complain that Reagan, and the U.S. in general, supported them, it's hilarious. Many of America's actions over the last 60 years were an effort to curb communist influence throughout the world. Many of you loons fail to mention that, because the communist philosophy and secularism is something you generally support.
magicreagan 3 years ago
I do not support communism at all. I support a 100% free market and voluntarism unlike what we have now. You are just repeating American conservative phrases. I do support secularism but I do not want to force people to give up their religions. The US commited numerous crimes to rule over others just as the Soviets did by justifying their aggression by pointing to the US and vis versa.
overmind25 3 years ago
Two more liberal talking points: The Contras were "Terrorists" and the America "Committed numerous crimes". The Contras made some mistakes. But most were good people who were fighting the communists. Don't overlook the commies terrorist acts....America has made some mistakes as every Nation has. But there has never been a Nation in the history of the world that has freed more people than the United States....By the way, who do we "rule over" as you say?
magicreagan 3 years ago
Many of the contras were former members of the former dictator's nationial guard that was brutal to the people which caused the revolution. The Sandistas had their own problems but the contras were even worse. They terrorized and killed tens of thousands.
overmind25 3 years ago
The US has overthrown numerous democratic movements and has armed as well as installed dozens of dictatorships, especially after WWII.
overmind25 3 years ago
Oh really....give me some examples. You've got to be kidding right? We helped rebuild Japan and Germany after WWII. We saved Europe's ass in WWII. We defended South Korea. Reagan helped free millions in Eastern Europe and helped bring down the Soviet Union. We removed Iraq from Kuwait. We removed Saddam from Iraq and are now giving the Iraqi people a chance at freedom....and on and on.
magicreagan 3 years ago
I already gave one, Iran in 53. Guatemala in 54, Congo in 60, Indonesia in 65, Chile in 73, Vietnam in the 60s, Nicaragua in 81, Panama in the 80's, and more in between and after. The US did a good job overall in my opinion after the war in Germany and Japan. The US reinstalled the dictatorship in Kuwait after the state left and armed Saddam as well as stated nothing when he committed his crimes in Iran and against the Kurds.
overmind25 3 years ago
Reagan was the one who helped give Saddam battlefield intelligence when Saddam invaded Iran even though he knew Iraq was using chemical weapons and he later tried to fudge UN reports showing this. Reagan also backed the military coup in South Korea that had destroyed the democratic government earlier. He also supported the Apartheid regime in South Africa.
overmind25 3 years ago
Reagan is widely regarded as one of the best president's in U.S. history. Some of the accusations you make against him are ridiculous. If all were true, he would not be regarded as such. He's certainly a threat to you, which is why you and other loons attempt to discredit him. Good luck. He will continue to go down in history as the President that brought American pride and confidence back. Brought the economy back. Helped bring our military back. Helped free millions, and ended the cold war
magicreagan 3 years ago
No, they are true. Just spend even 5 minutes google searching or look for jounral articles and you will find it to be true. Just because you haven't learned about it doesn't mean it is or isn't true. Numerous people have written about the myths of Reagan, one being that he ended the Cold War.
overmind25 3 years ago
Vietnam? You mean the war where we were trying to save south vietnam from the communist north? Panama, when we removed the dictator Noriega? All the others, we were either fighting the communists or supporting the contras. As I said before, mistakes have been made. They are made in every war. But overall, the U.S. is a noble nation. But not to far left loons like you. Reagan supported Saddam when Iraq was at war with Iran. Iraq was the lesser of two evils at that time. That's common knowledge.
magicreagan 3 years ago
Magic you are just repeating your nonsense. I would beat I support a freer market and less government than you. The US canceled elections in Vietnam because Ho Chi Minh was expected to win by 80% so the US instead decided to fund along with the French imperialists a dictatorship in the South that brutalized its own people.
overmind25 3 years ago
*bet
overmind25 3 years ago
The US helped Noriega come to power and helped him trade narcotics in exchange for being a puppet. The government only turned against him after he hosted talks against US intervention in Latin American and after he would not abolish the treaty made with Carter giving Panama the Panama Canal. Saddam invaded Iran, not the other way around.
overmind25 3 years ago
Isn't it interesting though that Iran released the hostages just minutes after Reagan was sworn in to office. They knew that Reagan wouldn't appease them the way Carter had
magicreagan 3 years ago
No it was because Reagan made a deal with the Islamic regime before. Look into it and Iran contra. The US overthrew a popular government and helped to install a dictatorship that held Iran hostage for decades with torture, corporate welfare, and political repressions. The CIA supported the Islamists before the Soviets invaded.
overmind25 3 years ago
The US government armed Shah Reza with millions of dollars worth of weapons and taught his secret police Nazi torture techniques. I would agree that innocent Americans shouldn't be taken hostage who had no part in the crime but many of those in the embassy helped the terrorist Shah.
overmind25 3 years ago
Holy shit man you are living in the Land of OZ....I have some advice for you. Think for yourself. Use some common sense. Don't let the hatred of your country blind you from reality.... So that's what the looney collage professors are teaching you these days.....Think for yourself. Otherwise, say "hi" to Dorothy and Toto for me.
magicreagan 3 years ago
I am not giving a slogan like you are about college professors and "hatred for your country". I have learned this history outside of college which doesn't do a very great job in my opinion. You can choose to ignore the crimes of the US while attacking others for reacting but I will not. I do not endorse the killing of Americans, especially those who had nothing to do with the crimes of the US state. I will link you to history channel videos or websites if you need them.
overmind25 3 years ago
You don't have to send me any links. I've studied history and I'm smart enough to know that there are people who will spin history any way they can to make America look like the bad guy. If it fits your ideology, you'll take it in hook, line, and sinker. I'm sorry if you felt what I said was an attack. My intention wasn't to attack you. I enjoy the debate but once common sense has been dismissed I no longer have any desire to continue....
magicreagan 3 years ago
You are just giving out talking points. Of course history can be spinned. These however are historical facts (the coup of 53, the support of the Shah's terrorism, Iran Contra).
overmind25 3 years ago
You call the Shah a dictator and a terrorist, as if not every leader in Iran hasn't fit that bill in the last 60 years. When the Shah led Iran, he was a strong ally of America. But our liberal press and politicians thought he was too undemocratic, so they helped to drive him from power. As he was falling, America gave him little or no support.
Then, in 1979, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini overthrew the shah. Khomeini established Iran as the worlds number-one state sponsor of terrorism.
magicreagan 3 years ago
Yes I said that Iran got another deadly regime (even more deadly) after the Shah. You have you understand why though and it goes back to the coup in 53 where we overthrew a more democratic leader to control the oil and make a client state out of Iran.
overmind25 3 years ago
Talk about following talking points. Every time we're involved in the Middle East liberals like to say it's "all about the oil." Bullshit. There's no doubt that's part of it, but unless you liberal loons want to pay $10 a gallon for gas you better start accepting off shore drilling as well as drilling in Alaska. Liberals seem to bitch the most when gas prices go up but they aren't willing to do anything about it.
magicreagan 3 years ago
What are you saying you liberals? Unless you mean liberal in the classic sense (and even more extreme) than I am not a liberal. I do not oppose drilling as long as it does not endager people and other creatures around it.
overmind25 3 years ago
*Why are you stating
overmind25 3 years ago
After Khomeini died, Hashemi Rafsanjani became president and intensified Irans international network of terrorism. It was only then that some observers began to see what a terrible mistake liberals had made in assisting the shahs downfall.
The goal of the coup 53 was to install a pro-western, less secular leader in Iran to prevent Iran Gov't from being taken over by the Soviet Union.
magicreagan 3 years ago
Despite many investigations, Reagan was never found of any wrong doing in Iran Contra. Reagan wanted to help the Contras, where were fighting the communists in Central America. The Democratic congress cut of funding to them, so Reagan told his advisors to do everything they could to help the Contras, and free the hostages, within the law. Reagan never approved the sale of weapon's to Iran.
magicreagan 3 years ago
That is because they shreded the tapes as Oliver North admitted. The contras were terrorits that attacked schools and houses. His adminstration made negotations with Iran which is why they were released when he took office after Carter's failed recuse missions.
overmind25 3 years ago
If what North did was such a crime, why isn't he in prison? Tell me, what law did he break? If you want to talk about shredding documents, let's talk about the Clinton's....What proof do you have that Reagan cut a deal with Iran to release the hostages? If you know of such a deal, what was the deal? Was it that we wouldn't bomb the living shit out of them as long as they released the hostages? If so, that's a good deal...
magicreagan 3 years ago
We don't have to discuss the Clintons. I despise Bill Clinton and the crimes he commited. The evidence was shredded about Reagan and North crimes. As for the deal of Reagan and the Islamic theocracy google Reagan arms for hostage deal
overmind25 3 years ago
you can talk all you want the reality is that he gave weapons and money to the talibans
Laddre 3 years ago
Reagan was just a child that got ahold of the state credit card.
overmind25 3 years ago
Nice job, totally not ham-fisted, though you paid attention to the facts.
LawrenceTheGreat 3 years ago
Ronald Reagan was a CREDIT CARD.
RonPaulGeorgeRingo 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Liberal lies
timgotta 3 years ago
i luf this vid
sometimes I think im bisexual!! rawr.... mmm girls.. E8
GowKiller71 3 years ago
if I still hold to the truth, you would hunt me down, arrest me, torture me, then execute me for staying with the truth without a word out to the media, because YOU and YOUR little pals control
or outright own everything.
i am a heretic, and i'm PROUD OF IT!
blizzard493 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CHUCK NORRIS FOR PRESIDENT.
Warchief1521 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
it's LOWERED taxes, first and foremost.
he never granted amnesty to illegal immigrants. at all.
Reagen actually DECREASED debt and stuck with supply-side economics.
however, you did state one true fact: Reagen did withdraw from lebanon because he knew enough that it would be his downfall.
other than that, you are a heretic, who does not know the history of YOUR own country.
blizzard493 3 years ago
You know, had you not said DECREASED debt, I might have fell for that low-class neo-con bullshit you just spouted
SUpersaiyajinjerkbag 3 years ago 2
In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. In 1984, a tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. In 1985, The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. In 1986, the Tax Reform Act raised the net tax for at least 2 years.
Reagan left a deficit bigger than Carter did, and said himself that he was not concerned about deficits.
Reagan gave America good advice, but didn't follow through with it himself.
StubbornCanary 3 years ago
ALL 'prezidentes' are tools and NONE are for the people... the ones that did, died.
klonedklein 3 years ago
The Reagan fairytale debunked:
Any prosperity attained during the 1980's was achieved by loading up the national debt.
Reagan quadrupled our national debt from 700 Billion to 3 Trillion!
There's nothing conservative,
anti-socialist or small government about that, our government became enormous under Reagan. Our children and grandchildren will be forced to pay REAGAN's DEBT their entire lives.
The Reagan fairytale is slowly evaporating and Reagan's final legacy is:
BORROW AND SPEND!
RealBubba1 3 years ago
I ususally like your stuff but, this one was a bit weak. Let's talk about McCain and his amnesty policy that seems to have hidden for the time being. McCain was butchered by every major conservative media man and woman. That is until he won the nomination. Since then Hannity and the rest of them have 100% pro McCain.
seekanduwillfind 3 years ago
.
Ronny Raygun = The Original Maverick
.
maxx1000 3 years ago
Oh you mean that cold war he helped to end? Yeah boy that little joke had the country tre