Added: 5 years ago
From: ArchNME
Views: 13,995
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (181)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Comment removed

  • Before Reagan, the greatest lender nation. - ... supply-side economic policy, shift TAX burden to lower wage earners ... 'flatter tax'- Reduced highest tax margin [over 3 M$], from 70 to 28%. Increased the size of Govt. Ignored the Carter Energy policy [Independence. by 2010]. 3 Oil wars = borrowing/bankrupting the country ! - Since the 1980s, the wealthiest have increased their incomes 600+%. 80% of the wealth has gone to the top 10% - Now, the greatest historic debtor nation.
  • @Trickle4321 true but his foreign policy was good

  • ... a foundation of cowardice: fear of people with colors, religions, cultures and sex lives that differ from your own; fear of reform in banking, health care, energy; fantasy fears of America being transformed into an Islamic nation, into social/commun/fasc-ism, into a disarmed populace put in internment camps; and more. ... “An open letter to conservatives” tpmcafe talkingpointsmemo

  • Jimmy Carter 10.5 M. 2.6 M per/yr _ [4 yrs.]

    Ronald Reagan, 16.1 M, 2 M per/yr _

    George H.W. Bush, 2.5 M, 625K per/yr _ [4 yrs.]

    Bill Clinton 23.1 million, 2,9 M per/yr _

    George W. Bush 3.0 million, 375 K per/yr _

    ... JOBS

    Rupert Murdock's - WSJ

    Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record

    blogs.wsj [DOT] com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-­on-jobs-the-worst-track-record­-on-record/

  • The corporate/family elitists - HIRED AN ACTOR to look you in the eye and

    ...

    Establish extreme tax preference for a few, perpetuate bankruptcy, illegal war/s directly against Congress, illegal arms deals [WMD’s], Negotiate WTO and NAFTA,...

    with a straight face - divisive, arrogant and a perverse fear-based pseudo-patriotism !

    -

    That has lead to a corporate/govt. Oligarchy - benefiting 10% at the expense of 90 % of the citizens ! With overwhelming electoral support ???

    Cont

  • Comment removed

  • ~

    His ‘-false mantras’- are still being used against the majority- to the advantage of the same elite ... ‘-little or no taxes’- and ‘-taxpayer subsidies’- to the wealthiest businesses and families in the world.

    -

    Cut education, unemployment, collective bargaining, etc. ... but continue giving taxpayer money [1/4 T$ /yr.] to the people - WHO HIRED THE ACTOR ...

    Cont

  • ~

    Nobody seems amazed by the -‘NEED-‘ to lie, exaggerate and -‘make shit up’- MSU !

    -

    .... To cover for repeating the same -‘robber baron’- policies, that contributed to the 1st Repub. Depression .... and getting the same results !

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • - Reagan and the Bushs - set U.S. up for the -'2nd Repub. Depression'–

    Corporate/Family Elitists tax preferences...

    and deregulation of industries and Wall St. ...

    - by the -'same identical policies'- that caused the 1st Repub. Depression ! -

    ..

    Who-da thunk it !

    cont

  • ...

    ... Resulting in 80 % of all wealth -‘tricking upward’- to the top 10 % _

    90 % - approaching 3rd world status ...

    -

    Reaganomics - "Largest peacetime tax INCREASE in US History" - TEFRA 1982

    -

    Reagan _2M jobs/yr, Bush I _600K p/y,

    ‘even Carter created’ _ 2.6 M p/y

    Clinton _2.9M p/y

  • Wow. You've got a sick sociopath visiting here on a regular basis. It's scary. Good luck.

  • The Reagan Doctrine: Defender of Wall St., increasing American debt, arming tribal warlords in Africa, arming fascist druglords in C. America, ignoring the AIDS epidemic while Americans died (would have made Stalin proud), increasing DOD budget, decreasing middle class share of American wealth, shutting down Carter energy independence policies, union busting, cutting school lunch programs, closing employment centers in cities, closing of psychiatric centers & dumping patients in the streets.....

  • Worst president ever! Turned a free country into a police state! The US now has more of its citizens per capita rotting in prisons than any nation in history! Meanwhile, the reason stated for those policies, to keep your children away from drugs has been an utter FAILURE!!!

  • Ronald Reagan's paranoid anti-commie fantasies resulted in the deaths of several hudred-thousand Central Americans, many of whom were children and women and included American nuns and Catholic clerics.

    ___

    Thanks, Ron, for murdering us. We enjoyed it. After all, free markets are what it's all about, right? Even if those "free markets" are really just another form of slavery for illiterate peasants.

    signed,

    The Ghosts of El Salvador and Guatemala

  • the Reagan '''doctrine''' was::: Destruction -turmoil- hypocrisy-double standard-dead-massacre-terror and lies..........................­......!

  • phoenixbornagain -‘...20 million new jobs...’-

    -

    You sycophants [lying PSYCHO shill/s ....] always falsely claim that ...

    ... and YOU gave a half-assed link that DISPROVES it !

    -

    Hannity exaggerated Reagan's record on jobs, federal revenue

    Mediamatters [dot] org/research/200801280001

    -

    Ironically all the false claims you [sickos] make – WERE ACCOMPLISHED,

    BUT by Bill Clinton !!!!! not Saint Reagan !

  • Comment removed

  • @phoenixbornagain I've told you before that this video is not you're personal blog. Make a comment relevant to the video or GTFO!!!

    You have been making nonsensical comments on this video every month or so for three fucking years!!!! Move on with your life already!!!

  • Adrastos64 -'I guess your entitled to make up your own facts. Enjoy them over there in fantasy land.'-'

    -

    COWER AWAY ... with an ad hominem !!!!

  • candiceevans -‘ Obama has beat 3 trilion...’-

    -

    Homie got talkin’ points... w/ lies and cowering from the main issue !

    -

    Reagan - Doctrine/policies started the vicious, irresponsible spending/DEBT !

    US debt over the past 30+ years was created overwhelmingly by 3 Repub.

    Pres. – thru wars, HUGE corporate subsidies and preferential treatment of corp. and wealthiest family elitists. 80 % of all wealth has gone to them in 30 years !

    Reaganomics - success for 10 % ... failure for 90 % !

    Cont

  • ...

    De-taxed, de-regulated, subsidizing the exportation of U*S jobs/whole industries. Decimated 90 % of the citizens ! Reducing wages on labor, but have increased theirs incomes 600 fold.

    -

    Causing ½ T$ per year interest . ... Since his election WE HAVE BEEN obligated to pay over 1 T$ + [ALONE] in interest on 3 Repub. Pres’s. DEBT [transfer of wealth to the rich] !

    CONT

  • candiceevans ‘-Obama gave trillions to the banks’-‘

    -

    B.S. - Nobody gave ..... trillions to the banks’ ....

    -

    TARP .... [Troubled Asset Relief Program] & EESA [Emergency Economic Stabilization Act] Pub. Law 110-343 .... –‘initiated and signed by Baby Bush - October 3, 2008

    – backed by 60% of the Repbs in the Senate’-

    Mostly purchased assets and equity from financial institutions ....

    cont

  • ...

    But some contributing to the debt – that you erroneously hang on Obama’s – 1st first fiscal year/budget [Bush’s] spanned Oct. 2008-Oct. 2009.

    -

    Reganomics a success for 10 % ... failure for 90 % !

    But he could sure deliver a great speech – 'while robbing YOU'- !

    ...

  • phoenixbornagain -'Saul alinsky's rules for radicals '-

    -

    propaganda

    Newt Gingrich used these techniques

    .propagandacritic com/articles/examples.newt.htm­l

    -

    GOOGLE : propaganda Gingrich's glittering generalities

  • Comment removed

  • @phoenixbornagain So are you disputing the accuracy of the statistics I presented? Or just trying to distract from that discussion now that the facts don't seem to be in line with your beliefs?

  • @phoenixbornagain First of all you are comparing 8 years to 2. Secondly we were well into a recession at the time Obama's presidency began. Third the national unemployment rate was 10.8% in December of 1982 worse than it has ever been under Obama. Reagan's reckless spending increased the national debt by 1.7 trillion dollars (of course that seems like nothing next to GWB who spent 4.4 trillion).

    Also, about 23 Million new jobs were created during the Clinton presidency.

  • @phoenixbornagain Maybe you should go look at some actual historical statistics so you have some point of reference rather than just cutting and pasting cherry picked propaganda from conservative websites.

  • @phoenixbornagain How is this at all related to the contents of this video? This is not your personal blog.

  • @phoenixbornagain Hey newflash "bro", you are completely insane.

  • go and fuck your mom afghan s going to fuck u 2 like russians

  • Afgans would never win the war agaist Russians, without American arms, and american help.

    Be hounest.

  • You must be confused I guess you were thinking about your mom

  • Oh, and just for the record, the missiles sold by Ronald Reagan to the Iranian terrorists in exchange for hostages were TOW anti-tank missiles and Hawk anti-aircraft batteries. Reagan then used the proceeds to fund right wing death squads in Nicaragua who raped and murdered nuns and priests. You've heard of the Iran Contra affair, right?

  • Uh, actually, a 2004 Senate report concluded that the Reagan administration sold Saddam Hussein a "witches brew" of biological agents that included botulism and anthrax. You know very well that they also furnished Iraq with the ingredients for making mustard gas.

    And please spare us the Reagan hagiographies. Reagan had very little to do with the demise of the USSR.

  • The Reagan Doctrine: Trade arms for hostages. Sell missiles to the Iranian ayatollahs who support terrorism and use the proceeds to fund right wing death squads in Nicaragua. Sell chemical and biological weapons to Saddam Hussein Protect polluters. Tax working people to pay for tax cuts for oil companies and trust fund babies. Now THAT'S the Reagan Doctrine.

  • yeah they trickle downed piss on our hands. Reagan was considered a war criminal for some people but on a president standard he was probably alright.

  • The war in Afghanistan was provoked by an American insurgency that started under Carter. The Americans wanted to topple the democratically elected socialist government and install a pro-American government. The soviets wouldn't tolerate an American puppet state along the Caucasus, anymore than the Americans would tolerate a Marxist state in Canada.

  • Oh, you mean something like Cuba, right? idiot.

  • Sure, but why so snarky? Don't you remember the Bay of Pigs?

  • BURN IN HELL, FASCIST BASTARD!!

  • And it worked didn't it? The Soviet Union fell, communism kaput. It was Reagan's successors that failed to win the peace in Afghanistan and Al-Queda wasn't one of the groups backed by the U.S.

  • "Al-Queda wasn't one of the groups backed by the U.S. "

    Yes it was stupid, that's the whole point.

  • Bin Laden fought under the united Mujahedeen during this war. After the Soviets evacuated, Bin Laden left and let the Islamic drug lords fight over the country. Al-Qaeda was formed sometime in the early nineties to combat American Imperialism. They even used a CIA manual to make the bombs they put in the WTC in 93. Blowback's a bitch.

  • Well said.

  • How do you measure yourself against other golfers?

  • By who can put the ball in the hole in the least number of strokes. Are you high?

  • Actually my qustion was a quote from Caddyshack, (1980) the same year Reagan was elected. If you were a thinking person during that year, you would surely have the knowledge to understand both of my previous comments.

  • I was born in 1980 and I've never seen caddy shack. I hope your implication isn't that my not having been there makes me unable to intelligently comment on a subject. I doubt you knew Reagan personally during those years and all the information you had access to then and more is available today. Do you thinks it's acceptable for someone of your age to comment on Eisenhower or Kennedy? I'm sure there are people younger than yourself who know a lot more about many things in history than you.

  • Yes, there is a difference between living it and reading it. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with reading, it is just different.

    The reason so many in my generation love Reagan is that we lived through the

    Carter years. I don't have the ability to put into words the difference in the feeling people had about their country and their lives, when Reagan was Pres. as opposed to Jimmy. All I can say is, "you just had to be there."

    PS.... Watch Caddyshack!

  • Best President of the 20th century. He should be on Mt. Rushmore!

  • Best? By what measure? Did you even watch the video?

  • Absolutely!!!

  • Trickle-down....fuck yeah!?

    lol...

  • The Reagan doctrine - Funnel all wealth upwards as a welfare system for the rich.

    Bleed the middle class and increase the suffering of the poor by running up a debt and slashing social programs.

    Bomb, shoot and use terrorism against those who do not make themselves subserviant to US corporations as he did in central America and the middle east.

    The Reagan doctrine summarized is be evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, and then be a little more evil just to make sure your evil.

  • Go back to Nazi Germany asshole!

  • redriderrulz - Was that supposed to make sense? Clearly from what I mentioned someone who would have been at home in Nazi Germany would have been ol Ronny.

    From his centralizing power, operating under greater secrecy, rewarding the narrow wealthy sector, and use of terror overseas, he would have been welcome with open arms by Adolph.

  • Funnel wealth upwards? Carter was shotgunning wealth into oblivion with your beloved social programs before Reagan came along.

    And centralizing power? To Reagan government was the problem not the solution. He did more to disperse power than anyone since. Much more than a "narrow wealthy sector" benefitted under "ol' Ronny." Look at the numbers, Douche.

    And please tell me you're not really in the Navy.

  • johnds - Carter & Reagan both suck. At least Carter didnt wage a full out class war against the middle class & poor. Slashing social programs has done nothing positive. Reagan running up a massive debt and and promoting outsourcing jobs and industries shotgunned "wealth to oblivion."

    Yes Reagan centralized power, much that was open before were closed and he ran secret unconstitutional operations ie. Iran-Contra. He made sure gov. was the problem.

    Navy vet pal and proud of it

  • blah blah blah heil republicans

    You people are a disgrace to this country. I mean that

  • You have no idea what you are saying. Ronald Reagan was as close as you get to what our founders looked for in a President. I believe He will be looked at with the greats like Washington, Jefferson and so on.....Our founders believed in We The People Not We the government. Read some of the founding fathers and you will see how close Reagan was to them.

  • The pompous piece of shit in the White House now is a disgrace. We need another Reagan.......SOON.

  • yup

  • As time marches on, fewer and fewer folq have even heard of Reagan, whose admin. sponsored so-called "freedom fighters" or anti-Red

    govts in all of Central America except the

    always neutral Costa Rica. Ronnie enjoyed

    these conflicts more than anything else he

    ever did. 300,000+ were killed in these

    wars. Oh, that Ronnie.

  • What he doesn't realise is that these "freedom fighters" are also Islamists.

    They fight for the freedom of the Islamic World against the Soviet, Atheist, Infidel Invaders etc.

    We can only thank Ronald Reagan for being a cause of 9/11.

  • WOW!! that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard! Even people who hated Reagan wouldn't say something so ignorant. They fight for the freedom of their country, and they have a right to THEIR country! Everyone has a right to be free as long as they don't bother anyone.

  • And they did bother many.

  • True, and they got and are getting paid back for it! BTW don't believe that EVERYONE in that country is an Islamist nut case. We have many friends there who fought the Soviets, and are helping us to rid their country of terrorists.

  • But in essence, Bin Laden did turn on his master.

  • True, you will get no argument from me about that, and the ENTIRE Bin Laden family is suspect in that. They just might be the pawns of the new world order elite to fight this war while stealing our rights.

  • The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

  • Yes Hillary Lost BIG in S.C! LOL!!!!!!!!

  • While new technologies can serve as great venues for public discourse, the issues of indecency, pornography, and hate speech raise significant concerns. In dealing with these problems, the First Amendment must be squarely addressed, since content regulation has traditionally been treated by courts as a First Amendment issue.

  • While the First Amendment guarantees a freedom of speech, no right is absolute if it infringes on other rights guaranteed under the Constitution. It has been suggested that hate speech is inconsistent with the principle of equality established by the Fourteenth Amendment. If the Fourteenth Amendment is to embody an antidiscrimination principle, then anything that supports and further perpetuates racial inequality should be regulated.

  • In Reno v. ACLU, the Court held that "the interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship. This approach has its detractors, however; former Vice President Al Gore, among others, has contended that the existing judicial and regulatory structures are no longer appropriate in the context of the hate speech issue.

  • Furthermore, the Internet has served as an important recruitment tool for these individuals and groups.

    The dangers regarding hate speech through the use of the Internet are evident. There is a fine line between the exchange of values and ideas and the perpetuation of hate in the form of degradation and violence. Despite this fine distinction, the Supreme Court has continued to protect online hate speech based on rights guaranteed under the First Amendment.

  • With the increasingly widespread use of the Internet, however, individuals and hate groups are able to promote hateful conduct and speech inexpensively and easily while simultaneously reinforcing each other's hateful convictions. The Internet also allows for the opportunity not only to post messages, but also to engage in conversation through chat rooms.

  • The features that make the Internet so unique have increasingly been manipulated to benefit the needs of those who spread hate-filled propaganda. Persons who display various kinds of hate are able to relay these feelings to others on newsgroups. Prior to the Internet, hate groups spread their propaganda through written materials, in a concerted effort to connect with others who shared the same beliefs.

  • The Internet has been and will continue to be a medium that allows individuals to interact, research, and conduct business with ease and speed. The vast majority of Americans do not need regulations to provide standards of appropriate or inappropriate behavior in cyberspace. There remains a small percentage of individuals, however, who need some type of regulation to prevent them from infringing upon other rights that individuals hold so dear.

  • Not true, you Big Government Censor.

  • It is so true. Just read somoe of the filth hate speech used on these sites. It is like leaving loaded guns where babys can get them

  • It will then examine how this structure limits the government's ability to regulate hate speech on the Internet. This section will also explore other legal means that are being used to regulate hate speech. Finally, it will conclude by taking a look at alternative techniques that are being used to protect individuals from hate speech. Examining the Problem: The Need for Additional Regulation of Hateful Cyberspeech

  • Secondly, hate-filled speech may go beyond simply altering an individual's thoughts and may in fact lead to crimes of death and destruction arising from the exposure to such ideas. This Comment will attempt to illustrate the need for increased regulation of hate speech on the Internet by examining three facets of this debate. It will first examine existing First Amendment precedent dealing with freedom of expression issues generally.

  • The danger of free speech in cyberspace crossing over to become language that perpetuates hatred and provokes violence is a very real threat. This threat manifests itself in two primary forms. First, young Internet users who may be easily influenced are exposed to hate-filled ideals and values, often without any regulation or guidance.

  • if people on the net were forced to conduct them selves as they would ahve to in person there simply would be 98% less directly agressive and hateful speech that really does not lead to any debate or change of personal belief based on a two sided talk. can you see any good from these comments?

  • now morn then ever I believe the following legal message "While the First Amendment guarantees a freedom of speech, no right is absolute if it infringes on other rights guaranteed under the Constitution. It has been suggested that hate speech is inconsistent with the principle of equality established by the Fourteenth Amendment. If the Fourteenth Amendment is to embody an antidiscrimination principle, then anything that supports and further perpetuates racial inequality should be regulated."

  • This was in responce not to the free speech vs hate speech message i have been asking people to consider but to a request to stop posting messages of "mother f****ers this and C**k sucking that.

  • One question ArchNME, why should I or you or anyone be subjected to this following type of post "HEADRAMMER phoenixhammeroftruth go fuck yourself! The FCC is ruled by shit eating conservative christian fascists like you. We liberals are going to take back this country and you Christian Nazis are going back into the shadows where you fucking belong.'

  • The danger of free speech in cyberspace crossing over to become language that perpetuates hatred and provokes violence is a very real threat. This threat manifests itself in two primary forms. First, young Internet users who may be easily influenced are exposed to hate-filled ideals and values, often without any regulation or guidance.

  • People like you are a very real threat to this nation. Please get the fuck out of my country. You want to go live in a totalitarian dictatorship go somewhere else.

  • I urge everyone seeing someone posting hate speech to Google department of homeland security and list who stated the hate speech along with which video it was posted. There is an anti-american boiler room operation which can been seen if you researched enough of the Reagan posting pages. Free speech is protected, hate speech is a crime that needs to be reported.

  • As the national security of the United States has become increasingly important in recent months, the debate regarding the censorship of hate speech has again arisen. While many individuals remain wary of infringing upon First Amendment rights through the regulation of hate speech in cyberspace, some suggest that the expansive and pervasive nature of the Internet calls for such regulation.

  • about since you dont believe the way I do your from "nantucket with an idea so wrong you could S*** **" that would be a great day. And its coming, people are pressing for it

  • If these sites were platforms for free exchange of ideas and people could really debate "I dont like this law or rhat tax because..." and it be followed up with something because bathroom stall filth..

  • Americans have been forced to question whether hate-filled online rhetoric is simply the harmless exercise of free speech or is a preventable catalyst of illegal conduct. The death and destruction caused by terrorists who listened to and adopted anti-American views are reminders that speech can often spur dangerous actions in response.

  • You are just itching to throw away your rights and live in a police state aren't you?

  • No. But I am ready for the same laws that protect us from hatespeech being acted out on people in public places to carry over to cyber space. I also am ready to see safe heavens for hateful people with no courage to be able to lauch their pulpits

  • wanted to say to see their pulpits taken away

  • I am seeking a lawyer surfing Youtube who is willing to help bring a law suit against them. The basis for this is cyberspace versus real space personal conduct. If you are in a restaurant or sporting auditorium that facility is responsible for controlling conduct while in operation. Youtube does not conduct this practice but instead performs what it feels is a proprietary umbrella of ownership instead of the laws set forth under the FCC

  • 12 And I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me, and, having turned, I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the lampstands someone like a son of man, clothed with a garment that reached down to the feet, and girded at the breasts with a golden girdle. 14 Moreover, his head and his hair were white as white wool, as snow, and his eyes as a fiery flame; 15 and his feet were like fine copper when glowing in a furnace; and his voice was as the sound of many waters.

  • 10 By inspiration I came to be in the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a strong voice like that of a trumpet, 11 saying: "What you see write in a scroll and send it to the seven congregations, in Eph´e•sus and in Smyr´na and in Per´ga•mum and in Thy•a•ti´ra and in Sar´dis and in Philadelphia and in La•o•di•ce´a."

  • 8 "I am the Al´pha and the O•me´ga," says Jehovah God, "the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty."9 I John, YOUR brother and a sharer with YOU in the tribulation and kingdom and endurance in company with Jesus, came to be in the isle that is called Pat´mos for speaking about God and bearing witness to Jesus.

  • 7 Look! He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, and those who pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief because of him. Yes, Amen.

    8 "I am the Al´pha and the O·me´ga," says Jehovah God, "the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty."

  • To him that loves us and that loosed us from our sins by means of his own blood— 6 and he made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father—yes, to him be the glory and the might forever. Amen

  • 4 John to the seven congregations that are in the [district of] Asia:

    May YOU have undeserved kindness and peace from "The One who is and who was and who is coming," and from the seven spirits that are before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, "the Faithful Witness," "The firstborn from the dead," and "The Ruler of the kings of the earth."

  • 1 A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angel and presented [it] in signs through him to his slave John, 2 who bore witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus Christ gave, even to all the things he saw. 3 Happy is he who reads aloud and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and who observe the things written in it; for the appointed time is near.

  • LOL poor america... LOL come on lets stay rational shall we

  • I was addressing your notions of isolationism. I wasn't addressing Mexico or their domestic policies. I wasn't referring to Canada either... You really have trouble conversing, or at least comprehending. High Fences refer to your isolationism. You have to be involved in the World to protect yourself. You can't do that behind the wall of isolationism.

  • "...So you are saying it is okay that Mexicos policies are..." Huh? Where did you read that? When did I say that? Why don't you try and focus on a single subject?

  • Isolationism is archaic and stealth is for your video games. I AM a former soldier. After having traveled around the world, I've realized one incontrovertible truth: Successful relationships aren't based in commonality, but rather tolerance for the differences. That being said, you can't find tolerance in high fences...nor can you find security. To be a good neighbor, you must be a neighbor.

  • First, when did this thread become a discussion of Iraq? Secondly, Bush Sr isn't the CEO of Iraqi oil. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I'll bet you're the type to watch your neighbor beating his wife in their front yard, shrug your shoulders then go back to weaving your hemp baskets.

  • Let's see...What you're trying to equivocate here is Reagan making a stand for the population of Afghanistan against communism = BAD. Bush liberating the people of Afghanistan from the oppression represented by the Taliban = BAD. So doing anything to lift up the oppressed whether it's communism or Sharia Islamo-fascism is a bad thing... What kind of sick asshole are you?