This is pathetic! Reagan was thirteen years older than Carter, but he had more charisma than Carter did! Carter actually looked like the older man of the two. I almost feel sorry for the man. Carter was and is a good man. He was just a crappy President.
@springjo1 and reagan was a war criminal. He killed priests in El Salvador. He even asked the Iranians NOT to release the American hostages until he came to power. He sold weapons illegally and supported an illegal war in Nicaragua. He even traffic drugs through the CIA in order to support the illegal attacks on Nicaragua.
@niev0000 carter tried so hard to get the hostages out with words, reagon said you get those hostages the fuck out of there or we will bomb the fucking shit out of you. thats how you get things done, not be a pussy like obama and carter. obama is worst pres. while carter is slightly better at 2nd. reagon was one of the best
@nerad1994@nerad1994 Reagan a coward schizophrenic president. He invaded the great and powerful nation of Granada and ran as a coward in Lebanon. He even sold drugs to Americans in order to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua, a country with 2 elevators. Reagan asked the Iranians NOT to release the hostages and in return he will give them weapons. Reagan was a war criminal, He killed more people than Osama> Reagan left the country for the 1st time since WW2 as a debtor nation.
@nerad1994 Reagan was condemned by the world court for international terrorism. He traffic drugs to fund an illegal war. he supported saddam Hussein and South Africa's apartheid. Who can beat that?
With the American economy suffering so much, why would you suggest the government take more money out fo the private sector and put it into it's own bank account to which no one, not even the government, is accountable for. The Federal Reserve is it's own bank at which both Liberals and Conservatives should unite and fight against.
@Kiravak Good point , just like S510 , it got support on both sides , but it is the worst bill since the patriot act . Both sides are playing us like suckers . We only have a few true Americans left in politics like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich . Both tell the truth even when they are told not to and both stand up against the military industrial complex and the Federal Reserve . That is why they get almost no airtime on Fox or CNN .
I agree with you Piglatin that people can't expect extremely low taxes and yet expect government services provided to them. However, people should not expect the government to tax us to death to implement policies only those elites deem needed for the nation. We as a people fought against unjust taxation, and we as a nation have a right to fight against those who would tax us for the purpose of providing for those who will simply use the benefits to vote agaisnt the interests of the USA.
who says we're bing taxed to death? My taxes are lower now with Obama in office. Obama has not raised taxes and will only raise them on the top earners or whatevery you want to call them. These people dont even contribute to the economy or at least an insignificant degree.
@Piglatinsuperstar government jobs seems like an oxymoron. Yes our government does need to create jobs to perform tasks, but some of the jobs we create are not necessary and only suit the purpose of those in power to say we created "jobs".
@Piglatinsuperstar Pig, yes, your taxes are not as high as they have been in the past. But does that say that we do not prosper as a nation because our taxes are not as high? It only shows that we have survived becaused Bush's tax policies have let business survive this economic crisis and continue to thrive.
but you can't keep lowering taxes. You have to get revenue to make the government function. Citizens cannot expect a government to perform so many functions and expect extremely low taxes. Thus we are at a crossroad of do we have a government that taxes a lot and provides a lot or a government that taxes less, provides less and relies on us to provide for ourselves as free American citizens.
Just because we got tax cuts under the bush administration doesn't mean we are immune to economic downfalls caused be corporate greed or government policies. However, I believe that we are not living through the depression our grandparents went through simply because the lower taxes have helped keep us afloat through this crisis. Japan tried to jumpstart its economy through many stimuluses in the 90s, that was known as the lost decade. it doesn't work.
but I dont see how y anyone can prove that tax cuts for the rich stimulate demand.
If we were to cut taxes tommorow, how would that help bring in customers? Especially with fewer people working. If it means making more govt jobs thats fine what obama did. people working in government jobs got to pay taxes too
im sick of these lying republicans "vibrant economy"
how can you have a vibrant economy when you have a presdient trying to break apart unions???
you cant have a vibrant economy when you are trying to depress wages. thats what Reagan did. the only thing reagan knew how to do was act and give speeches. "Gorbachev, tear down this wall!". that's all he was known for.
Reagan didnt know anything about balancing budgets. they dont even teach supply side economics in College OR high school
I'm telling you, republicans dont know how to do anything but give speeches. then their supporters think they're doing their jobs. republicans dont know anything about balancing a budget. look at Reagan: tried and failed
Look at Bush Sr: tried and failed
look at Bush Jr: took a multi billion dollar surplus and took the country right back to more deficits. thats why i dont understand why the republican party is known as the conservative party. they are anything but conservative spenders
I assume you want us to become more like some of the European countries who took the whole socialist root where people are taxed to the hilt but have a high amount of government benefits. That did not make Europe the economic superpower that the USA became. Economic freedom inspires ingenuity and growth of business. Even JFK acknowledge that lower taxes were a greater good to the country (and thus the poor). What is good for the country is good for everyone.
more bs coming from the republican. "Economic freedom inspires ingenuity and growth of business"
so point to all the jobs being! The bush tax cuts havent expired yet so where are they? How has our ingenuity translated into jobs for the middle class? Your solution is lower taxes and the jobs will come otherwise we will take our business elsewhere. Yet I dont see any now. It doesnt take a top economic advisor to tell me that the Reagan/Bush policies havent and never wil create jobs
@Piglatinsuperstar Bush tax cuts have not expired yet, true. Our economic situation is bad true. But you cannot say that Bush tax cuts = reason our economy is bad. We are not nearly in the depression that we were in the 30s within the high teens to low 20s. Perhaps if the housing crisis happened (which was not related to tax cuts) had happened under higher taxes we would have higher unemployment. Obama's current philosophy is that things would be worse without his bailout, same true with taxes.
i didnt say the tax cuts were the reason for our situation. I said they are not a factor in hiring. Demand is what drives employers to call for more help. Supply side economics is a hoax-period! its not taught at our universities. Even Bush Sr called it voodoo economics. tax breaks for the rich dont create jobs. as for Obama stimulus that was money that went directly into hiring which did stave off higher unemployment; there's no denying that
If you look at inflation, it is only exaggerated if and only if government is living too well. Reagan had it right. When you try to control wealth through taxation, you only end up steering the economy right into the ground, Economics 101.
I sincerely hope no one take what you said seriously. Top down economics is a proven failure. Nor is Reaganomics discussed in any econ book. You've never even READ an econ book! If Reaganomics was so successful then why did the deficit tripple under Reagan? The actor raised my taxes16 times. isnt that raising taxes? Another dumbass republican that dont know what he's talking about
Reagan & rhis union busting = depressing wages on working Americans
@Piglatinsuperstar My dear friend, I will not insult you as a dumbass. I will be above that. Reagan did increase government (Education) and spending (Defense), I acknowledge that. However, you cannot create a vibrant economy by taxing citizens and businesses into oblivion. They will either increase the prices on their products or move elsewhere (overseas). For each new program you enact you have to reap taxes to cover it, thus all government programs should be met with skepticism.
What vibrant economy?? corporate tax rates were much higher in the 1950s & 60s and I can honestly say this country was in much better shape. Where was all this threat about moving elsewhere then? There was none; you just made it up like your typical republican liar using typical fear tactics
Simple minded buffoon
all your president did was create an imbalance and left us with record deficits while raising my taxes. that to me is not only inneffectiveness but INCOMPETENCE.
Another clip from the Andrew Breitbert school of deceptive editing. This video smelled fishy, so I checked it out. Carter's "sacrifice" response was to an entirely different question, one that specifically asked if he considered it an act of leadership to ask the American people to sacrifice.
Bush, by contrast, was asked a similar question, a month after 9/11, & days after our Afghan invasion. His response? That the American people ARE sacrificing - by standing in longer lines at airports.
@ItsChillyBrrr Carter was bitch-slapped in the 1980 presidential election by Reagan. Mondale was pimp smacked in the 1984 presidential election by Reagan, and all for a reason. No amount of nonsensical bullshit you spew is going to change that history. Their liberal ideology is severely flawed.
@fallenanjel A candidate losing an election does not prove they were wrong . On promotion of American values , freedom , civil rights and limiting of government Reagan ranks 35th on the all time list , Carter 8th . Reagan grew the governemt , fabricated th cold war threats , sold arms to our enemies , created the drug cartels in Mexico with his assinine War on Drugs and redregulated the banking industry . Reagan brought recession , war , poverty and monolpolies . What a legacy .
@fallenanjel go and play your stupid video games, stay ignorant! Reagan was condemned by the world court for international terrorism. he supported South Africa's Apartheid. He ate grapes on TV while there was a boycott by farmers fighting for better working conditions. He even said that the Nazi SS was a victim just like the Jews... He lied to the country many times and was an incompetent president that never knew what was going on or just pretended. Change those facts of history.
@ItsChillyBrrr ROFL!! You must (I hope) be a brilliant satirist of left-wing retards because nobody could possibly be that laughably stupid. World respects Obama, truly hilarious. Carter a real man, another gutbuster. Reagan a "hated shit" who racked up 1014 electoral votes in 2 elections, LOL! Mainstream right-wing media, BWAAA-HAHA! Also, I think you meant "Carternazi" to describe Peanut Loser's RABID anti-Semitism. BTW, does a Dem really want to go down the "kid-toucher" road?
Jimmy Carter = Barry Obama, except Barry is much more violent with his wars and destructive in his economic policies. We need a real man like Ronald Reagan to go up against Barry in 2012.
@ItsChillyBrrr Do you pay attention to any news besides the mainstream media? Barry is an atrocity and he would be no matter what color he was. Race has nothing to do with it. I thought we needed a change after the Bush years but Barry turned out to be a big corporatist fraud whose continuing the same Bush policies for the most part. Well except for the tax cuts of course. I just feel bad for black people because the first black President turned out to be one of the worst ever.
@lsl70 Donald Trump is seriously considering running, and from what I read he is leaning towards actually doing it. He refers to Regan a lot and therefore, I feel he will embody the best qualities Regan had as a president and possibly economic policies. I know his image in the media is a shocker, but I feel also his ego and arrogance is what we need after a pussy-ass President like Obama. I fully believe with my heart and soul Trump will rejuvenate America to its former rank of glory!
Sounds like Carter's daughter was a member of his cabinet. Some sort of foriegn policy advisor I suppose. What a moron. How was he elected before MTV taught the idiots to vote? The uninformed masses showed up for Obama as a result of the rally for the loser, loners and minorities to become a part of something. Also, white guilt. How did Carter do it?
If Carter won we wouldn't have high interest morgues ? it's fact look it up or just watch Michael Moore's Capitalism to see what kind of president Reagon really was.....!
lol I love Carter's response. "I think the American people have sacrificed very well". lol basically the typical liberal response. American's sacrificing very well, meaning we're taxing the shit out of the public, to cover our mistakes!
What's most amazing, is that Obama claims Carter is one of his mentors, plus the fact that Carter stood up for him during the health care debate, and Obama, basically told Carter to shut up, stay out of it. lol Are all liberals this ignorant and disconnected from reality, or that "educated" they've never had to actually undergo the experience of living through any of their social experiments?
Nuclear arms reduction. Seems like President Obama has done it successfully, and that too without war. Who is a loser? Regan and his right wing nutjobs
@buckIdesi Please tell us where Obama has reduced nuclear arms. Certainly not North Korea, Iran, Russia, China, Pakistan, or India--like he promised. And he's certainly not anti-war, considering we're still in Iraq, and he boosted our presence in Afghanistan.
@JMShuffield North Korea has not acquire Nukes, nor does Iran you fool. N.Korea is trying to get nuke and Iran claims that their use of nuclear power is for peaceful purpose (that I have no faith in the word he says). But bush had 8 years. Under his admin. 3 more countries acquire nuclear weapon. I must let you know that recently USA and Russia SIGNED the treaty that they are going to reduce the nuke stock pile. These 2 countries controls about 90% of total stock.
@buckIdesi The North Koreans have increased their stockpile (they have had them since 2002, mind you), and the Iranians are on the brink of developing a weapon. Ahmadinejad has stated that Iran has a right. Ergo, Obama's overtures to both countries have done no good. You're full of it.
@JMShuffield I don't know why we are in Iraq. Intelligence agencies do not give me any briefing like they do to Pres. Obama. But what common sense tells me is that I can see why Bush/Cheney went to Iraq for. Which is OIL OIL OIL..but Obama wants to go away from oil. So I don't see an incentive for him to stay in Iraq unless, there is serious threat as Bush/Cheney destroyed that country. It may be easier for extremists to take over if we left. Just a thought.
@JMShuffield Reagan was also the first president to FUND the extremists with our TAX money. Today's terrorism is the gift from that almighty president Reagan.
>Funded Mujhahiddins (Bin Laden was one of them). So you can say that Reagan created Bin Laden.
>Created Massive Deficit in the history of this nation (Regan conservative my ass)
> Over 10% unemployment for 12 straight months in 3rd year of his 1st term.
> Never addressed education
> He was unpopular president for most of his 8 yrs.
@JMShuffield Reagan was a mediocre president just like bush 43. Mark my words. popularity of bush 43 will go up by 2032. As a wartime president. Our historians will twist the history so much that kids in that time would never know how terrible Bush's 2 terms were. Just like Reagan. On the other hand Bush 41 was a far better president. He lost because of his words "read my lips, there will be no tax increase".He had no option but to raise tax because of massive deficit his predecessor left 4 him
@buckIdesi Okay idiot, explain the fact that tax receipts to the government almost doubled under reagan. Explain how the double digit inflation and unemployment of the late 70's was routed in less than 4 years. FDR couldn't even do that with his New Deal, because history proves time and time again that Keynesian economics simply don't work.
Now, Reagan wasn't without faults. Far from it. But from a Leadership standpoint, he and JFK were the greatest 2 Presidents we've had since Lincoln.
@marinejcksn1 : You are an IDIOT. Go get the numbers straight. Reagan was more unpopular than popular through out his 2 terms. His popularity was as low as 33%. That was for a good reason. REAGAN NEVER CREATED JOBS. Unemployment increased when he took the office and stayed over 10% for 3rd and 4th year in his first term. Reagan was a douche bag president. He created MASSIVE deficit. Reagan CONSERVATIVE..MY ASSSS. I do think he was a transformational president. Whether you like him or not.I dont
@buckIdesi Ok so he did have a low level of 33%, but he had an overall avg. of 53%. The relation of national debt and the economy is nothing, what matters is GDP, which under Reagan he had a high GDP. During the Reagan Era GDP grew substantially. Overall the economy expanded by a third, or the equivalent of the entire West German economy. Also his debt increased the first four, then decreased the last half.
Unfortunately...at this point in our history...there will never be another Reagan because our government is full of politicians instead of leaders. Reagan led because he was a man of conviction....not a power monger. God help us all.
@biakaba you post this and you think these things so run! If we have normal people run like you and me (if only i was old enough i would), then we would have this. We need normal people running for office, politics isn't a job, its serving your country then going back to what your job. So i challenge you to run for congress, or start out in your local politics and move up when you feel like you have the experience.
Reagan, The greatest president ever! He did exactly what he said he'd do! Obama? Well, he didn't lie either. He tried to warn us that he was going to be the worst president in the history of this country. HE WAS RIGHT!
Reagan's last sentence on each Superpower reducing arms size so that they "no longer represent at threat to the other" is the most stupid one I've heard from a US politician - to contest with Palin only. You don't need more than one bomb to harm, and a few are enough to totally wipe out a region.
So you call it "bankrupting the nation", I call it restoring the damage done by Carter and his Watergate congress. Reagan spent the Soviets under the table while reformists like Gorbachev uncoupled the Soviet system from within.
The Taliban was one group of many the CIA helped train. If you look what happened in the '90s, you'd know they just happened to gain control of Kabul post-Soviet occupation era.
What would Jimmy Carter or Mondale have done? Boycott the Olympics? Oh wait....
Reagan didn't end the cold war? It wasn't his decision to install IRBMs in western europe, or to fund the B-1B, B-2, a 600 ship navy?
The collapse of the Soviet Union was multifacited. Charlie Wilson, the philanthropist of the CIA's efforts in Afghanistan, played a big part sure. With the red army facing defeat it cost the Soviets dearly...but guess who authorizes ALL CIA covert actions abroad???
The President, who at this time was Ronnie Reagan.
Man, I hate all of these ignorant people saying how greedy these corporate managers are because they have money. They work hard giving services or products to other people, that's their job, just like a medical job is to heal or a legal occupation is to protect with laws. It's nothing more than that, and if you are good at it, then you make more, if you're bad, you make less. There is the exception of the trust-fund child or the person born into debt, but other that that the rules are fair.
Thats democrats for you, always trying to rachet-back your expectations, hoping you'll be happy with less. Liberals want to keep you poor to keep you dependent on fat-nanny gov't.
"We have DEMANDED that the American people sacrafice"
That's a very ignorant thing to say seeing that I've met numerous rich CEOs, one of which being my father, and he would never take a cent from someone out of greed, he has the morals of a saint and yet he's extremely successful and is a wealthy Republican.
Have you ever studied Political Science, and understand at all basic economics? I'm just asking as an biased person. I don't judge/attack. I'm neither, socialist (what you american's call liberal), nor republican (what you americans call conservative). I'm just a student of real political science, so I ask you, where do you base your arguments, based upon a particular field of study in political science and your statistics and facts?
How can America vote in Ronald Reagan and then nobama with in 24 years Reagan was great, nobama is the antichrist 2nd coming of jimmy carter with a tan . hopefully he will awaken a 2nd REAGAN
Reagan rocks! The best President of the 1900's! We need his principles back in our government. How did we move so far away??? Obama is an Obamanation!
He ended the Cold War, defeated the Soviets via covert action in Afghanistan, revived American international economic dominance and restored the confidence and faith in the people of the US in their govt and in their nation.
Liberals only thrive when America is at a low point. Thats how Lord Obama got elected.
He was also the president responsible for Iran/Contra, a massive exodus of jobs, the biggest national deficit in US history, (until Bush) the invasion of Granada, a widening of the wealth gap, and the underfunding of necessary social programs. He also came close to bankrupting our nation in order to "defeat the soviets".
He was really just a tool for corporate interests who happened to also be a terrible person.
Iran/Contra wouldn't have happened if Jimmy Carter had the wherewithall to deal with Iran before it became a revolution.
The deficit gap restored America's military supremacy over the USSR, and it resonates today. Reagan showed the Soviets they couldn't compete with our advanced weaponary. Between trying to keep up, their losing war in Afghanistan and Gorbachev wrecking communism, the Soviets lost.
I know, it's a shame Jimmy Carter didn't commit thousands of troops and money into Iran to defend an incompetent autocrat against a massively popular revolution, all in order to prevent a series events no one could ever have predicted.
You missed the "Contra" part. Reagan funded anti-democratic counter-revolutionaries. He paid for the guns that killed tens of thousands of people. Though given your criticism of Carter's "inaction" and support of the Shah, you're probably not bothered by that.
Ever hear of "covert action"? It gives presidents some degree of options between armed conflict and paper diplomacy. Carter igorned the CIA's writing on the wall as early as 1978 that Iran was brewing for revolution.
Covert action is what brought the Shah to power afterall. :-)
The US supported all kinds of nasty people in order to oppose communism. What, you think we're going to play by Marque of Queensbury rules? The CIA fights by prison yard rules.
So you don't care at all about treating people humanely, as long as the US comes out on top...Then what makes you any better than the soviets?
Carter could not have done anything about the Shah other than to waste US resources preventing the inevitable. Iran is not Grenada.
My idea? Probably let the USSR go down its own progressive road. It didn't need us to buy unnecessary arms in order to democratize itself; Gorbachev was already doing plenty. I'm not into starving Russians over my ego.
So long as they're bad guys, I could care less. Thats what seperates me from people like you. Liberals are "soft on terrorists, tough on fetuses."
Bunch of cowards. People like Reid and Pelosi want to read terrorists their "constitutional" rights before they're taken into custody. Thats insanity. Terrorism is not a criminal issue, its a war issue.
Iran was another France in 1946 or Italy in 1947. Both nearly went commie, CIA turned that around. Jimmuh stuck a thumb up his ass.
The innocent civilians in Nicaragua weren't "bad guys". If anyone, the Contras were the "bad guys".
Yeah, the CIA started their little "containment" experiment, threatened the USSR, and set up the rest of the century with the Cold War and literally millions of unnecessary deaths. It's a shame Carter didn't decide to waste resources to continue that for absolutely no reason.
Iran is not France or Italy. You underestimate the resolve of crazy religious zealots.
The Contras overthrew a dictator, did they not? Shouldn't that make you happy?
"You underestimate the resolve of crazy religious zealots."
HA HA. Iran was not and is not populated by "zealots". Pre-1979, Iran was very very secular. Post-79 it became ruled by a crazy ayatollah who spoke vaugely about change, then seized power. Today Iranian leadership is fanatical yes. But as the riots from last summer demonstrated, the people of Iran are not.
More correctly, the CIA made efforts to "rollback" the Iron Curtain.
I'd like you to ellaborate a little more on your theory that the CIA set up the whole Cold War and is singlehandedly responsible for millions of deaths.
Cut me if I'm wrong, but a book called "The Gulag Archipelago" spells out what the Soviets did to their own people.
Carter should have bolstered Shah support via covert action, or at least supported a democratic replacement for him. That would have been better, no?
The CIA didn't do it themselves, obviously. They were just tools in the policy. The US strategy was outlined by people like G.F. Kennan, and first implemented in places like France and Italy by the CIA. That threatened the USSR, seeding the antagonistic relationship between the two countries for the remainder of the century. The scars are still present.
Let's hear your strategy for how Carter could have created a secular western democracy in 1978 Iran.
The CIA's rescue of France and Italy did not "threaten" the USSR. Thats best bullshit I've heard all day.
Communism is naturally threatened by any type of freedom. So long as a glimmer of another way exists, communism can't ever maintain total control over its subjects.
The animosity between capitalist democracy and command socialism was there long before WW2, sweet cheeks.
Maybe you should take your head out of your ass and look at the big picture.
From what you're suggesting, the US should have "played nice" with the Soviets and allowed them to undermine democracies in France and Italy, rather than "threaten" Moscow with propping up war-ravaged nations the Soviets were trying to subvert?
I mean this with all possible sincerity:
Whose side are you on? You cry I'm branding you a commie sympathizer, yet you keep doing just that.
If I were Jimmy I would have given creedence to CIA indicators that Iran was teeming with dissenters and poised for revolution should something happen to the Shah.
I would have quietly dropped support for the Shah (a divisive figure, to say the least) and utilized the CIA to garner support for a democratic, preferably secular candidate. That way we would maintain an ally against the Soviets and Iran would have advanced as a society.
Instead Carter hand-wrenched and fretted publically throughout the whole affair, evidently too indecisive to make a decision and just let the whole country fall apart.
Then again, Carter has spent most of his post-presidency hugging our nation's enemies. Hamas and North Korea come to mind.
There were many groups in Iran that wanted "change" from the Shah....democratic reformers, commies (favored and supported by USSR), no-kidding feminists, and also shiite extremists.
History shows which one won out, but only because Ayatollah Khomehni hid his true agenda prior to his return from exile. Hope and Change, right?
Did you call the Soviets "progressive"? Oh wow, you aren't even worth talking to anymore.
Nobody is starving Russians (except for Soviet govt). You seem to forget that in the late 1970s, the USSR had reduced America's military supremacy to a razor thin lead, if that. The USSR was in ascendency and democracy was on the run in the world in the late '70s. Reagan's defense policies reversed all of that.
You morn the USSR's death? Communism killed 100 mil in the 20th century.
No, I called Gorbachev's policies progressive in comparison to his predecessors. But you can go on reading what you want, I suppose.
I would say forcing the Soviets to spend all of their capital on arms instead of agriculture is, indeed, starving innocent people. But those are the "bad guys", aren't they?
I don't mourn the death of the USSR. I know I told you can read what you want to read, but it's hard to discuss something with someone who makes up your positions for you.
Gorbachev was reforming communism to make it workable. Yet, thats impossible because his reforms unhinged the fundamentals of communism. Between the losing Afghan war (courtesy of the CIA and Mujahideen), disolution of the Warsaw Pact, and going bankrupt trying to match American military technological prowess, the communists failed.
The inefficent system of communism is what wrecked agriculture. Since 1917 the USSR always just barely made enough food. Imagine a state run like the DMV.
Kid, you're making excuses for mass murdering communist dictators and trying to blame it all on Reagan who refused to let democracy be intimdated. Really the only difference between Gorbachev and past Soviet leaders was that Gorbachev was still alive.
Long and short, I don't expect you to admit defeat in this engaging conversation of ours even though I've blunted every single statement you've uttered. Too much pride I guess.
"Blunted every statement"? All you've done is make up strawmen and talked about how bad it is that I believe whatever you made up. It's like me saying that you support the genocide of all non-Americans. I would even have a stronger argument, since you've already said you support the Contras' raping and killing of thousands of Nicaraguans, not to mention all your talk of "covert military operations".
I support the deposing of a commie dictator. You read into things too much, honey child. No sane person would support anarchy like that, hence why the CIA and Reagan backed off their support of the Contras once the Sandrinistas were out of the way.
Don't you get anything?
Quit being such a fag and crying foul at the idea of covert ops. Every nation on earth does them. Britain, France, Russia, China, Israel, Iran, everybody.
Collectivization, man-made famines, forced migrations and the Gulag system couldn't have had anything to contribute toward the deaths of millions of Soviet citizens, could it?
Maybe the bolsheviks should have dropped plans for "global revolution" and focused on problems at home rather than maintaining enormous militaries of their own?
Don't blame the US because of Politburo inefficiency and indifference toward human life.
You're one of many I've taken to school on this topic.
For God's sake, it's impossible talking to you. You've already made up you mind that I'm some kind of Soviet-sympathizing Marxist. Should I just make up your stances for you, too? That'll be a worthwhile discussion.
Jimmuh could have done something about the Shah, but didn't. He had this naive belief that we could all just sit down, and talk things over. Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan showed his peanut-farming ass a thing or two, didn't it?
Jimmuh is really a main reason why we are in today's world situation. Too bad Americans have such short term memories....
And yes, it's good to know the deficit paid for something; even unnecessary nukes. Yay, we beat the commies by outspending them! Real fucking clever, right there. We're still paying for that brilliant strategy.
And you'd have to be incredibly naive to buy that as the reason for our invasion of Grenada. Our invasion of Grenada was based solely on Reagan's pathological fear of anything remotely Marxist., no matter how many international laws he broke for an insignificant island country.
And you have a better idea? Lets hear your infinite wisdom on the matter, because IRBMs in W. Europe are what got the Soviets to negotiate with Reagan on arms limitations talks. You strike me as a person who doesn't know their ass from applebutter on military matters, so lets hear your idea.
Our invasion of Grenada was to rescue American citizens who were held hostage by douche-bag guerillas who just-so-happened to be marxists. Whats your beef? If Obama did it, you'd be glad, I'm sure.
American citizens were not being held hostage. They just happened to be in the country. Should we invade every country that's remotely unstable when there are US citizens in it? Should we invade Burundi, Honduras, Liberia, or Somalia? Hell, let's just throw darts at a map and see what sticks.
And how would you recommend someone living in Compton to "get educated" or even learn to "invest smart". Actually, how would you recommend they get something with which to invest?
Yes, they were. If you'd do your research, they were being held in classrooms at gun point by the very thugs who captured them. Thats the definition of "hostage".
Somalia might be a good start. Then Yemen after that. Venezuela will get its turn.
You can borrow money from the gov't to go to school with. My wife paid for her doctorate that way. You work hard, earn money, and eventually you have a bit to invest. Do it smart, and a little becomes more. You invest that. Get the picture?
That's simply untrue. Do your own research. The students were not being held hostage; Reagan invaded a country because he thought they might be held hostage because they were near an airport.
That's mad. How are you going to pay for the invasions of all these countries? And what are you going to do after you've invaded them? And why, exactly, are you invading them again? How did they threaten our national security?
I would love to see your source. Everything I've seen or read about the matter has said otherwise. Find me one credible source which says that the medical students in Grenada were held at gunpoint and taken hostage.
Grenada was a full fledged invasion. Since we were making an analogy, I assumed that's what you meant.
I'm sure your covert operations would be met with international praise. After all, who DOESN'T like a country sending armed soldiers into any other country with a criminal in it?
So I'm assuming your paper didn't have any sources, either. You probably got a pretty bad grade, huh?
You think that overthrowing governments in dozens of countries all at once and replacing them with pro-American governments isn't going to attract any attention?
It was a 400 level college class, so what do you think? I did graduate with a perfect 4.0. Thanks for being a smart ass.
The intracasies of covert action, diplomatic efforts and ecnomic influence over other nations is a pretty vast topic, and not one that can be easily covered here. Do some research and find out how the US gets nations to do what we'd like.
So I'm assuming you're for public education? Reagan's cut to that department is one of the reasons someone from Compton is going to have a difficult time getting into college, much less doing well in college.
Don't blame the system because some people don't apply themselves. Thats a big problem in this country and it comes back to my theory of "earning it". If you don't study, don't expect a free degree. Just like if you don't work hard, don't expect free cheese.
There is nothing stopping a person from Compton of following the three steps of success. Nothing but themselves. It all comes down to how bad you want it.
And how will they do that? Take out another loan while they're still trying to pay for the Compton apartment they're in debt for? Not to mention trying to find a job for someone who has no education.
Assuming their parents don't do that, they're kind of screwed.
You've never rented an apartment, have you? You don't have debt toward it. You pay monthly.
Looking for work elsewhere might be a good idea. There are any number of meaningful jobs you can land without an education.
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. That society has problems? That not eveyone gets dealt and equal hand in life? That you can WHAT IF every possibility? That society owes everyone equal everything regardless of their personal choices?
Nobody forces you to live in a place like that. Unlike your communist brothers, we don't restrict your movement within the country.
Don't feed me that "Oh they can't afford to move" baloney either. Thats the most pathetic cop-out of them all. If someone lives in Compton, its by choice.
The poster spelled Reagan wrong.
TeenStockWizard 8 months ago
we need to cut our budget and reduce taxes like Reagan did, It's the only way to reduce our deficit
77PROMETHUS77 10 months ago
Reagan's as popular now as he's ever been. (Liberals put fingers in their ears-lol)
Good morning, Mr. President. We could use you today.
blancmel21 10 months ago
Way to avoid a subject you know nothing about carter, Duh, I talked to my daughter who told me.....
JonaVicis 10 months ago
carter and obama both have gay lips
Obamaphiliac 1 year ago
This is pathetic! Reagan was thirteen years older than Carter, but he had more charisma than Carter did! Carter actually looked like the older man of the two. I almost feel sorry for the man. Carter was and is a good man. He was just a crappy President.
springjo1 11 months ago
@springjo1 and reagan was a war criminal. He killed priests in El Salvador. He even asked the Iranians NOT to release the American hostages until he came to power. He sold weapons illegally and supported an illegal war in Nicaragua. He even traffic drugs through the CIA in order to support the illegal attacks on Nicaragua.
niev0000 10 months ago
@niev0000 carter tried so hard to get the hostages out with words, reagon said you get those hostages the fuck out of there or we will bomb the fucking shit out of you. thats how you get things done, not be a pussy like obama and carter. obama is worst pres. while carter is slightly better at 2nd. reagon was one of the best
nerad1994 10 months ago
@nerad1994 @nerad1994 Reagan a coward schizophrenic president. He invaded the great and powerful nation of Granada and ran as a coward in Lebanon. He even sold drugs to Americans in order to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua, a country with 2 elevators. Reagan asked the Iranians NOT to release the hostages and in return he will give them weapons. Reagan was a war criminal, He killed more people than Osama> Reagan left the country for the 1st time since WW2 as a debtor nation.
niev0000 10 months ago
@niev0000 you are obviously a liberal if you think obama is a better president than reagon
nerad1994 10 months ago
@nerad1994 Reagan was condemned by the world court for international terrorism. He traffic drugs to fund an illegal war. he supported saddam Hussein and South Africa's apartheid. Who can beat that?
niev0000 10 months ago
In such conditions the Russian schoolboys are trained
vikondaify 1 year ago
Two words: Laffer Curve
raptors222222 1 year ago
funny to see these debates; they had anxiety back then too, and it's important to keep today's world in perspective with the past.
LordKaisen 1 year ago
With the American economy suffering so much, why would you suggest the government take more money out fo the private sector and put it into it's own bank account to which no one, not even the government, is accountable for. The Federal Reserve is it's own bank at which both Liberals and Conservatives should unite and fight against.
Kiravak 1 year ago 4
@Kiravak Good point , just like S510 , it got support on both sides , but it is the worst bill since the patriot act . Both sides are playing us like suckers . We only have a few true Americans left in politics like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich . Both tell the truth even when they are told not to and both stand up against the military industrial complex and the Federal Reserve . That is why they get almost no airtime on Fox or CNN .
MindofaJedi 1 year ago
I agree with you Piglatin that people can't expect extremely low taxes and yet expect government services provided to them. However, people should not expect the government to tax us to death to implement policies only those elites deem needed for the nation. We as a people fought against unjust taxation, and we as a nation have a right to fight against those who would tax us for the purpose of providing for those who will simply use the benefits to vote agaisnt the interests of the USA.
Kiravak 1 year ago
@Kiravak
who says we're bing taxed to death? My taxes are lower now with Obama in office. Obama has not raised taxes and will only raise them on the top earners or whatevery you want to call them. These people dont even contribute to the economy or at least an insignificant degree.
Piglatinsuperstar 1 year ago
@Piglatinsuperstar government jobs seems like an oxymoron. Yes our government does need to create jobs to perform tasks, but some of the jobs we create are not necessary and only suit the purpose of those in power to say we created "jobs".
Kiravak 1 year ago
@Piglatinsuperstar Pig, what tax rate would you say is suitable for all business in the USA?
Kiravak 1 year ago
@Piglatinsuperstar Pig, yes, your taxes are not as high as they have been in the past. But does that say that we do not prosper as a nation because our taxes are not as high? It only shows that we have survived becaused Bush's tax policies have let business survive this economic crisis and continue to thrive.
Kiravak 1 year ago
but you can't keep lowering taxes. You have to get revenue to make the government function. Citizens cannot expect a government to perform so many functions and expect extremely low taxes. Thus we are at a crossroad of do we have a government that taxes a lot and provides a lot or a government that taxes less, provides less and relies on us to provide for ourselves as free American citizens.
Kiravak 1 year ago
Just because we got tax cuts under the bush administration doesn't mean we are immune to economic downfalls caused be corporate greed or government policies. However, I believe that we are not living through the depression our grandparents went through simply because the lower taxes have helped keep us afloat through this crisis. Japan tried to jumpstart its economy through many stimuluses in the 90s, that was known as the lost decade. it doesn't work.
Kiravak 1 year ago
@Kiravak
but I dont see how y anyone can prove that tax cuts for the rich stimulate demand.
If we were to cut taxes tommorow, how would that help bring in customers? Especially with fewer people working. If it means making more govt jobs thats fine what obama did. people working in government jobs got to pay taxes too
Piglatinsuperstar 1 year ago
im sick of these lying republicans "vibrant economy"
how can you have a vibrant economy when you have a presdient trying to break apart unions???
you cant have a vibrant economy when you are trying to depress wages. thats what Reagan did. the only thing reagan knew how to do was act and give speeches. "Gorbachev, tear down this wall!". that's all he was known for.
Reagan didnt know anything about balancing budgets. they dont even teach supply side economics in College OR high school
Piglatinsuperstar 1 year ago
I'm telling you, republicans dont know how to do anything but give speeches. then their supporters think they're doing their jobs. republicans dont know anything about balancing a budget. look at Reagan: tried and failed
Look at Bush Sr: tried and failed
look at Bush Jr: took a multi billion dollar surplus and took the country right back to more deficits. thats why i dont understand why the republican party is known as the conservative party. they are anything but conservative spenders
Piglatinsuperstar 1 year ago
I assume you want us to become more like some of the European countries who took the whole socialist root where people are taxed to the hilt but have a high amount of government benefits. That did not make Europe the economic superpower that the USA became. Economic freedom inspires ingenuity and growth of business. Even JFK acknowledge that lower taxes were a greater good to the country (and thus the poor). What is good for the country is good for everyone.
Kiravak 1 year ago
@Kiravak
more bs coming from the republican. "Economic freedom inspires ingenuity and growth of business"
so point to all the jobs being! The bush tax cuts havent expired yet so where are they? How has our ingenuity translated into jobs for the middle class? Your solution is lower taxes and the jobs will come otherwise we will take our business elsewhere. Yet I dont see any now. It doesnt take a top economic advisor to tell me that the Reagan/Bush policies havent and never wil create jobs
Piglatinsuperstar 1 year ago
@Piglatinsuperstar Bush tax cuts have not expired yet, true. Our economic situation is bad true. But you cannot say that Bush tax cuts = reason our economy is bad. We are not nearly in the depression that we were in the 30s within the high teens to low 20s. Perhaps if the housing crisis happened (which was not related to tax cuts) had happened under higher taxes we would have higher unemployment. Obama's current philosophy is that things would be worse without his bailout, same true with taxes.
Kiravak 1 year ago
@Kiravak
i didnt say the tax cuts were the reason for our situation. I said they are not a factor in hiring. Demand is what drives employers to call for more help. Supply side economics is a hoax-period! its not taught at our universities. Even Bush Sr called it voodoo economics. tax breaks for the rich dont create jobs. as for Obama stimulus that was money that went directly into hiring which did stave off higher unemployment; there's no denying that
Piglatinsuperstar 1 year ago
If you look at inflation, it is only exaggerated if and only if government is living too well. Reagan had it right. When you try to control wealth through taxation, you only end up steering the economy right into the ground, Economics 101.
Kiravak 1 year ago
@Kiravak
I sincerely hope no one take what you said seriously. Top down economics is a proven failure. Nor is Reaganomics discussed in any econ book. You've never even READ an econ book! If Reaganomics was so successful then why did the deficit tripple under Reagan? The actor raised my taxes16 times. isnt that raising taxes? Another dumbass republican that dont know what he's talking about
Reagan & rhis union busting = depressing wages on working Americans
Piglatinsuperstar 1 year ago
@Piglatinsuperstar My dear friend, I will not insult you as a dumbass. I will be above that. Reagan did increase government (Education) and spending (Defense), I acknowledge that. However, you cannot create a vibrant economy by taxing citizens and businesses into oblivion. They will either increase the prices on their products or move elsewhere (overseas). For each new program you enact you have to reap taxes to cover it, thus all government programs should be met with skepticism.
Kiravak 1 year ago
@Kiravak
What vibrant economy?? corporate tax rates were much higher in the 1950s & 60s and I can honestly say this country was in much better shape. Where was all this threat about moving elsewhere then? There was none; you just made it up like your typical republican liar using typical fear tactics
Simple minded buffoon
all your president did was create an imbalance and left us with record deficits while raising my taxes. that to me is not only inneffectiveness but INCOMPETENCE.
Piglatinsuperstar 1 year ago
Another clip from the Andrew Breitbert school of deceptive editing. This video smelled fishy, so I checked it out. Carter's "sacrifice" response was to an entirely different question, one that specifically asked if he considered it an act of leadership to ask the American people to sacrifice.
Bush, by contrast, was asked a similar question, a month after 9/11, & days after our Afghan invasion. His response? That the American people ARE sacrificing - by standing in longer lines at airports.
TroyOi 1 year ago
Reagan is such a good actor. Hes just a sweet talker who let business run this country into the ground
superdubman999 1 year ago
Ronny Reagan....liked the little pre-pubescent girls.....what a perv....tsk tsk, Ronny boy...tsk tsk.......
ItsChillyBrrr 1 year ago
@ItsChillyBrrr Yeaaah. where did you get that info?
CNN? Wikiedia.
Guess what/
it's bull shit.
Fucking whore
pseudohippie55 1 year ago
History has now proven that Carter was the REAL man after all...Reagan, a selfish, elitist, cruel and stupid fool. God sees Everything.
Love how the Truth makes the Reaganazis flail about trying to defend their man. It's beyond funny. LOL
ItsChillyBrrr 1 year ago
@ItsChillyBrrr Carter was bitch-slapped in the 1980 presidential election by Reagan. Mondale was pimp smacked in the 1984 presidential election by Reagan, and all for a reason. No amount of nonsensical bullshit you spew is going to change that history. Their liberal ideology is severely flawed.
fallenanjel 1 year ago 8
@fallenanjel John McCain was RAPED by Barack Obama in 2008. His Conservative Ideology was severely flawed.
wolfpackvisual 1 year ago
@wolfpackvisual - McCain is not a conservative
Obamaphiliac 1 year ago
Comment removed
squeeze55 1 year ago
@fallenanjel A candidate losing an election does not prove they were wrong . On promotion of American values , freedom , civil rights and limiting of government Reagan ranks 35th on the all time list , Carter 8th . Reagan grew the governemt , fabricated th cold war threats , sold arms to our enemies , created the drug cartels in Mexico with his assinine War on Drugs and redregulated the banking industry . Reagan brought recession , war , poverty and monolpolies . What a legacy .
MindofaJedi 1 year ago
@MindofaJedi
Well said.
Mastabiff 11 months ago
@fallenanjel Is it true that Reagan asked the Iranians NOT to release the American hostages during Carter's administration?
niev0000 10 months ago
@fallenanjel go and play your stupid video games, stay ignorant! Reagan was condemned by the world court for international terrorism. he supported South Africa's Apartheid. He ate grapes on TV while there was a boycott by farmers fighting for better working conditions. He even said that the Nazi SS was a victim just like the Jews... He lied to the country many times and was an incompetent president that never knew what was going on or just pretended. Change those facts of history.
niev0000 10 months ago
@ItsChillyBrrr ROFL!! You must (I hope) be a brilliant satirist of left-wing retards because nobody could possibly be that laughably stupid. World respects Obama, truly hilarious. Carter a real man, another gutbuster. Reagan a "hated shit" who racked up 1014 electoral votes in 2 elections, LOL! Mainstream right-wing media, BWAAA-HAHA! Also, I think you meant "Carternazi" to describe Peanut Loser's RABID anti-Semitism. BTW, does a Dem really want to go down the "kid-toucher" road?
reprobacious 1 year ago
"Demanded that people sacrifice"? I demand that this corrupt government sacrifices.
familybc146 1 year ago
God does this all sound awful familiar
ljs96076 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
President Reagan = BEST PRESIDENT EVER!
xberrysxnxcreamx 1 year ago 3
Jimmy Carter = Barry Obama, except Barry is much more violent with his wars and destructive in his economic policies. We need a real man like Ronald Reagan to go up against Barry in 2012.
lsl70 1 year ago 2
@lsl70 Ronnie "Idiot" Reagan......Ronnie boy was such an idiot. The world respects President Obama, not Ronnie the Coward. :)
You are just another jealous, lazy-minded white guy, no doubt. See, boy, you have to EARN your way in life......run along now, Reaganazi. :)
ItsChillyBrrr 1 year ago
@ItsChillyBrrr Do you pay attention to any news besides the mainstream media? Barry is an atrocity and he would be no matter what color he was. Race has nothing to do with it. I thought we needed a change after the Bush years but Barry turned out to be a big corporatist fraud whose continuing the same Bush policies for the most part. Well except for the tax cuts of course. I just feel bad for black people because the first black President turned out to be one of the worst ever.
lsl70 1 year ago
@lsl70 You can't even spell, boy.....Ronny was such a turd....raped a few underage girls....
There, boy.....I'm not the one who is beholden to the mainstream, right-wing media, you are.
It's Mr. President.......Ronny boy deserves our scorn, remember. Ronny, such a tool...... LOL
ItsChillyBrrr 1 year ago
@lsl70 Obama's more like Clinton than Carter.
DaSungandSoul1223 1 year ago
@lsl70 Donald Trump is seriously considering running, and from what I read he is leaning towards actually doing it. He refers to Regan a lot and therefore, I feel he will embody the best qualities Regan had as a president and possibly economic policies. I know his image in the media is a shocker, but I feel also his ego and arrogance is what we need after a pussy-ass President like Obama. I fully believe with my heart and soul Trump will rejuvenate America to its former rank of glory!
smartman43 1 year ago
I wrote youtube's terrible player in the program Turbo Pascal in high school in 1992. Trust me, it was bad ass then.
reedposey 1 year ago
Sounds like Carter's daughter was a member of his cabinet. Some sort of foriegn policy advisor I suppose. What a moron. How was he elected before MTV taught the idiots to vote? The uninformed masses showed up for Obama as a result of the rally for the loser, loners and minorities to become a part of something. Also, white guilt. How did Carter do it?
dcracker2 1 year ago
If Carter won we wouldn't have high interest morgues ? it's fact look it up or just watch Michael Moore's Capitalism to see what kind of president Reagon really was.....!
METALMAN4Wii 1 year ago
lol I love Carter's response. "I think the American people have sacrificed very well". lol basically the typical liberal response. American's sacrificing very well, meaning we're taxing the shit out of the public, to cover our mistakes!
secrtagt 1 year ago
What's most amazing, is that Obama claims Carter is one of his mentors, plus the fact that Carter stood up for him during the health care debate, and Obama, basically told Carter to shut up, stay out of it. lol Are all liberals this ignorant and disconnected from reality, or that "educated" they've never had to actually undergo the experience of living through any of their social experiments?
secrtagt 1 year ago
Nuclear arms reduction. Seems like President Obama has done it successfully, and that too without war. Who is a loser? Regan and his right wing nutjobs
buckIdesi 1 year ago
@buckIdesi Please tell us where Obama has reduced nuclear arms. Certainly not North Korea, Iran, Russia, China, Pakistan, or India--like he promised. And he's certainly not anti-war, considering we're still in Iraq, and he boosted our presence in Afghanistan.
#uninformedliberalhackfail
JMShuffield 1 year ago
@JMShuffield North Korea has not acquire Nukes, nor does Iran you fool. N.Korea is trying to get nuke and Iran claims that their use of nuclear power is for peaceful purpose (that I have no faith in the word he says). But bush had 8 years. Under his admin. 3 more countries acquire nuclear weapon. I must let you know that recently USA and Russia SIGNED the treaty that they are going to reduce the nuke stock pile. These 2 countries controls about 90% of total stock.
buckIdesi 1 year ago
@buckIdesi The North Koreans have increased their stockpile (they have had them since 2002, mind you), and the Iranians are on the brink of developing a weapon. Ahmadinejad has stated that Iran has a right. Ergo, Obama's overtures to both countries have done no good. You're full of it.
JMShuffield 1 year ago
@JMShuffield I don't know why we are in Iraq. Intelligence agencies do not give me any briefing like they do to Pres. Obama. But what common sense tells me is that I can see why Bush/Cheney went to Iraq for. Which is OIL OIL OIL..but Obama wants to go away from oil. So I don't see an incentive for him to stay in Iraq unless, there is serious threat as Bush/Cheney destroyed that country. It may be easier for extremists to take over if we left. Just a thought.
buckIdesi 1 year ago
@buckIdesi Also, Reagan was the first president to sign a nuclear arms reduction treaty with the Soviet Union.
#neveropenedahistorybook
JMShuffield 1 year ago
@JMShuffield Reagan was also the first president to FUND the extremists with our TAX money. Today's terrorism is the gift from that almighty president Reagan.
>Funded Mujhahiddins (Bin Laden was one of them). So you can say that Reagan created Bin Laden.
>Created Massive Deficit in the history of this nation (Regan conservative my ass)
> Over 10% unemployment for 12 straight months in 3rd year of his 1st term.
> Never addressed education
> He was unpopular president for most of his 8 yrs.
buckIdesi 1 year ago
@JMShuffield Reagan was a mediocre president just like bush 43. Mark my words. popularity of bush 43 will go up by 2032. As a wartime president. Our historians will twist the history so much that kids in that time would never know how terrible Bush's 2 terms were. Just like Reagan. On the other hand Bush 41 was a far better president. He lost because of his words "read my lips, there will be no tax increase".He had no option but to raise tax because of massive deficit his predecessor left 4 him
buckIdesi 1 year ago
@buckIdesi But Clinton came to save the U.S. from the Reagon years.......!
METALMAN4Wii 1 year ago
@buckIdesi Okay idiot, explain the fact that tax receipts to the government almost doubled under reagan. Explain how the double digit inflation and unemployment of the late 70's was routed in less than 4 years. FDR couldn't even do that with his New Deal, because history proves time and time again that Keynesian economics simply don't work.
Now, Reagan wasn't without faults. Far from it. But from a Leadership standpoint, he and JFK were the greatest 2 Presidents we've had since Lincoln.
marinejcksn1 1 year ago
@marinejcksn1 : You are an IDIOT. Go get the numbers straight. Reagan was more unpopular than popular through out his 2 terms. His popularity was as low as 33%. That was for a good reason. REAGAN NEVER CREATED JOBS. Unemployment increased when he took the office and stayed over 10% for 3rd and 4th year in his first term. Reagan was a douche bag president. He created MASSIVE deficit. Reagan CONSERVATIVE..MY ASSSS. I do think he was a transformational president. Whether you like him or not.I dont
buckIdesi 1 year ago
@buckIdesi Ok so he did have a low level of 33%, but he had an overall avg. of 53%. The relation of national debt and the economy is nothing, what matters is GDP, which under Reagan he had a high GDP. During the Reagan Era GDP grew substantially. Overall the economy expanded by a third, or the equivalent of the entire West German economy. Also his debt increased the first four, then decreased the last half.
jnutzz 1 year ago
@buckIdesi Reagan was a hated shit.......Rot in Hell, Ronnie....and take your cock-sucking leech of a conservative bitch wife with you...please. :)
ItsChillyBrrr 1 year ago
@buckIdesi oh wow... im an independent but you sir are an idiot
TSpence26 1 year ago
Unfortunately...at this point in our history...there will never be another Reagan because our government is full of politicians instead of leaders. Reagan led because he was a man of conviction....not a power monger. God help us all.
biakaba 1 year ago
@biakaba you post this and you think these things so run! If we have normal people run like you and me (if only i was old enough i would), then we would have this. We need normal people running for office, politics isn't a job, its serving your country then going back to what your job. So i challenge you to run for congress, or start out in your local politics and move up when you feel like you have the experience.
zaczattack 1 year ago
@biakaba Regan was garbage president.
buckIdesi 1 year ago
My god what a mismatch. Hearns vs Cuevas was a more competitive fight than this debate. Reagan pwnd his ass!
shire2005 1 year ago
Reagan, The greatest president ever! He did exactly what he said he'd do! Obama? Well, he didn't lie either. He tried to warn us that he was going to be the worst president in the history of this country. HE WAS RIGHT!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
Reagan's last sentence on each Superpower reducing arms size so that they "no longer represent at threat to the other" is the most stupid one I've heard from a US politician - to contest with Palin only. You don't need more than one bomb to harm, and a few are enough to totally wipe out a region.
Monkeyshouts 1 year ago
totally edited out what. CIA misreported on the USSR's build up of weapons to justify our build up of weapons
thefredsays 1 year ago
I can see why Carter lost - he mumbles terribly!
tdp1909 1 year ago
Im not liking the edit
thatbritts 1 year ago
'impoverished many american citizens by catering exclusively to the corporations and the rich. "
Prove it. The 1980s were one of the greatest periods of economic prosperity until the post-Cold war era of the '90s.
By cutting corporate taxes, businesses profit more thus, EXPAND. By expanding, they hire more people. maybe even socialist subversives like you.
Carter demanded Americans do more with less. Reagan restored prosperity.
Liberals rejoice when the economy tanks.
IllustriousSeven 2 years ago
So you call it "bankrupting the nation", I call it restoring the damage done by Carter and his Watergate congress. Reagan spent the Soviets under the table while reformists like Gorbachev uncoupled the Soviet system from within.
The Taliban was one group of many the CIA helped train. If you look what happened in the '90s, you'd know they just happened to gain control of Kabul post-Soviet occupation era.
What would Jimmy Carter or Mondale have done? Boycott the Olympics? Oh wait....
IllustriousSeven 2 years ago
Reagan didn't end the cold war? It wasn't his decision to install IRBMs in western europe, or to fund the B-1B, B-2, a 600 ship navy?
The collapse of the Soviet Union was multifacited. Charlie Wilson, the philanthropist of the CIA's efforts in Afghanistan, played a big part sure. With the red army facing defeat it cost the Soviets dearly...but guess who authorizes ALL CIA covert actions abroad???
The President, who at this time was Ronnie Reagan.
IllustriousSeven 2 years ago
References a convo with his daughter Amy about the most important issue ????
jsbruzina 2 years ago
Man, I hate all of these ignorant people saying how greedy these corporate managers are because they have money. They work hard giving services or products to other people, that's their job, just like a medical job is to heal or a legal occupation is to protect with laws. It's nothing more than that, and if you are good at it, then you make more, if you're bad, you make less. There is the exception of the trust-fund child or the person born into debt, but other that that the rules are fair.
rockerhead247 2 years ago
MFer, I hate Jimmy Carter's pig-like nose.
IllustriousSeven 2 years ago
Thats democrats for you, always trying to rachet-back your expectations, hoping you'll be happy with less. Liberals want to keep you poor to keep you dependent on fat-nanny gov't.
"We have DEMANDED that the American people sacrafice"
?!?!
Well excuse me Jimmuh Jimmuh, but wtf?
IllustriousSeven 2 years ago
Are you calling Liberals elitists because the rich Ceo's and true corrupt elitists are wealthy Republicans.
corinthian93 2 years ago
There can be elitists outside of business you know....
Pelosi, Reid, Lord Obama Christ.
To them, we're ignorant little peons in desperate need of gov't shepherds.
IllustriousSeven 2 years ago
That's a very ignorant thing to say seeing that I've met numerous rich CEOs, one of which being my father, and he would never take a cent from someone out of greed, he has the morals of a saint and yet he's extremely successful and is a wealthy Republican.
rockerhead247 2 years ago
Carter was as smart as a bag of A**HOLES
jasonp825 2 years ago
LMAOOOO...this will be Obama in 3 years, mark my words.
KingDrudge 2 years ago 6
@KingDrudge lol
Obama vs Ron Paul
ch1kusoo 2 years ago
I'll drink to that!
IllustriousSeven 2 years ago
lol 3 years? try 12 months!
secrtagt 1 year ago
@KingDrudge think there will be another Hostage crisis to seal the deal?
clay180 1 year ago
Comment removed
easm 2 years ago
Have you ever studied Political Science, and understand at all basic economics? I'm just asking as an biased person. I don't judge/attack. I'm neither, socialist (what you american's call liberal), nor republican (what you americans call conservative). I'm just a student of real political science, so I ask you, where do you base your arguments, based upon a particular field of study in political science and your statistics and facts?
secrtagt 2 years ago
You are a moron.
ljd1088 2 years ago
you're a typical insecure Commie dickhead virgin.....
mark my words...YOU WILL BE DEAD
right92626 2 years ago
carter was a dipshit
Hungerzoids 2 years ago
carter sucked
Jcococola 2 years ago
This was manipulated to Reagens favor.
MileyAnal 2 years ago
Manipulated to Reagans favor?
apollo1268 2 years ago
Manupulated to make Reagen look good.
MileyAnal 2 years ago
How
Jcococola 2 years ago
How can America vote in Ronald Reagan and then nobama with in 24 years Reagan was great, nobama is the antichrist 2nd coming of jimmy carter with a tan . hopefully he will awaken a 2nd REAGAN
dago2732 2 years ago 2
Bush defeated mccain twice,in 2004 and 2008.
MrTabby5000 2 years ago
What has obama done that is so bad. He's trying to pass progressive measures but Republicans, like always, are just saying no to everything.
corinthian93 2 years ago
Reagan rocks! The best President of the 1900's! We need his principles back in our government. How did we move so far away??? Obama is an Obamanation!
5111pt 2 years ago
We had that in the bush administration,deregulating wall street,tax cuts and bail out the wealthy,we had it now the partys over.
MrTabby5000 2 years ago
Why was he so good. He gave weapons to Taliban and tore down environmental policies hat carter put up.
corinthian93 2 years ago
He ended the Cold War, defeated the Soviets via covert action in Afghanistan, revived American international economic dominance and restored the confidence and faith in the people of the US in their govt and in their nation.
Liberals only thrive when America is at a low point. Thats how Lord Obama got elected.
IllustriousSeven 2 years ago
He was also the president responsible for Iran/Contra, a massive exodus of jobs, the biggest national deficit in US history, (until Bush) the invasion of Granada, a widening of the wealth gap, and the underfunding of necessary social programs. He also came close to bankrupting our nation in order to "defeat the soviets".
He was really just a tool for corporate interests who happened to also be a terrible person.
Lethkhar2000 2 years ago
Iran/Contra wouldn't have happened if Jimmy Carter had the wherewithall to deal with Iran before it became a revolution.
The deficit gap restored America's military supremacy over the USSR, and it resonates today. Reagan showed the Soviets they couldn't compete with our advanced weaponary. Between trying to keep up, their losing war in Afghanistan and Gorbachev wrecking communism, the Soviets lost.
IllustriousSeven 2 years ago
I know, it's a shame Jimmy Carter didn't commit thousands of troops and money into Iran to defend an incompetent autocrat against a massively popular revolution, all in order to prevent a series events no one could ever have predicted.
You missed the "Contra" part. Reagan funded anti-democratic counter-revolutionaries. He paid for the guns that killed tens of thousands of people. Though given your criticism of Carter's "inaction" and support of the Shah, you're probably not bothered by that.
Lethkhar2000 2 years ago
Ever hear of "covert action"? It gives presidents some degree of options between armed conflict and paper diplomacy. Carter igorned the CIA's writing on the wall as early as 1978 that Iran was brewing for revolution.
Covert action is what brought the Shah to power afterall. :-)
The US supported all kinds of nasty people in order to oppose communism. What, you think we're going to play by Marque of Queensbury rules? The CIA fights by prison yard rules.
IllustriousSeven 1 year ago
So you don't care at all about treating people humanely, as long as the US comes out on top...Then what makes you any better than the soviets?
Carter could not have done anything about the Shah other than to waste US resources preventing the inevitable. Iran is not Grenada.
My idea? Probably let the USSR go down its own progressive road. It didn't need us to buy unnecessary arms in order to democratize itself; Gorbachev was already doing plenty. I'm not into starving Russians over my ego.
Lethkhar2000 1 year ago
So long as they're bad guys, I could care less. Thats what seperates me from people like you. Liberals are "soft on terrorists, tough on fetuses."
Bunch of cowards. People like Reid and Pelosi want to read terrorists their "constitutional" rights before they're taken into custody. Thats insanity. Terrorism is not a criminal issue, its a war issue.
Iran was another France in 1946 or Italy in 1947. Both nearly went commie, CIA turned that around. Jimmuh stuck a thumb up his ass.
IllustriousSeven 1 year ago
The innocent civilians in Nicaragua weren't "bad guys". If anyone, the Contras were the "bad guys".
Yeah, the CIA started their little "containment" experiment, threatened the USSR, and set up the rest of the century with the Cold War and literally millions of unnecessary deaths. It's a shame Carter didn't decide to waste resources to continue that for absolutely no reason.
Iran is not France or Italy. You underestimate the resolve of crazy religious zealots.
Lethkhar2000 1 year ago
The Contras overthrew a dictator, did they not? Shouldn't that make you happy?
"You underestimate the resolve of crazy religious zealots."
HA HA. Iran was not and is not populated by "zealots". Pre-1979, Iran was very very secular. Post-79 it became ruled by a crazy ayatollah who spoke vaugely about change, then seized power. Today Iranian leadership is fanatical yes. But as the riots from last summer demonstrated, the people of Iran are not.
IllustriousSeven 1 year ago
More correctly, the CIA made efforts to "rollback" the Iron Curtain.
I'd like you to ellaborate a little more on your theory that the CIA set up the whole Cold War and is singlehandedly responsible for millions of deaths.
Cut me if I'm wrong, but a book called "The Gulag Archipelago" spells out what the Soviets did to their own people.
Carter should have bolstered Shah support via covert action, or at least supported a democratic replacement for him. That would have been better, no?
IllustriousSeven 1 year ago
The CIA didn't do it themselves, obviously. They were just tools in the policy. The US strategy was outlined by people like G.F. Kennan, and first implemented in places like France and Italy by the CIA. That threatened the USSR, seeding the antagonistic relationship between the two countries for the remainder of the century. The scars are still present.
Let's hear your strategy for how Carter could have created a secular western democracy in 1978 Iran.
Lethkhar2000 1 year ago
The CIA's rescue of France and Italy did not "threaten" the USSR. Thats best bullshit I've heard all day.
Communism is naturally threatened by any type of freedom. So long as a glimmer of another way exists, communism can't ever maintain total control over its subjects.
The animosity between capitalist democracy and command socialism was there long before WW2, sweet cheeks.
IllustriousSeven 1 year ago
Maybe you should read the Long Telegram.
Lethkhar2000 1 year ago
Maybe you should take your head out of your ass and look at the big picture.
From what you're suggesting, the US should have "played nice" with the Soviets and allowed them to undermine democracies in France and Italy, rather than "threaten" Moscow with propping up war-ravaged nations the Soviets were trying to subvert?
I mean this with all possible sincerity:
Whose side are you on? You cry I'm branding you a commie sympathizer, yet you keep doing just that.
I'm gonna eat my dinner.
IllustriousSeven 1 year ago
If I were Jimmy I would have given creedence to CIA indicators that Iran was teeming with dissenters and poised for revolution should something happen to the Shah.
I would have quietly dropped support for the Shah (a divisive figure, to say the least) and utilized the CIA to garner support for a democratic, preferably secular candidate. That way we would maintain an ally against the Soviets and Iran would have advanced as a society.
Sound good?
IllustriousSeven 1 year ago
Tell me who your democratic, secular candidate would be that could take on Khomeini in 1978 Iran.
Lethkhar2000 1 year ago
First I never would have allowed Khomeini to return to Iran.
Mehdi Bazargan would have made a good candidate.
What would you have done in 1978 Iran? Blamed America, encouraged Soviet invasion and praised the expansion of the worker's paradise?
IllustriousSeven 1 year ago
Instead Carter hand-wrenched and fretted publically throughout the whole affair, evidently too indecisive to make a decision and just let the whole country fall apart.
Then again, Carter has spent most of his post-presidency hugging our nation's enemies. Hamas and North Korea come to mind.
IllustriousSeven 1 year ago
There were many groups in Iran that wanted "change" from the Shah....democratic reformers, commies (favored and supported by USSR), no-kidding feminists, and also shiite extremists.
History shows which one won out, but only because Ayatollah Khomehni hid his true agenda prior to his return from exile. Hope and Change, right?
IllustriousSeven 1 year ago
Did you call the Soviets "progressive"? Oh wow, you aren't even worth talking to anymore.
Nobody is starving Russians (except for Soviet govt). You seem to forget that in the late 1970s, the USSR had reduced America's military supremacy to a razor thin lead, if that. The USSR was in ascendency and democracy was on the run in the world in the late '70s. Reagan's defense policies reversed all of that.
You morn the USSR's death? Communism killed 100 mil in the 20th century.
IllustriousSeven 1 year ago
No, I called Gorbachev's policies progressive in comparison to his predecessors. But you can go on reading what you want, I suppose.
I would say forcing the Soviets to spend all of their capital on arms instead of agriculture is, indeed, starving innocent people. But those are the "bad guys", aren't they?
I don't mourn the death of the USSR. I know I told you can read what you want to read, but it's hard to discuss something with someone who makes up your positions for you.
Lethkhar2000 1 year ago
Gorbachev was reforming communism to make it workable. Yet, thats impossible because his reforms unhinged the fundamentals of communism. Between the losing Afghan war (courtesy of the CIA and Mujahideen), disolution of the Warsaw Pact, and going bankrupt trying to match American military technological prowess, the communists failed.
The inefficent system of communism is what wrecked agriculture. Since 1917 the USSR always just barely made enough food. Imagine a state run like the DMV.
IllustriousSeven 1 year ago
For the last time: I'm not saying Gorbachev's USSR was good for its people. I'm saying that Reagan's actions did not make it any better.
Lethkhar2000 1 year ago
Reagan hurried its end.
Kid, you're making excuses for mass murdering communist dictators and trying to blame it all on Reagan who refused to let democracy be intimdated. Really the only difference between Gorbachev and past Soviet leaders was that Gorbachev was still alive.
Long and short, I don't expect you to admit defeat in this engaging conversation of ours even though I've blunted every single statement you've uttered. Too much pride I guess.
IllustriousSeven 1 year ago
"Blunted every statement"? All you've done is make up strawmen and talked about how bad it is that I believe whatever you made up. It's like me saying that you support the genocide of all non-Americans. I would even have a stronger argument, since you've already said you support the Contras' raping and killing of thousands of Nicaraguans, not to mention all your talk of "covert military operations".
Lethkhar2000 1 year ago
I support the deposing of a commie dictator. You read into things too much, honey child. No sane person would support anarchy like that, hence why the CIA and Reagan backed off their support of the Contras once the Sandrinistas were out of the way.
Don't you get anything?
Quit being such a fag and crying foul at the idea of covert ops. Every nation on earth does them. Britain, France, Russia, China, Israel, Iran, everybody.
IllustriousSeven 1 year ago
Collectivization, man-made famines, forced migrations and the Gulag system couldn't have had anything to contribute toward the deaths of millions of Soviet citizens, could it?
Maybe the bolsheviks should have dropped plans for "global revolution" and focused on problems at home rather than maintaining enormous militaries of their own?
Don't blame the US because of Politburo inefficiency and indifference toward human life.
You're one of many I've taken to school on this topic.
IllustriousSeven 1 year ago
For God's sake, it's impossible talking to you. You've already made up you mind that I'm some kind of Soviet-sympathizing Marxist. Should I just make up your stances for you, too? That'll be a worthwhile discussion.
Lethkhar2000 1 year ago
Its pretty apparent, from what your saying.
Odds are you're a campus liberal who to spite "the system" thinks the soviets were good thing.
I'm confident you'll grow out of it. :-)
IllustriousSeven 1 year ago
Jimmuh could have done something about the Shah, but didn't. He had this naive belief that we could all just sit down, and talk things over. Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan showed his peanut-farming ass a thing or two, didn't it?
Jimmuh is really a main reason why we are in today's world situation. Too bad Americans have such short term memories....
IllustriousSeven 1 year ago
And yes, it's good to know the deficit paid for something; even unnecessary nukes. Yay, we beat the commies by outspending them! Real fucking clever, right there. We're still paying for that brilliant strategy.
And you'd have to be incredibly naive to buy that as the reason for our invasion of Grenada. Our invasion of Grenada was based solely on Reagan's pathological fear of anything remotely Marxist., no matter how many international laws he broke for an insignificant island country.
Lethkhar2000 2 years ago
And you have a better idea? Lets hear your infinite wisdom on the matter, because IRBMs in W. Europe are what got the Soviets to negotiate with Reagan on arms limitations talks. You strike me as a person who doesn't know their ass from applebutter on military matters, so lets hear your idea.
Our invasion of Grenada was to rescue American citizens who were held hostage by douche-bag guerillas who just-so-happened to be marxists. Whats your beef? If Obama did it, you'd be glad, I'm sure.
IllustriousSeven 1 year ago
American citizens were not being held hostage. They just happened to be in the country. Should we invade every country that's remotely unstable when there are US citizens in it? Should we invade Burundi, Honduras, Liberia, or Somalia? Hell, let's just throw darts at a map and see what sticks.
And how would you recommend someone living in Compton to "get educated" or even learn to "invest smart". Actually, how would you recommend they get something with which to invest?
Lethkhar2000 1 year ago
Yes, they were. If you'd do your research, they were being held in classrooms at gun point by the very thugs who captured them. Thats the definition of "hostage".
Somalia might be a good start. Then Yemen after that. Venezuela will get its turn.
You can borrow money from the gov't to go to school with. My wife paid for her doctorate that way. You work hard, earn money, and eventually you have a bit to invest. Do it smart, and a little becomes more. You invest that. Get the picture?
IllustriousSeven 1 year ago
That's simply untrue. Do your own research. The students were not being held hostage; Reagan invaded a country because he thought they might be held hostage because they were near an airport.
That's mad. How are you going to pay for the invasions of all these countries? And what are you going to do after you've invaded them? And why, exactly, are you invading them again? How did they threaten our national security?
Lethkhar2000 1 year ago
Nope. They were held hostage. Setting back the commies was just a bonus.
Not full fledged invasion, you little cuteness. Covert action combined with counterterrorism operations.
There are varying degrees of dealing with baddies, or did your High School teacher not tell you that? LOL
Yemen, Somalia are centers for Al-Qaida, and Venezuela has the FARC to do its bidding. Sounds good to me!
IllustriousSeven 1 year ago
I would love to see your source. Everything I've seen or read about the matter has said otherwise. Find me one credible source which says that the medical students in Grenada were held at gunpoint and taken hostage.
Grenada was a full fledged invasion. Since we were making an analogy, I assumed that's what you meant.
I'm sure your covert operations would be met with international praise. After all, who DOESN'T like a country sending armed soldiers into any other country with a criminal in it?
Lethkhar2000 1 year ago
I actually did a paper on it for my Bachelor's. It was a class on Counterinsurgency efforts since 1600.
"I'm sure your covert operations would be met with international praise."
Well, dipshit, thats why its covert. That way nobody knows about it.
And just so you're aware, every other nation on earth carries out "covert actions" of their own. So its not some moral impetus to perform them.
Again, you're so far out of your leauge its not even funny....
IllustriousSeven 1 year ago
So I'm assuming your paper didn't have any sources, either. You probably got a pretty bad grade, huh?
You think that overthrowing governments in dozens of countries all at once and replacing them with pro-American governments isn't going to attract any attention?
Lethkhar2000 1 year ago
It was a 400 level college class, so what do you think? I did graduate with a perfect 4.0. Thanks for being a smart ass.
The intracasies of covert action, diplomatic efforts and ecnomic influence over other nations is a pretty vast topic, and not one that can be easily covered here. Do some research and find out how the US gets nations to do what we'd like.
Theres more to it than just covert ops. :-)
IllustriousSeven 1 year ago
So I'm assuming you're for public education? Reagan's cut to that department is one of the reasons someone from Compton is going to have a difficult time getting into college, much less doing well in college.
Lethkhar2000 1 year ago
Don't blame the system because some people don't apply themselves. Thats a big problem in this country and it comes back to my theory of "earning it". If you don't study, don't expect a free degree. Just like if you don't work hard, don't expect free cheese.
There is nothing stopping a person from Compton of following the three steps of success. Nothing but themselves. It all comes down to how bad you want it.
IllustriousSeven 1 year ago
Nothing but themselves and the fear of being shot, you mean.
Lethkhar2000 1 year ago
Maybe they should move away from a hell hole like Compton?
IllustriousSeven 1 year ago
And how will they do that? Take out another loan while they're still trying to pay for the Compton apartment they're in debt for? Not to mention trying to find a job for someone who has no education.
Assuming their parents don't do that, they're kind of screwed.
Lethkhar2000 1 year ago
You've never rented an apartment, have you? You don't have debt toward it. You pay monthly.
Looking for work elsewhere might be a good idea. There are any number of meaningful jobs you can land without an education.
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. That society has problems? That not eveyone gets dealt and equal hand in life? That you can WHAT IF every possibility? That society owes everyone equal everything regardless of their personal choices?
IllustriousSeven 1 year ago
Nobody forces you to live in a place like that. Unlike your communist brothers, we don't restrict your movement within the country.
Don't feed me that "Oh they can't afford to move" baloney either. Thats the most pathetic cop-out of them all. If someone lives in Compton, its by choice.
IllustriousSeven 1 year ago