President Reagan didn't lie about anything,
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ckc1_mETSps&feature=related
he wasn't surrounded by
"Neo-Cons";
---
ok ... call'em jews if you want
Paul Wolfowitz, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Elliot Abrams, Eugene
Rostow, Max Kampelman, Michael Ledeen, Richard Pipes, Richard Perle
just to name a few
Reagan had the mandate of the people when he declared to
combat the Sandanistas;
---
bs ... as if we've forgotten about the Boland Amendments. 'The People'
made it clear to Reagan and his warmongers that they were forbidden to
fund the Contra terrorists but they did it anyway.
and most importantly President Reagan was more
than fit for the job, whether you like it, or don't like it:
---
his memory was gone and he used it as an excuse for his lies
http://www.quickchange.com/reagan/1987.html
President
Reagan was the best president in yours and my lifetime!
---
he was a liar and warmonger and should be remember that way
On Jul 24, 1:22 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Plain Ol!
>
> President Reagan didn't lie about anything, he wasn't surrounded by
> "Neo-Cons"; Reagan had the mandate of the people when he declared to
> combat the Sandanistas; and most importantly President Reagan was more
> than fit for the job, whether you like it, or don't like it: President
> Reagan was the best president in yours and my lifetime!
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:45 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > You have been brainwashed and lied to by liberal left mainstream
> > media!
> > ---
> > about what?
> > wasn't he surrounded by neocons?
> > didn't he trade arms for hostages?
> > didn't he lie about it then admit it?
> > wasn't he mentally unfit for the job?
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIqRnLQ2GCY
>
> > On Jul 24, 12:04 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Plain Ol, Plain Ol, Plain Ol,
>
> > > You have been brainwashed and lied to by liberal left mainstream media!
>
> > > This is an interesting article, especially about the supply side
> > economics
> > > being a dismal failure in combatting offshoring of American Jobs. I
> > > agree. We need to repeal portions of NAFTA, and all of these other bull
> > > hockey purportedly free trade agreements that are so one sided.
>
> > > This gets into the whole "Tariff" situation to make things equal. I am
> > > not saying that I condone such policies, but I do think there has to be
> > an
> > > equalizer, and/or defund these one sided treaties.
>
> > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:02 PM, plainolamerican
> > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > Reagan opposed war as an instrument of American hegemony. It is the
> > > > neoconservatives who use war to achieve hegemony. Reagan was not a
> > > > neoconservative.
> > > > ---
> > > > yet his decisions were controlled by neocons, as were the decisions of
> > > > Bush I&II, Clinton, and O.
>
> > > > Some will never forget that Reagan negotiated with and funded
> > > > terrorists and then lied to Americans about it.
>
> > > > The worms have had their fill.
>
> > > > On Jul 24, 8:20 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > The Cost of the Left-wing's Ongoing Vendetta Against ReaganMonday,
> > July
> > > > 23, 2012
> > > > > by Paul Craig Roberts
> > > > > What causes some people to feel compelled to make uninformed digs at
> > > > President Reagan? Is it just that they are brainwashed or, if they are
> > > > thoughtful people, just too involved with other matters to be well
> > informed
> > > > about Reagan? How many of the digs at Reagan are deflective activity by
> > > > Clinton/Bush/Cheney/Obama shills diverting attention from the real
> > causes
> > > > of our woes?
> > > > > Reagan and his administration are not above criticism, but Reagan
> > most
> > > > certainly is not to blame for the financial crisis or for the
> > > > neoconservative wars for American hegemony.
> > > > > The Reagan administration's interventions in Grenada and Nicaragua
> > were
> > > > not, as is sometimes claimed, precursors to Clinton's war on Serbia
> > and the
> > > > Bush and Obama wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, with more
> > > > waiting in the wings. Reagan saw his interventions in the context of
> > the
> > > > Monroe Doctrine, not as an opening bid for world hegemony.
> > > > > The purpose of Reagan's interventions was to convince the Soviets
> > that
> > > > there would be no more territorial gains for communism. The
> > interventions
> > > > were part of Reagan's strategy of bringing the Soviets to the table to
> > > > negotiate the end of the cold war. Reagan believed that getting the
> > Soviets
> > > > to negotiate would be more difficult if they were still making
> > territorial
> > > > gains or gains that the Soviets might perceive in that way. Possibly,
> > > > Reagan's advisers were wrong to put a Marxist interpretation on
> > political
> > > > events in Grenada and Nicaragua, but that is the way Reagan understood
> > them.
> > > > > When Reagan understood what the Israelis had lured him into in
> > Lebanon,
> > > > he pulled out. Reagan opposed war as an instrument of American
> > hegemony. It
> > > > is the neoconservatives who use war to achieve hegemony. Reagan was
> > not a
> > > > neoconservative.
> > > > > The left-wing is more interested to blame Reagan for the financial
> > > > crisis than to understand the crisis. The left-wing accuses Reagan of
> > > > deregulating the financial system and of setting up a "Plunge
> > Protection
> > > > Team" to rig financial markets.
> > > > > I have found that giving people information that they do not want to
> > > > hear is a frustrating experience. Heaven forbid that anyone would have
> > to
> > > > overcome their ignorance or rethink their prejudices. But I keep
> > trying.
> > > > > First, however, I want to answer two questions: What is the source of
> > > > the left's animosity toward Reagan, and "why does Roberts keep
> > defending
> > > > Reagan?" The latter question is usually answered for me by people who
> > know
> > > > nothing of my motives but are nevertheless comfortable in answering
> > for me:
> > > > "He was part of it and can't admit he was wrong."
> > > > > The left's animosity toward Reagan is a mystery. Consider Reagan's
> > > > economic and foreign policies. The stagflation that Reaganomics cured
> > was
> > > > hurting the poor, not the rich. The rich raise prices; the poor pay the
> > > > higher prices. There is always a risk of a cold war going hot.
> > Negotiating
> > > > the end of the cold war did not please the military/security complex,
> > and
> > > > apparently not the leftwing peaceniks either.
> > > > > The first business of the new Reagan administration was to complete
> > the
> > > > Carter administration's plan to save autoworker jobs by imposing
> > quotas on
> > > > imports of Japanese cars. Reagan did this even though it demoralized
> > his
> > > > conservative free trade supporters. Reagan got no thanks from the left
> > who
> > > > denounced him instead for bailing out his Republican buddies in the
> > auto
> > > > business.
> > > > > I still hear from readers hostile to Reagan that Reagan's firing of
> > the
> > > > illegally striking air traffic controllers is proof that he was a
> > "union
> > > > buster." One sometimes feels sorry for people who have so little grasp
> > of
> > > > politics. For a new president to let himself be rolled up by a
> > > > poorly-advised, illegally-striking public sector union would have
> > rendered
> > > > Reagan impotent and without the power to achieve his ambitious agenda
> > of
> > > > changing the economic and foreign policies of the US. Even Reagan's
> > court
> > > > historians do not realize Reagan's extraordinary achievements in
> > economic
> > > > and foreign policy.
> > > > > It wasn't Reagan's agenda that was anti-left; it was the rhetoric
> > Reagan
> > > > used in order to keep the conservative base in line. Conservatives did
> > not
> > > > understand supply-side economics any better than did the economics
> > > > profession and Wall Street. Conservatives wanted a balanced budget,
> > which
> > > > is their solution to every economic problem. Reagan was talking about
> > a 30%
> > > > reduction in marginal tax rates (the rate of tax applied to increases
> > in
> > > > income) and about faster depreciation schedules for capital
> > investments.
> > > > > What this meant to conservatives was more budget deficits. Wall
> > Street
> > > > never lobbied me to repeal Glass-Steagall, but Wall Street did lobby
> > me to
> > > > water down the Reagan tax rate reductions.
> > > > > On the cold war front, conservatives were very suspicious of
> > negotiating
> > > > with the Soviets. Some conservatives put out the story that Gorbachev
> > was
> > > > the anti-christ, that he would take Reagan to the cleaners and we
> > would all
> > > > end up living under the red flag of communism.
> > > > > All of this was over the heads of the left-wing. Being creatures of
> > > > words, the left was moved by Reagan's words, not by his actions.
> > Whatever
> > > > words David Stockman and others put in his speeches about cutting back
> > > > government and the welfare state, the record is clear that Reagan did
> > not
> > > > cut back government or abolish the welfare state.
> > > > > I defend Reagan because I am fair and believe people should be
> > judged on
> > > > their real record, not on a fabricated or demonized one. More
> > importantly,
> > > > although people seem unable to learn from history, a lack of
> > understanding
> > > > can lead to the wrong lessons being drawn from the past.
> > > > > For example, by the time of George W. Bush's presidency, jobs
> > offshoring
> > > > by US corporations had reduced US GDP growth and employment
> > opportunities
> > > > in manufacturing. The Bush administration's solution was to reapply the
> > > > Reagan solution--tax rate reductions. However, Reagan's tax policy was
> > > > directed at increasing the supply of goods and services relative to
> > demand
> > > > in order to stop the rise in inflation and unemployment. Supply-side
> > > > economics is not a cure for declining employment opportunities and GDP
> > > > growth due to jobs offshoring. From a policy standpoint, the Bush tax
> > rate
> > > > reduction was pointless, and it was ineffective as an answer to an
> > economy
> > > > in decline from jobs offshoring.
> > > > > The Republicans, however, misreading the past, thought that tax
> > > > reductions and de-regulation were the stimulus that the economy needed.
> > > > Their mistake has left us with a hollowed out economy with the once
> > > > prosperous middle class in decline and with an ongoing financial crisis
> > > > that is held off with the Federal Reserve's policy of negative rates of
> > > > interest on overpriced bonds.
> > > > > If all the uninformed people who ranted about "Reagan deficits" and
> > "tax
> > > > cuts for the rich" had bothered to educate themselves about the policy
> > that
> > > > they so desperately wanted to demonize, a wider understanding of the
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment