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.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Re: The Cost of the Left-wing's Ongoing Vendetta Against Reagan
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 <plainolamerican@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
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
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
> ...>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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 Reagan
> > era might have created an audience among Washington policymakers for
> > writings by myself and others who stressed, to no effect, the adverse
> > impact of jobs offshoring on the economy. Instead, this cancer,
> > masquerading as the benefits of free trade, has gone untreated for 20 years.
> > > I agree that this is a lot of history in a few words, but it suffices to
> > make the point. Now to get on with Reagan's non-responsibility for the
> > financial crisis and war on terror.
> > > The Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets, created in the last
> > year of the Reagan administration, was labeled the "plunge protection team"
> > by the Washington Post. The Working Group consists of the Treasury
> > Secretary, Federal Reserve Chairman, and the financial regulators.
> > > I do not know the reason the Working Group was formed other than it
> > appears to be a response to the October 19, 1987 stock market decline. I
> > suspect that there was concern that speculators either drove down the
> > market by short selling or took advantage of a decline in the market to
> > make money by short selling that worsened the crisis. If speculators were
> > indeed gaming the market at the expense of pension funds, IRAs, and long
> > term investors, the government might have felt obliged to come up with new
> > regulations or to use moral suasion or even direct intervention in order to
> > protect legitimate investors from the greed of speculators. If speculators
> > short the market and the Federal Reserve buys long, the shorts don't pan
> > out for the speculators.
>
>
> 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.
--
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.
**JP** Our Leader
Please watch the true picture of our Leaders and share it with your friends and with Pakistani peoples https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=386427758079854
Also visit for more info at facebook https://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197?ref=hl
Regards / Admin - joinPakistan
Obama has veto power over what White House journalists can write
WordPress.com
--
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.
Dog for Sale
--
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.
Re: The Cost of the Left-wing's Ongoing Vendetta Against Reagan
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 Reagan
> > era might have created an audience among Washington policymakers for
> > writings by myself and others who stressed, to no effect, the adverse
> > impact of jobs offshoring on the economy. Instead, this cancer,
> > masquerading as the benefits of free trade, has gone untreated for 20 years.
> > > I agree that this is a lot of history in a few words, but it suffices to
> > make the point. Now to get on with Reagan's non-responsibility for the
> > financial crisis and war on terror.
> > > The Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets, created in the last
> > year of the Reagan administration, was labeled the "plunge protection team"
> > by the Washington Post. The Working Group consists of the Treasury
> > Secretary, Federal Reserve Chairman, and the financial regulators.
> > > I do not know the reason the Working Group was formed other than it
> > appears to be a response to the October 19, 1987 stock market decline. I
> > suspect that there was concern that speculators either drove down the
> > market by short selling or took advantage of a decline in the market to
> > make money by short selling that worsened the crisis. If speculators were
> > indeed gaming the market at the expense of pension funds, IRAs, and long
> > term investors, the government might have felt obliged to come up with new
> > regulations or to use moral suasion or even direct intervention in order to
> > protect legitimate investors from the greed of speculators. If speculators
> > short the market and the Federal Reserve buys long, the shorts don't pan
> > out for the speculators.
>
> ...
>
> 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.
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 Reagan
> > era might have created an audience among Washington policymakers for
> > writings by myself and others who stressed, to no effect, the adverse
> > impact of jobs offshoring on the economy. Instead, this cancer,
> > masquerading as the benefits of free trade, has gone untreated for 20 years.
> > > I agree that this is a lot of history in a few words, but it suffices to
> > make the point. Now to get on with Reagan's non-responsibility for the
> > financial crisis and war on terror.
> > > The Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets, created in the last
> > year of the Reagan administration, was labeled the "plunge protection team"
> > by the Washington Post. The Working Group consists of the Treasury
> > Secretary, Federal Reserve Chairman, and the financial regulators.
> > > I do not know the reason the Working Group was formed other than it
> > appears to be a response to the October 19, 1987 stock market decline. I
> > suspect that there was concern that speculators either drove down the
> > market by short selling or took advantage of a decline in the market to
> > make money by short selling that worsened the crisis. If speculators were
> > indeed gaming the market at the expense of pension funds, IRAs, and long
> > term investors, the government might have felt obliged to come up with new
> > regulations or to use moral suasion or even direct intervention in order to
> > protect legitimate investors from the greed of speculators. If speculators
> > short the market and the Federal Reserve buys long, the shorts don't pan
> > out for the speculators.
>
> ...
>
> 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.
Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt =
W O W ~!
For those interested,,,
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: NASA Science News <noreply@nasascience.org>
Date: Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:27 AM
Subject: Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt
To: NASA Science News <snglist@nasascience2.org>
From: NASA Science News <noreply@nasascience.org>
Date: Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:27 AM
Subject: Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt
To: NASA Science News <snglist@nasascience2.org>
NASA Science News for July 24, 2012
For several days this month, Greenland's surface ice cover melted over a larger area than at any time in more than 30 years of satellite observations. Nearly the entire ice cover of Greenland experienced some degree of melting, according to measurements from three independent satellites.
FULL STORY: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/24jul_greenland/
You are currently subscribed to snglist as:
This is a free service
--
--
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.
Tales of the Red Tape #35: Reams of Simplicity from CFPB
Isn't the Obama administration wonderful?
Tales of the Red Tape #35: Reams of Simplicity from CFPB
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is a veritable wellspring of costly dictates and regulatory excess. Among the dozens of pending regulations it has concocted is a 1,099-page proposal to streamline the mortgage process.
Yes, you read that right: 1,099 pages to "streamline" the home loan experience.
And get this: Creation of the bureau's 1,099-page blueprint for a more "consumer friendly" mortgage is chronicled in a 533-page report titled "Evolution of the Integrated TILA-RESPA Disclosures." (TILA stands for Truth in Lending Act. RESPA is Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Evidently, the folks at the CFPB didn't think too highly of the government's existing mortgage regime.)
The 533-page chronicle of the bureau's feat positively brims with insights such as "We found the most effective way to reduce confusion surrounding the APR [annual percentage rate] was to clarify that it was not the interest rate by adding the simple statement: 'This is not your interest rate.'"
Genius.
The CFPB recently unveiled revised loan forms: one to record mortgage loan estimates and one for closing disclosures. According to the bureau, both have been designed to "reduce cognitive burden," among other things. Thus, the agency whose raison d'être is supposedly to empower consumers actually embraces the notion that "too much information has the potential to detract from consumers' decision-making processes."
Mortgage simplification is one of the 400 or so regulatory requirements called for in the 2,300-page Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
In just two years, the CFPB has grown from zero to 900 employees. But in redesigning the mortgage documents, it (evidently) required the assistance of Kleimann Communication Group, Inc., a self-described "small, agile, woman-owned" business, at a cost to taxpayers of nearly $900,000. (No wonder the bureau is seeking a 32 percent budget increase for 2013—to $448 million.)
The Kleimann Group performed "qualitative testing" of various loan formats with 92 consumers and 22 lenders in Baltimore; Los Angeles; Chicago; Albuquerque; Des Moines; Philadelphia; Austin, Texas; Springfield, Massachusetts; and Birmingham, Alabama.
So let's recap: We have a 2,300-page statute giving rise to a 1,099-page regulation to simplify mortgages, which is spelled out in a 533-page report that chronicles consumer testing from one end of the country to the other. All of which indicates that home loans would likely be a lot simpler if government was a lot less involved.
--
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.
Delusional: Obama Claims “We Tried Our Plan and It Worked” While Speaking about the Economy
--
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.
Re: Who Really Invented the Internet?
Thanks for sharing this Michael, I was unaware of most of this information.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 3:17 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
--
Who Really Invented the Internet?
Contrary to legend, it wasn't the federal government, and the Internet had nothing to do with maintaining communications during a war.
July 22, 2012, 6:21 p.m. ET
By L. GORDON CROVITZ
A telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack Obama said: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." He justified elevating bureaucrats over entrepreneurs by referring to bridges and roads, adding: "The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies could make money off the Internet."
It's an urban legend that the government launched the Internet. The myth is that the Pentagon created the Internet to keep its communications lines up even in a nuclear strike. The truth is a more interesting story about how innovation happens -- and about how hard it is to build successful technology companies even once the government gets out of the way.
For many technologists, the idea of the Internet traces to Vannevar Bush, the presidential science adviser during World War II who oversaw the development of radar and the Manhattan Project. In a 1946 article in The Atlantic titled "As We May Think," Bush defined an ambitious peacetime goal for technologists: Build what he called a "memex" through which "wholly new forms of encyclopedias will appear, ready made with a mesh of associative trails running through them, ready to be dropped into the memex and there amplified."
That fired imaginations, and by the 1960s technologists were trying to connect separate physical communications networks into one global network -- a "world-wide web." The federal government was involved, modestly, via the Pentagon's Advanced Research Projects Agency Network. Its goal was not maintaining communications during a nuclear attack, and it didn't build the Internet. Robert Taylor, who ran the ARPA program in the 1960s, sent an email to fellow technologists in 2004 setting the record straight: "The creation of the Arpanet was not motivated by considerations of war. The Arpanet was not an Internet. An Internet is a connection between two or more computer networks."
If the government didn't invent the Internet, who did? Vinton Cerf developed the TCP/IP protocol, the Internet's backbone, and Tim Berners-Lee gets credit for hyperlinks.
But full credit goes to the company where Mr. Taylor worked after leaving ARPA: Xerox. It was at the Xerox PARC labs in Silicon Valley in the 1970s that the Ethernet was developed to link different computer networks. Researchers there also developed the first personal computer (the Xerox Alto) and the graphical user interface that still drives computer usage today.
According to a book about Xerox PARC, "Dealers of Lightning" (by Michael Hiltzik), its top researchers realized they couldn't wait for the government to connect different networks, so would have to do it themselves. "We have a more immediate problem than they do," Robert Metcalfe told his colleague John Shoch in 1973. "We have more networks than they do." Mr. Shoch later recalled that ARPA staffers "were working under government funding and university contracts. They had contract administrators . . . and all that slow, lugubrious behavior to contend with."
So having created the Internet, why didn't Xerox become the biggest company in the world? The answer explains the disconnect between a government-led view of business and how innovation actually happens.
Executives at Xerox headquarters in Rochester, N.Y., were focused on selling copiers. From their standpoint, the Ethernet was important only so that people in an office could link computers to share a copier. Then, in 1979, Steve Jobs negotiated an agreement whereby Xerox's venture-capital division invested $1 million in Apple, with the requirement that Jobs get a full briefing on all the Xerox PARC innovations. "They just had no idea what they had," Jobs later said, after launching hugely profitable Apple computers using concepts developed by Xerox.
Xerox's copier business was lucrative for decades, but the company eventually had years of losses during the digital revolution. Xerox managers can console themselves that it's rare for a company to make the transition from one technology era to another.
As for the government's role, the Internet was fully privatized in 1995, when a remaining piece of the network run by the National Science Foundation was closed -- just as the commercial Web began to boom. Blogger Brian Carnell wrote in 1999: "The Internet, in fact, reaffirms the basic free market critique of large government. Here for 30 years the government had an immensely useful protocol for transferring information, TCP/IP, but it languished. . . . In less than a decade, private concerns have taken that protocol and created one of the most important technological revolutions of the millennia."
It's important to understand the history of the Internet because it's too often wrongly cited to justify big government. It's also important to recognize that building great technology businesses requires both innovation and the skills to bring innovations to market. As the contrast between Xerox and Apple shows, few business leaders succeed in this challenge. Those who do -- not the government -- deserve the credit for making it happen.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444464304577539063008406518.html
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.
--
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.
Re: Freedomworks' Matt Kibbe on the Hostile Takeover of The GOP
(And yet, look who we ended up with as the Republican nominee.....)
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:09 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
--
Freedomworks' Matt Kibbe on the Hostile Takeover of The GOP
Nick Gillespie & Meredith Bragg | July 23, 2012
http://youtu.be/3v0yrDXcYE4
"We understand that Republicans helped get us into this fix," says FreedomWorks president and CEO Matt Kibbe, who has been instrumental in supporting Tea Party challengers within Republican primaries. "It's a little bit like Groundhog Day: I feel like we keep teaching Republicans the same lessons over and over again"
Kibbe's newest book, Hostile Takeover: Resisting Centralized Government's Stranglehold on America, calls for a grassroots rebellion against the "upper management" of government.
"The phrase Hostile Takeover actually comes from an op-ed [former Rep.] Dick Armey and I wrote leading up the the 2010 election where we argued we had to beat the Republicans before we beat the Democrats."
Reason's Nick Gillespie caught up with Kibbe at FreedomFest to discuss the book, the power of the Tea Party, and the marquee races to watch in 2012.
Shot by Tracy Oppenhiemer and Alex Manning. Edited by Meredith Bragg. About 4:30 minutes.
Held each July in Las Vegas, FreedomFest is attended by over 2,000 limited-government enthusiasts and libertarians a year. ReasonTV spoke with over two dozen speakers and attendees and will be releasing interviews over the coming weeks.
Visit ReasonTV for downloadable versions and subscribe to ReasonTV's YouTube Channel to receive notifications when new material goes live.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/23/freedomworks-matt-kibbe-on-the-hostile-t
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.
--
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)