Obama hails President Ronald Reagan

[JayHawk]

And don't try to sell me that crap about Reagan bringing down the Evil Empire -- the USSR was crumbling before Reagan even got into office.

See when you post something that is obviously a patent lie and then someone like me reads it. SOmeone with the point of view of watching the USSR crumble like watching a home movie. Well then I have to seriously doubt the rest of the words that exit your mouth or get typed from your keyboard. I may not be an expert on many of the timelines of history, the goals of failed presidents or any of the other tripe BUT I do know one thing better than my own nuts. Russia was driven into poverty by our overspent economy and then when they ask for leave Reagan told them to fuck off. SO dont hand me your bullshit all dressed up with other things you believe about Reagan.

The interesting thing about the slide SMelter posted was that if you lay over top of that slide the conflicts of this nation. They will coincide because the Republicans have the guts to use the power of force intead of being nanny warriors in a Clinton-esk like environment. Anyone here that thinks that Bin Laden was steeled into action and did all the planning and training for 9/11 AFTER Clinton left office is a fucking idiot. He figured America would lob a missile or two because eight years of CLinton and 12 years of Bush - Reagan taught him that. Bush Reagan had bigger fish to fry and Clinton road on borrowed time.

War cost money and Freedom aint free. ANy of you who think this country was founded on peace and love and holding hands ought to take six or seven seconds and look at our history.

 

[NickCole]

I may not be an expert on many of the timelines of history, the goals of failed presidents or any of the other tripe BUT I do know one thing better than my own nuts. Russia was driven into poverty by our overspent economy and then when they ask for leave Reagan told them to fuck off. SO dont hand me your bullshit all dressed up with other things you believe about Reagan. ...

How old were you and your nuts in the 1980s as it unfolded, and where were you?

I was at the Berlin Wall in June 1987 and have a piece of it right here on a shelf in my office. That may not make me an expert but it means I don't rely on other people's interpretations of what happened.

You are wrong that Russia was driven to poverty by our overspent economy. Russia was driven to poverty by their own military overspending -- and the inefficiency of communism in fueling a prosperous society, and also the crime and corruption that was part of their communist regime.

And when Gorbachev came along with glasnost and perestroika, said let's talk, Reagan didn't tell them to fuck off as you claim, he said okay. He said okay four times. Geneva, Reykjavik, DC and Moscow.

 

[iman]

One of the major factors in the failure of the Soviet Union was the tanking of the oil price. Oil accounted for 60% of the Soviets foreign revenue in 1989 and the price sunk as low as $8.00 a barrel. The Saudi's flooded the market with cheap oil which benefited the US and severely damaged the Soviets. How much Reagan had to do with all this is not yet known.

 

[smelter]

War cost money and Freedom aint free. ANy of you who think this country was founded on peace and love and holding hands ought to take six or seven seconds and look at our history.

How about taking six or seven minutes to read this timeline and comments about your hero:


The Beirut Fiasco -- Reagan Decides to Intervene in Lebanon's Civil War
The deaths lie on him and the defeat in Lebanon lies on him and him alone.... The trouble with this fellow is he tries to be tough rather than smart."
--House Speaker Tip O'Neill on President Reagan, April 1984

In the spring of 1983, President Reagan and his team of hawkish advisors decided to intervene in Lebanon's civil war on behalf of Christian President Amin Gemayel. On March 24, the 24th Marine Amphibious Unit was dispatched to Lebanon where Moslem and Christian factions were fighting.

On April 28, 1983, a suicide bomber drove a van loaded with 2,000 pounds of explosives into the U.S. embassy in Beirut. Sixty-three people died, including seventeen Americans.

Four months later (September 6, 1983), two U.S. Marines were killed by rocket and mortar fire. At an October 19 press conference, Reagan was asked about the safety of the Marines in Beirut to which he replied, "We're looking at everything that can be done to try and make their position safer. We're not sitting idly by."

A few days later (October 23), another suicide bomber drove a truck loaded with explosives into the headquarters building of the First Battalion, 8th Marines, located at the Beirut airport. The resulting explosion killed 241 American servicemen.

Three months later, the Reagan administration removed American troops from Beirut and put them aboard offshore ships. Reagan described the retreat as taking "decisive new steps." Explained spokesman Larry Speakes, "We don't consider this a withdrawal but more of a redeployment."

The Iran-Contra Scandal

"The charge has been made that the United States has shipped weapons to Iran as ransom payment for the release of American hostages in Lebanon, that the United States undercut its allies and secretly violated American policy against trafficking with terrorists.... Those charges are utterly false.... We did not--repeat--did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we."
--President Reagan, television address, November 13, 1986

"... was not fully informed on the nature of one of the activities."--President Reagan, referring to the fact that money from weapons sales to Iran was diverted to the contras, November 25, 1986

"If he knew about it, then he has willfully broken the law; if he didn't know about it, then he is failing to do his job. After all, we expect the President to know about the foreign policy activities being run directly out of the White House."
--Senator John Glenn, November 25, 1986

"When someone says, 'But he was giving arms to people he knew had killed our Marines,' it's hard to respond to that."
--House Republican Robert Dornan, normally one of Reagan's most ardent supporters, December 11, 1986

"The simple truth is, 'I don't remember--period.'"
--President Reagan, responding to a question about when he authorized arms shipments to Iran, February 2, 1987

"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not."
--Reagan in a television address is forced to acknowledge "the facts and the evidence" uncovered the Tower Commission, March 4, 1987

"I told you all the truth that first day after...everything hit the fan."
--President Reagan, June 11, 1987
Four years after Reagan left office, more of the truth would come out. In 1992, former defense secretary Casper Weinberger was ordered to turn over notes of a January 1986 White House meeting. Weinberger's notes said, "President decided to go with Israeli-Iranian offer to release our 5 hostages in return for sale of 4,000 TOWs [U.S. missiles] to Iran by Israel. George Shultz + I opposed--Bill Casey, Ed Meese + VP favored--as did Poindexter."
Before leaving office in 1992, then-president George Bush pardoned Weinberger and five others who were facing felony charges stemming from Iran-contra. The Bush pardons effectively ended the Iran-contra investigation.

"If the American people ever find out what we have done, they will chase us down the streets and lynch us."--George H. W. Bush, to White House correspondent Sarah McClendon, June 1992, in response to the question, "What will the people do if they ever find out the truth about Iraq-gate and Iran-contra?"


http://www.geocities.com/thereaganyears/foreignpolicy.htm

Postscript: The only war Reagan had under his belt was when he sent 5,000 troops to invade little Grenada .... 2 days after the 241 marines were killed in Lebanon. So much for his mythical fucking war record!

 

[iman]

I really admire the ability of the Obama campaign, it is one of the smartest and slickest campaigns we have seen for awhile.

The invocation of Reagan was certainly no accident. He is looking for independent votes in California and other states because regular Dems are generally sticking with one of the other candidates.

I understand that as a tactic,but it seems a bit unseemly for a campaign that has been trashing the Clintons and using race to its advantage to invoke the name of a President that was so heavily dependent on racism for his election. There really are lines that should not be crossed.

 

[LaloGS]

Obama has not sided with Reagan. Read again what he said.

I don't have to read i Jack, I saw him say it on TV, and have since watched the clip several times. If he thinks Reagan was worthy of praise, then I think Obama is worthy of losing the nomination. We don't need confusion right now, and Reagan's record is out there for any who want or care to see it, including Obama.

What a stupid ass thing to say.

 

[LaloGS]

See when you post something that is obviously a patent lie and then someone like me reads it. SOmeone with the point of view of watching the USSR crumble like watching a home movie. Well then I have to seriously doubt the rest of the words that exit your mouth or get typed from your keyboard. I may not be an expert on many of the timelines of history, the goals of failed presidents or any of the other tripe BUT I do know one thing better than my own nuts. Russia was driven into poverty by our overspent economy and then when they ask for leave Reagan told them to fuck off. SO dont hand me your bullshit all dressed up with other things you believe about Reagan.

The interesting thing about the slide SMelter posted was that if you lay over top of that slide the conflicts of this nation. They will coincide because the Republicans have the guts to use the power of force intead of being nanny warriors in a Clinton-esk like environment. Anyone here that thinks that Bin Laden was steeled into action and did all the planning and training for 9/11 AFTER Clinton left office is a fucking idiot. He figured America would lob a missile or two because eight years of CLinton and 12 years of Bush - Reagan taught him that. Bush Reagan had bigger fish to fry and Clinton road on borrowed time.

War cost money and Freedom aint free. ANy of you who think this country was founded on peace and love and holding hands ought to take six or seven seconds and look at our history.

Come on Mazda, read a little history of the period instead of just taking hook line and sinker what the Neocons say about the Reagan vegetable.

 

[LaloGS]

Of all the presidents to praise, he praises one of the most anti-black community Presidents in the last quarter century, and he goes out of the way to praise him at the expense of both Nixon and Clinton, both Presidents who have done considerable things for the black community.

Yeah, total confusion about who's his daddy.

 

[iman]

you are just fucking out of your crazy mind if you are going to accuse me of thinking the Clintons are racists - do you ever touch down with reality? Ever? Your just fling out any old bullshit, no matter how outrageous the lie. Your false accusations are sad signs of a desperation that is tragic. Give it up, Your false accusations just decrease any credibility yet remaining. There things seem more complex than you can handle.

Say 10 Hail Marys and make a good Act of Contrition, my son.

 

[JayHawk]

How old were you and your nuts in the 1980s as it unfolded, and where were you?

I was in highschool in 1980 however I concluded the cold war as the USSR fell apart. I have studied documents that wont be availble for you to view most likely ever. You want to beleve the romantic version of the world that doesnt exist.

I was at the Berlin Wall in June 1987 and have a piece of it right here on a shelf in my office. That may not make me an expert but it means I don't rely on other people's interpretations of what happened.

Evidently you dont rely upon facts

You are wrong that Russia was driven to poverty by our overspent economy. Russia was driven to poverty by their own military overspending -- and the inefficiency of communism in fueling a prosperous society, and also the crime and corruption that was part of their communist regime.

SO why exactly do you think they spent so much? Just because? Did anyone compete in spending with them......nah couldnt be.

The most important pair of factors that caused the USSR to collapse was arguably the Soviet economy and the implications of the policy of glasnost. The centrally planned, bureaucratic Russia economy could not compete with the Western world. With such a high proportion of its GDP spent on the military and the nuclear arms race in particular, it was the individuals under Soviet rule that suffered with a chronic lack of consumer goods and luxuries. Once Ronald Reagan had re-initiated the nuclear arms race in the 1980s, the standard of living in the Soviet empire continued to drop further still. The Soviet economy was in very poor shape and it was only a matter of time before it would totally stagnate and collapse.

And when Gorbachev came along with glasnost and perestroika, said let's talk, Reagan didn't tell them to fuck off as you claim, he said okay. He said okay four times. Geneva, Reykjavik, DC and Moscow.

The other highly significant cause of the Soviet demise was the policy of glasnost implemented by Gorbachev and its implications. Glasnost or "openness" was the policy which was designed to open up the communist party and economic management to debate; Gorbachev hoped this would stimulate ideas and allow for the implementation of economic restructuring perestroika. This proved divisive to the party and there was much opposition to Gorbachev's plans from hard-liners within the party, which would help facilitate the collapse of the USSR, with dearly-held ideas and values being overturned, further destabilising the Soviet empire.

As far as instituting Glasnost, of course Reagan had no direct involvement. He supported it to their end. The changes were made however due to the massive economic failure and dissent in both Russia and its sattelites. We didnt support the Balarus revolt and Lech Walesa did we? They ramped their military for Afghanistan. We didnt support the opposite side did we? (everyone knows that fact since when we jumped off it created our biggest current foreign affairs issue). DId we do anything to assist in German reunification.....nahh we sat that out. It is simply childish to think Reagan policy directly made USSR policy as you think his supporters trumpet. It is not in anyway beyond the realm of belief to think a multitude o issue pushed that country over the edge an we supported each and every one of them in increasing fashion after Reagan and Thatcher were in office.

 

[Kulindahr]

LABOR UNIONS ARE A VITAL CONSTITUENCY FOR DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES


It's interesting Obama aligns himself with Reagan while working to get union votes in Nevada.

The power of unions declined sharply under Reagan and it became much more acceptable for businesses to fight off labor organizations.

It began shortly after Reagan took office when he fired about 12,000 federal air traffic controllers who went on strike. This was especially surprising because Reagan had headed a powerful and important union in the 1940s and 50s. Also the air traffic controllers were represented by one of the few unions that supported Reagan in his candidacy for President. After the PATCO strike union membership began to decline -- as would be expected when the President of the United States dismisses their power. Reagan beating the PATCO union to an impotent corner gave power to corporations against labor that they hadn't had in years, and unions still haven't recovered from that.

Unions better think carefully about that while Obama suggests it's time to return to Reagan.

Yeah, let's hear it for the unions!

Unions which demand 15% of a minimum-wage earner's paycheck so he/she can have a job.
Unions that spend people's money on politics they oppose.
Unions that keep prices so high that low-income families can't get their houses fixed.
Unions that go on strike at grocery stores, harassing the elderly and disabled who go past the line to buy things no other store has.
Unions who threaten businesses with shutdowns so they can raise their wages from ten times minimum wage to twelve.
Unions who insist on making labor so expensive that corporations are driven to move their factories elsewhere.
Unions -- who hate the rich only because they (the union people) aren't them (the rich).

Maybe if the unions had had a little more humility and good sense, and cared about other people, people wouldn't have been cheering for Reagan.
Let them stop striking to stuff their own pockets, buy another extra house, and add to their collection of vehicles made just for recreation, and start striking on behalf of the customers of their businesses, and they might regain some of their luster.
But for the moment, I'd love Obama as president if he busted every union whose members make $50/hr or more.

 

[Spensed]

^ That's a distorted and one-sided view of unions, which, whatever their faults, contribute significantly to the bargaining power of working people.

Yes, truly, if only the unions had our humility and good sense. all would be well. LOL.

 

[Kulindahr]

It sounds once again like people expect politicians to be immaculate, and nigh-unto-infallible.

Reagan had flaws, but he did in truth face down the "evil empire", and topple it. Is that saying he did the whole thing himself? No. Decades of opposing every Soviet move, playing "containment"; shifting economic sands; dropping prices of oil (which the Reagan White House asked some 'friends' to do); numerous factors were in play. But what it came to was that a Soviet Union which had always managed to pull through somehow was at a low point, and expecting the U.S., as it had done so many times before in the poker game of international politics, to 'call'.
Reagan raised. And raised again. And he poked, prodded, wheedled, cajoled... and raised.
The Soviets folded: endgame.

There is no denying that he neglected many things, and left many things to subordinates, that turned out badly. But some things he focused on, and did well. There's the final kick in the ass to the Soviet Union; before that came the 'START' talks, which finally changed negotiations over nuclear weapons from a game of trying to get the other guy to slow down while we get new toys into play, to actually reducing the numbers not just of delivery vehicles, but of warheads.

And consider this: if today's president had as much intelligence and insight fully awake, as Reagan had daydreaming, we wouldn't be in Iraq.














Jellybeans, anyone?

 

[PSCGuy]

Unfortunately Ronny's change of direction let the Neocons in, and man have they fucked things up but good.

Yeah. Reagan changed things for the worst. He pumped money unnecessarily into the military, to "crush" an opponent that was already dying. He broke unions because he thought it would help business. He launched wars because he didn't want to see brown people try socialism.

What else? Oh. He was a racist.

 

[LaloGS]

It sounds once again like people expect politicians to be immaculate, and nigh-unto-infallible.

Reagan had flaws, but he did in truth face down the "evil empire", and topple it. Is that saying he did the whole thing himself? No. Decades of opposing every Soviet move, playing "containment"; shifting economic sands; dropping prices of oil (which the Reagan White House asked some 'friends' to do); numerous factors were in play. But what it came to was that a Soviet Union which had always managed to pull through somehow was at a low point, and expecting the U.S., as it had done so many times before in the poker game of international politics, to 'call'.
Reagan raised. And raised again. And he poked, prodded, wheedled, cajoled... and raised.
The Soviets folded: endgame.

There is no denying that he neglected many things, and left many things to subordinates, that turned out badly. But some things he focused on, and did well. There's the final kick in the ass to the Soviet Union; before that came the 'START' talks, which finally changed negotiations over nuclear weapons from a game of trying to get the other guy to slow down while we get new toys into play, to actually reducing the numbers not just of delivery vehicles, but of warheads.

And consider this: if today's president had as much intelligence and insight fully awake, as Reagan had daydreaming, we wouldn't be in Iraq.

Jellybeans, anyone?

What ever your source of history is Kulindahr, you ought to trash it if you believe all that you stated in this post.

 

[NickCole]

...

I agree with what you quoted and linked to. Do you realize it doesn't support what you claimed?

The most important pair of factors that caused the USSR to collapse was arguably the Soviet economy and the implications of the policy of glasnost.

That's your quote from your link, and it supports what I wrote 100%. It's not what you claimed.

The centrally planned, bureaucratic Russia economy could not compete with the Western world.

The Western world. Not Reagan. Not the United States under Reagan. The Soviet Union economy could not compete with the Western world.

With such a high proportion of its GDP spent on the military and the nuclear arms race in particular, it was the individuals under Soviet rule that suffered with a chronic lack of consumer goods and luxuries. Once Ronald Reagan had re-initiated the nuclear arms race in the 1980s, the standard of living in the Soviet empire continued to drop further still. The Soviet economy was in very poor shape and it was only a matter of time before it would totally stagnate and collapse.

Reagan spending us into monumental debt did nothing more than nudge the USSR into a continuation of a decline in its standard of living, which had been declining for years. They were spiraling down a hole when Reagan took office and continued to spiral down while he was in office. Then they hit bottom and Reagan took credit for it, but in truth there is no evidence that their dive to destruction wouldn't have happened with or without Reagan spending us into record-breaking debt.

The other highly significant cause of the Soviet demise was the policy of glasnost implemented by Gorbachev and its implications. Glasnost or "openness" was the policy which was designed to open up the communist party and economic management to debate; Gorbachev hoped this would stimulate ideas and allow for the implementation of economic restructuring perestroika. This proved divisive to the party and there was much opposition to Gorbachev's plans from hard-liners within the party, which would help facilitate the collapse of the USSR, with dearly-held ideas and values being overturned, further destabilising the Soviet empire.

And this is the other part. Gorbachev. It was Gorbachev who was largely responsible for driving the final nails into the coffin of Soviet Russia, it was Gorbachev who approached Reagan, not the other way around, and made conciliation possible.

I'm not saying Reagan didn't play a role, and in some ways a positive role, but he was not efficient about it and he was not honest about it. He took credit he didn't earn and he left us with a huge debt that was unnecessary, much as Bush has now done because of Iraq.

 

[NickCole]

Yeah, let's hear it for the unions!

Unions which demand 15% of a minimum-wage earner's paycheck so he/she can have a job.
Unions that spend people's money on politics they oppose.
Unions that keep prices so high that low-income families can't get their houses fixed.
Unions that go on strike at grocery stores, harassing the elderly and disabled who go past the line to buy things no other store has.
Unions who threaten businesses with shutdowns so they can raise their wages from ten times minimum wage to twelve.
Unions who insist on making labor so expensive that corporations are driven to move their factories elsewhere.
Unions -- who hate the rich only because they (the union people) aren't them (the rich).

Maybe if the unions had had a little more humility and good sense, and cared about other people, people wouldn't have been cheering for Reagan.
Let them stop striking to stuff their own pockets, buy another extra house, and add to their collection of vehicles made just for recreation, and start striking on behalf of the customers of their businesses, and they might regain some of their luster.
But for the moment, I'd love Obama as president if he busted every union whose members make $50/hr or more.

You support my point perfectly.

No doubt a lot of people agree with you, but it's unlikely the Culinary Workers Union in Vegas --a huge and powerful Union that supports Obama-- would if they understood it. I doubt they'll realize it and Obama will probably win, but like the unions that supported Reagan the joke may be on them.

Once again I point out how Americans shoot themselves in the foot by believing a candidate's propaganda. Obama is playing the voters. Voters who believe charisma over substance, who don't do their homework and learn the truth -- which in this case is that Hillary Clinton supports Unions and Obama may not -- make bad choices. It looks like Obama may not be a friend to the Unions if elected -- and here they are helping him get elected.

 

[JackFTwist]

I don't have to read i Jack, I saw him say it on TV, and have since watched the clip several times. If he thinks Reagan was worthy of praise, then I think Obama is worthy of losing the nomination. We don't need confusion right now, and Reagan's record is out there for any who want or care to see it, including Obama.

What a stupid ass thing to say.

You looking in your mirror when you cast insults? With your ears plugged?

Is simple comprehension of English so difficult?

What did Obama say?

Of course you don't have to read it.

Facts are difficult for you just as aural comprehension is.

Reagan changed the trajectory of American politics. That is fact. That is not praise of Reagan. It was Bill Clinton who got all lovey dovey with Reagan and exchanged jelly beans hand in the jar together. Obama noted that Reagan changed the trajectory of American politics. He did.

Try impressing us with your ability to understand simple facts rather than your "I don't have to read it" declarations of willful self imposed ignorance.

 

[naked gent]

What ever your source of history is Kulindahr, you ought to trash it if you believe all that you stated in this post.

I don't find Kul's post to be at odds with history Lalo.

Its closer to reality than your claim that Reagan was a "pile of shit front man for the neocons"

check under your bed Lalo...there are probably a neocon or two hiding there right now.

 

[JackFTwist]

Yeah. Reagan changed things for the worst. He pumped money unnecessarily into the military, to "crush" an opponent that was already dying. He broke unions because he thought it would help business. He launched wars because he didn't want to see brown people try socialism.

What else? Oh. He was a racist.

All of that is true.

Reagan changed the trajectory of American politics for the worst but did it with a cheerful optimism that it was Morning in America.

Evidently the very ancient elderly members of this forum have already suffered loss of comprehension because they denounce Obama for stating a simple fact - Reagan changed American politics - with their senile inability to comprehend that that is not an endorsement, just fact - and that Obama linked liberal-progressive causes with optimism to redirect the trajectory of American politics.