LBJ Accused Nixon of Treason

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Well, there’s also the small matter of Reagon sabotaging Carters negotiations with Iran. But hey, he got a flightcarrier named after him, so he must be a patriot right?

Carter did such a great job of sabotaging the country and himself that Reagan didn’t need to lift a finger.

Oh, he did more than lifting a finger. Or he wouldn’t get elected.

Carter wasn’t so bad, he was quite good actually. Clinton was excellent. Reagan was bad, Bush was the worst.

Denial only gets you so far.

Carter sucked. He more than sucked. He almost destroyed the US. Nutless in every definition of the word.

Reagan was the greatest President the US has had since Teddy.

Clinton did just enough of nothing not to fuck up everything.

Bush is a wimp. No one likes a wimp - but he is far from the worst President we have had. Carter and LBJ were both much worse than him.

Being anti-American Euro-trash and not knowing what the fuck you are talking about will get you no where.

x2 does this guy ever shut his mouth?

ooh, the stupid fuck has a groupy ! ! ![/quote]

Ha, have you ever made a post on here that wasn’t ripped to shreds?

22

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Well, there’s also the small matter of Reagon sabotaging Carters negotiations with Iran. But hey, he got a flightcarrier named after him, so he must be a patriot right?

Carter did such a great job of sabotaging the country and himself that Reagan didn’t need to lift a finger.

Oh, he did more than lifting a finger. Or he wouldn’t get elected.

Carter wasn’t so bad, he was quite good actually. Clinton was excellent. Reagan was bad, Bush was the worst.

Denial only gets you so far.

Carter sucked. He more than sucked. He almost destroyed the US. Nutless in every definition of the word.

Reagan was the greatest President the US has had since Teddy.

Clinton did just enough of nothing not to fuck up everything.

Bush is a wimp. No one likes a wimp - but he is far from the worst President we have had. Carter and LBJ were both much worse than him.

Being anti-American Euro-trash and not knowing what the fuck you are talking about will get you no where.

Slogans. That’s your answer, slogans.

Reagan was a traitor and he negotiated with Iran not to have the hostages released. This became obvious when he was caught red handed later selling weapons to Iran and using the profit to support the contra’s in Nicaragua. True or false?

Clinton found the country in pretty bad shape and left it in great shape, both economycally and military. The US had friends throughtout the world and was close with it’s allies.

You like Bush, you voted twice for that wimp.

Being a stupid patriot and not knowing wtf you’re talking about, you’re doing more damage to the us than any anti-American Euro-trash would ever be capable off.

My answer is “slogans”? I lived under every president I mentioned, you stupid euro-cum stain. They are not slogans. They are the truth.

If Reagan is guilty of this - then show the proof - and get the conspiracy theory cock out of your mouth. You are nothing but a dick smoking america hater. Did he help the contras? You’re fucking right he did - and he was on the right side of that fight, as history went on to prove.

The facts are that Clinton inherited a recovering economy, and left with an economy heading toward recession. Any fucking idiot would know this. I guess you are even more fucking stupid than any fucking idiot. But that probably goes without saying.

I agree with the last part, though. No worthless fucking piece of shit euro-fuckfaced cock sucker with a short man’s complex is going to do a fucking thing tho the US.

All you can do is talk. That’s the only thing anyone in euroland can do. We’ve kicked your fudge-packed asses every time we’ve tried for the last - shit - almost 200 years.

Real men do. Pussies whine and then go back to sucking cock. ANd you are the biggest fucking pussy on this forum.

Put the dick back in your mouth and continue with your pointless, worthless, america hating life. [/quote]

Hilarious!

23

Oohhh, slogans and insults. I guess that would make you captain of the debating team on your university eh?

Well, at least you got a couple of extra groupies. And with your dick-sucking obsession, that might come in handy.

You seem to think that living under these presidents makes you expert? Why would it?

Anyway, this is what the BBC had to say about Reagan.

[i]But his foreign policy was criticised for being in disarray. In October 1983, nearly 250 American marines belonging to the peacekeeping force in Lebanon were killed by a truck bomb in Beirut.

US troops invaded Grenada in 1983
There was talk of a collapse in the US’ Middle East policy coupled with criticism of an “absence of decision-making in Washington”.

His October 1983 invasion of the small Caribbean island of Grenada was dismissed as a clumsy sham.

…

The president was forced to admit that he had approved sending military supplies to Iran in blatant contradiction of stated policy. It later emerged that the profits from these arms sales had gone to help the “Contra” rebels fighting the left-wing Sandinista Government of Nicaragua.

Col Oliver North was sacked and Rear Adm John Poindexter resigned because of their involvement in the affair. Mr Reagan’s National Security Adviser, Robert McFarlane, attempted suicide.

Colonel Oliver North: Masterminded Iran-Contra
Mr Reagan gave the impression of knowing little of what was going on. The Tower Commission report on the scandal absolved him from deliberately lying to the American people but criticised him for being out of touch.

Later the final Congressional report laid the blame squarely on the president. It declared: “If the president did not know what his national security advisers were doing, he should have.”

The report was seen as a devastating indictment of Mr Reagan’s style of government.

Mr Reagan’s eight years in office spanned triumphs and disasters. He left office with a budget deficit larger than the combined total of all of his 39 predecessors."[/i]

This is your great leader?

24

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Oohhh, slogans and insults. I guess that would make you captain of the debating team on your university eh?

Well, at least you got a couple of extra groupies. And with your dick-sucking obsession, that might come in handy.

You seem to think that living under these presidents makes you expert? Why would it?
[/quote]

What, you can hurl insults, but get your feelings hurt when they are hurled back? Why does this not surprise me?

I figured I needed to speak your language - and fellatio is sceond nature to you.

I think living under the presidents mentioned gives me a far better understanding of exactly what they did than some dipshit from Belgium who wasn’t even alive for the Reagan administration.

25

You claim to know my age, and you’re wrong.

Again.

You’re wrong about absolutely everything aren’t you?

Anyway, you seem ignorant of Contragate, or perhaps you just suppressed it?

26

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
You claim to know my age, and you’re wrong.

Again.

You’re wrong about absolutely everything aren’t you?

Anyway, you seem ignorant of Contragate, or perhaps you just suppressed it?[/quote]

What have I said about Iran-Contra?

Did it not help push the communists out of Central America?

Reagan was on the right side of history just about every time he did something.

I would have to give a flying fuck about you before I cared enough to know anything about you.

You walk like a fucking kid and talk like a fucking kid. You have since you began posting here.

If you aren’t a kid, you need to take a long, hard look at yourself why you are such a fucking pussy as to let your dad climb a ladder in your stead.

27

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Well, there’s also the small matter of Reagon sabotaging Carters negotiations with Iran. But hey, he got a flightcarrier named after him, so he must be a patriot right?

Carter did such a great job of sabotaging the country and himself that Reagan didn’t need to lift a finger.

Oh, he did more than lifting a finger. Or he wouldn’t get elected.

Carter wasn’t so bad, he was quite good actually. Clinton was excellent. Reagan was bad, Bush was the worst.

Denial only gets you so far.

Carter sucked. He more than sucked. He almost destroyed the US. Nutless in every definition of the word.

Reagan was the greatest President the US has had since Teddy.

Clinton did just enough of nothing not to fuck up everything.

Bush is a wimp. No one likes a wimp - but he is far from the worst President we have had. Carter and LBJ were both much worse than him.

Being anti-American Euro-trash and not knowing what the fuck you are talking about will get you no where.

It is you who is brain-washed and doesn’t know what the fuck you are talking about. Nothing more than a conservative bootlicker. If anyone even knows how the term consevative appiles to the current crop of criminals.

you are such a dumbass, it scares me.[/quote]

Spoken like a conservative brainwashed fool!

28

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Well, there’s also the small matter of Reagon sabotaging Carters negotiations with Iran. …[/quote]

OK. Citation, please.
When and where did Reagan do this? Please show us a fact. Not a speculation, not some ideological lie. A fact. It will be a refreshing change.

29

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Well, there’s also the small matter of Reagon sabotaging Carters negotiations with Iran. But hey, he got a flightcarrier named after him, so he must be a patriot right?

Carter did such a great job of sabotaging the country and himself that Reagan didn’t need to lift a finger.

Oh, he did more than lifting a finger. Or he wouldn’t get elected.

Carter wasn’t so bad, he was quite good actually. Clinton was excellent. Reagan was bad, Bush was the worst.

Denial only gets you so far.

Carter sucked. He more than sucked. He almost destroyed the US. Nutless in every definition of the word.

Reagan was the greatest President the US has had since Teddy.

Clinton did just enough of nothing not to fuck up everything.

Bush is a wimp. No one likes a wimp - but he is far from the worst President we have had. Carter and LBJ were both much worse than him.

Being anti-American Euro-trash and not knowing what the fuck you are talking about will get you no where.

It is you who is brain-washed and doesn’t know what the fuck you are talking about. Nothing more than a conservative bootlicker. If anyone even knows how the term consevative appiles to the current crop of criminals.

You always quote the same radical left-wing news source, yet you call me a boot licker?

I have said or at least two years now that the current republican party is not conservative in any form or fashion.

Try again, pee wee.
[/quote]

What is radical to you? A news source run on contributions only? Is this left-wing? The populace.

And yes I do agree the Bush Admin. is not conservative in any way - whatever conservativism means?

30

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Well, there’s also the small matter of Reagon sabotaging Carters negotiations with Iran. …

OK. Citation, please.
When and where did Reagan do this? Please show us a fact. Not a speculation, not some ideological lie. A fact. It will be a refreshing change.[/quote]

Easy, but you have to look. It will rarely be discussed in the main stream press and if it is it’s buried or expounded upon by disinformation. But what do you expect when the elite work for the same end.

31

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
What is radical to you? A news source run on contributions only? Is this left-wing? The populace.

And yes I do agree the Bush Admin. is not conservative in any way - whatever conservativism means?[/quote]

It is a for-profit “news” website. They are in it to make money. If the “donors” hear stuff they don’t like, or disagree with - they will stop “contributing”.

How is that any different from RushLimbaugh.com? He runs his site to make money based largely on member subscriptions.

Your website is a bunch of left-wing freaks who have successfully duped yet another stupid fucking college kid into thinking they are they “real news”.

32

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Well, there’s also the small matter of Reagon sabotaging Carters negotiations with Iran. …

OK. Citation, please.
When and where did Reagan do this? Please show us a fact. Not a speculation, not some ideological lie. A fact. It will be a refreshing change.

Easy, but you have to look. It will rarely be discussed in the main stream press and if it is it’s buried or expounded upon by disinformation. But what do you expect when the elite work for the same end.[/quote]

If it is so easy, provide it. A credible citation showing the historic fact tthat Regan tried to subvert Carter’s Iran hostage negotiations. I want a vetted fact not some ignorant screed. Your credibility now hangs on it.

33

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Well, there’s also the small matter of Reagon sabotaging Carters negotiations with Iran. …

OK. Citation, please.
When and where did Reagan do this? Please show us a fact. Not a speculation, not some ideological lie. A fact. It will be a refreshing change.

Easy, but you have to look. It will rarely be discussed in the main stream press and if it is it’s buried or expounded upon by disinformation. But what do you expect when the elite work for the same end.

If it is so easy, provide it. A credible citation showing the historic fact tthat Regan tried to subvert Carter’s Iran hostage negotiations. I want a vetted fact not some ignorant screed. Your credibility now hangs on it.[/quote]

His credibility has been shot for at least a year, now.

34

Don’t you find it strange that the hostages were released minutes after Reagan was sworn in?

I mean, you loons see conspiracies everywhere, but you don’t find this strange?

35

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Don’t you find it strange that the hostages were released minutes after Reagan was sworn in?

I mean, you loons see conspiracies everywhere, but you don’t find this strange?[/quote]

Not really. Reagan would simply bomb the shit out of them until the hostages were released. They knew he would and bailed out.

Thugs and murdering scum rarely attack those they know will fight back. They don’t want a fight, they just want to do harm.

Think of the sheer joy you’d feel if some perp broke into your home to harm you, and your mom and dad, and you saw the look in the scum’s eyes just before you unloaded both barrels of a shotgun into the perp’s face. The terror the scum feel is what the Iranian scum felt.

36

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Don’t you find it strange that the hostages were released minutes after Reagan was sworn in?

I mean, you loons see conspiracies everywhere, but you don’t find this strange?[/quote]

After 3 days, this is the best you can come up with?

A fact, please, a fact. If I wanted an imbecilic speculation, I know where to look.

37

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
What is radical to you? A news source run on contributions only? Is this left-wing? The populace.

And yes I do agree the Bush Admin. is not conservative in any way - whatever conservativism means?

It is a for-profit “news” website. They are in it to make money. If the “donors” hear stuff they don’t like, or disagree with - they will stop “contributing”.

How is that any different from RushLimbaugh.com? He runs his site to make money based largely on member subscriptions.

Your website is a bunch of left-wing freaks who have successfully duped yet another stupid fucking college kid into thinking they are they “real news”. [/quote]

If they were in it to make a profit then why wouldn’t they just take government hand-outs and sell ads to big co.'s like all corporate news sources -“Limbaugh”- and make real money?

This website is run for the interest for the public at large rather than for the narrow interests of the elite like all corporate owned news.

By the way, I graduated college a long time ago.

38

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Don’t you find it strange that the hostages were released minutes after Reagan was sworn in?

I mean, you loons see conspiracies everywhere, but you don’t find this strange?

After 3 days, this is the best you can come up with?

A fact, please, a fact. If I wanted an imbecilic speculation, I know where to look.
[/quote]

There are plenty of books written by people who were there or had very credible sources(dignitaries, mititary, intelligence officers)about the operation. A great deal was written in the foreign press as the US mass media is owned by large corporations who have a vested interest in keeping the lid on the scandal.

39

Real high level of debate on this thread.

Not saying Carter was a great president, far from it, but Andrew Bacevich offers an interesting revisionist take on him in his book The Limits of Power, highly recommend it, if you don’t mind reading a genuine conservative who challenges the basis of American foreign policy.

And Reagan was a good president on balance, but the way Republicans deify him is borderline creepy.

40

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Don’t you find it strange that the hostages were released minutes after Reagan was sworn in?

I mean, you loons see conspiracies everywhere, but you don’t find this strange?

After 3 days, this is the best you can come up with?

A fact, please, a fact. If I wanted an imbecilic speculation, I know where to look.

There are plenty of books written by people who were there or had very credible sources(dignitaries, mititary, intelligence officers)about the operation. A great deal was written in the foreign press as the US mass media is owned by large corporations who have a vested interest in keeping the lid on the scandal.[/quote]

But you can’t name a single one of them. A fact, not crap.

I guess you lose. Goodbye.