Liberals Go To Great Lengths

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters, as usual you are wrong on so many counts.

I will pick one at random. The Soviets were not having their asses handed to them by the Afghanis until Reagan sent over a ton of aid including Stinger missles and advisors.

This is a fact. You can debate that perhaps helping the mujahadeen was a mistake. This was a debate we did have in the 80’s. You cannot pretend the Afghanis were handling the Soviet Army all by themselves, they were not.

Not only have I read MANY books on this, I also lived through this period in our history that Reagan and Thatcher had the wisdom to stand up for the cause of freedom.

Even though I did not agree with all the principles of Reaganomics I am proud to have voted for Reagan both times![/quote]

Uhmm…boy you are really missing the point. I’m talking the relative strength of the Afghanis!It took 6 years or so for the soviets to push the muj back near pakistan, and I’m not questioning the stingers arriving in 1986 only hastened the red army defeat! Please!

as for Reaganomics it was as dismal as current neo-con economic policy is. I quess many of you have forgotten those were not good times.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
Thunderbolt, obviously you didn’t follow my advice , and DEAR GOD READ! The Soviet Union couldn’t even keep the Warsaw pact togeather, Not to mention getting their asses handed to them by a crack Afghani fighting force! Run the table! Ha! You’ve got to be kidding! And it wasn’t until Reagan conformed to the intelligentsia(?) that INF treaty came to be! Reagan’s advisors were WITLESS and BAFFLED by Gorbachev. The people who fed misinformation are some of the same people that misled the current president. Remember Team B Thunderbolt? Their intelligence estimates were as DEAD WRONG on Russia as the intelligence on Iraq! Revised CIA estimates indicatated that expenditures on defense remained constant throughout the 1980’s. The military buildup of Carter, and Reagan nor SDI did anything to change the gross spending levels in the USSR. Before you spout out, inform yourself please. There are many, many great books on this stuff!

My God, 100M - you are clueless. I love your 20/20 hindsight.

You read about it - I lived through it. None of this bullshit your are souting now was in the public dialogue 25 years ago.

The left threw hissy-fits over kicking the Reds out of central america. They were scared little bitches whenever they spoke of the USSR.

Maybe the Soviets were crumbling, but they were aided handily by having to keep up in the arms race. Your bitch Kerry voted against defense spending at every turn, as did many of your fellow lefties. You did have some hawkish dems back then - but they would hardly have a home in your party today.

You keep singing about INF - whoopdie-freakin-doo. I got three letters for you that was the real death-nail for the Soviet block - SDI. Jist the thought of it scared the bejeezus out of the Ruskies.

But you keep reading your revisionist history. Read. Read. Read. Many of us lived through it, which pretty much trumps your 20/20 hindsight, which was no doubt copied and pasted from someone else.

[/quote]

Well, I remember realtime because I lived it, I suggested books for your ilk because you’ve forgotten what a shitty mess that time was! As has already been pointed out, the arms buildup had nothing to do with budgetary spending in the USSR, this arms race was a huge waste of taxpayer cash, and bankrupted the U.S. it would take years to recover from that needless stupidity, not to mention it STRENGTHENED the resolve of the old school soviets, making gorbachev’s job a little harder.

But your hero thought we actually had to catch up to the Soviets! And my God! SDI! Your not embarrassed to mention it! The progam also known as vaporware may have scared the Russian hardliners, but by the time INF had rolled along Gorby’s scientists had already discounted it, notice that Gorby resolved INF by not including SDI in it!

Oh Rainjack, Kerry’s support of nuclear freeze was only backed by 70-80 percent of the population then remember? And by 1983, Clueless Reagan had already come to “interim” solutions that Hawks HATED, or have you forgotten? I mean you were living it right? Hilarious!

One of the reasons given for Soviet problems in Afganistan–as given in one of those documentaries on the Military Channel or History Channel–was that they suddenly got very sensitive about casualties and destruction, so they didn’t fight a total war.

Much much like what happened to the US in VietNam…you’ve heard of VietNam, right? It’s that place John Kerry went for 4 months, got wounded a bunch of times and claims to have committed some war crimes.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters, as usual you are wrong on so many counts.

I will pick one at random. The Soviets were not having their asses handed to them by the Afghanis until Reagan sent over a ton of aid including Stinger missles and advisors.

This is a fact. You can debate that perhaps helping the mujahadeen was a mistake. This was a debate we did have in the 80’s. You cannot pretend the Afghanis were handling the Soviet Army all by themselves, they were not.

Not only have I read MANY books on this, I also lived through this period in our history that Reagan and Thatcher had the wisdom to stand up for the cause of freedom.

Even though I did not agree with all the principles of Reaganomics I am proud to have voted for Reagan both times!

Uhmm…boy you are really missing the point. I’m talking the relative strength of the Afghanis!It took 6 years or so for the soviets to push the muj back near pakistan, and I’m not questioning the stingers arriving in 1986 only hastened the red army defeat! Please!

As for Reaganomics it was as dismal as current neo-con economic policy is. I quess many of you have forgotten those were not good times.[/quote]

[quote]100meters wrote:
Well, I remember realtime because I lived it, I suggested books for your ilk because you’ve forgotten what a shitty mess that time was! As has already been pointed out, the arms buildup had nothing to do with budgetary spending in the USSR, this arms race was a huge waste of taxpayer cash, and bankrupted the U.S. it would take years to recover from that needless stupidity, not to mention it STRENGTHENED the resolve of the old school soviets, making gorbachev’s job a little harder.[/quote]

I remember when Reagan took office, that interest rates were 20%. I remember huge tax cuts. I remember those tax cuts generating more revenue than ever before, and at the same time democrats spending at an even higher rate. I remember Clinton taking over an economy ready to explode - which it did, certainly not as result of Clinton’s doings. The U.S. was never bankrupted. That’s another lib scare tactic in the same class as 'republicans wan to starve your children and the elderly.

You’re not just a little embarrassed to discount 6 years of Reagan leading up to INF? Of course not - you think his 2 terms were a joke, filled with bad times and starving babies. Does your memory go back to the 70’s? I guess not, as you must only have the 90’s to compare the 80’s to. Carte was the joke of all jokes. He had to resort to building houses to have any positive image. Compared to the mid to late 70’s - the 80’s was a party.

And 70-80% of the american people were dead-assed wrong. We won thru strength, not giving in. It is politics, and he gave in way more than he should have - especially when it came to pork-barrel budgets.

[quote]hedo wrote:
Military buildup of Carter and Reagan.

Carter?

Tune back into Air America…listen to some unbiased commentary.

[/quote]

well, we know Hedo’s not the person to ask about american politics. Yes, Hedo the military buildup began under Carter, I know this is hard to conform with your dittohead beliefs but still it’s true. Remember the peanutfarmer actually wanted to build 200 MX missles? Did you really not know this?

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
One of the reasons given for Soviet problems in Afganistan–as given in one of those documentaries on the Military Channel or History Channel–was that they suddenly got very sensitive about casualties and destruction, so they didn’t fight a total war.

Much much like what happened to the US in VietNam…you’ve heard of VietNam, right? It’s that place John Kerry went for 4 months, got wounded a bunch of times and claims to have committed some war crimes.

[/quote]
yes, that does sound familiar this vietnam place…Yep, that’s where Kerry went, good joob Joe! (I think your off on the 4 months, but hell you got one fact right!)

100

And what did he cut…did you not know about this? B-1, you know the one we are using…now. How about the Navy. You know the guys with the ships. Read up on what they lost.

I served in the military during the final Reagan years. He built it up after the Carter years. He gave the military their pride back.

This was about the time you were in pre-K wasn’t it?

The Carter buildup! Do you wear an out to lunch sign around your neck when you write this stuff.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
One of the reasons given for Soviet problems in Afganistan–as given in one of those documentaries on the Military Channel or History Channel–was that they suddenly got very sensitive about casualties and destruction, so they didn’t fight a total war.

Much much like what happened to the US in VietNam…you’ve heard of VietNam, right? It’s that place John Kerry went for 4 months, got wounded a bunch of times and claims to have committed some war crimes.

yes, that does sound familiar this vietnam place…Yep, that’s where Kerry went, good joob Joe! (I think your off on the 4 months, but hell you got one fact right!)
[/quote]

John Kerry’s service in Vietnam lasted 4 months and 12 days, beginning in November 1968 when he reported to Cam Ranh Bay for a month of training. His abbreviated combat tour ended shortly after he requested a transfer out of Vietnam on March 17, 1969, citing Navy instruction 1300.39 permitting personnel with three Purple Hearts to request reassignment. So far as we are able to determine, Kerry was the only Swift sailor ever to leave Vietnam without completing the standard one-year tour of duty, other than those who were seriously wounded or killed.

I got more than one fact right, which is 1 more than you’ve gotten in the last month.

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Military buildup of Carter and Reagan.

Carter?

Tune back into Air America…listen to some unbiased commentary.

well, we know Hedo’s not the person to ask about american politics. Yes, Hedo the military buildup began under Carter, I know this is hard to conform with your dittohead beliefs but still it’s true. Remember the peanutfarmer actually wanted to build 200 MX missles? Did you really not know this?
[/quote]

Please enlighten us with your vast knowledge of politics…you’ve been here what 1 month (under this screen name) and your so well respected. Well at least you believe the drivel you write.

What a clown.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
Well, I remember realtime because I lived it, I suggested books for your ilk because you’ve forgotten what a shitty mess that time was! As has already been pointed out, the arms buildup had nothing to do with budgetary spending in the USSR, this arms race was a huge waste of taxpayer cash, and bankrupted the U.S. it would take years to recover from that needless stupidity, not to mention it STRENGTHENED the resolve of the old school soviets, making gorbachev’s job a little harder.

I remember when Reagan took office, that interest rates were 20%. I remember huge tax cuts. I remember those tax cuts generating more revenue than ever before, and at the same time democrats spending at an even higher rate. I remember Clinton taking over an economy ready to explode - which it did, certainly not as result of Clinton’s doings. The U.S. was never bankrupted. That’s another lib scare tactic in the same class as 'republicans wan to starve your children and the elderly.

But your hero thought we actually had to catch up to the Soviets! And my God! SDI! Your not embarrassed to mention it! The progam also known as vaporware may have scared the Russian hardliners, but by the time INF had rolled along Gorby’s scientists had already discounted it, notice that Gorby resolved INF by not including SDI in it!

You’re not just a little embarrassed to discount 6 years of Reagan leading up to INF? Of course not - you think his 2 terms were a joke, filled with bad times and starving babies. Does your memory go back to the 70’s? I guess not, as you must only have the 90’s to compare the 80’s to. Carte was the joke of all jokes. He had to resort to building houses to have any positive image. Compared to the mid to late 70’s - the 80’s was a party.

Rainjack, Kerry’s support of nuclear freeze was only backed by 70-80 percent of the population then remember? And by 1983, Clueless Reagan had already come to “interim” solutions that Hawks HATED, or have you forgotten? I mean you were living it right? Hilarious!

And 70-80% of the american people were dead-assed wrong. We won thru strength, not giving in. It is politics, and he gave in way more than he should have - especially when it came to pork-barrel budgets.

[/quote]

So interest rates were high because Volcker and crew were beating back inflation, right? GDP, jobs, and revenues all positive when Carter left right? I won’t even bother to defend the ineptness of Carter, but Volcker was trying to beat inflation. And how can you question the outright failure of Reaganomics, when a. budget didn’t balance (the opposite) b. Debt did not go down(the opposite).

Next you just lie about tax cuts. Unless you rainjack were in a high tax bracket your taxes were not cut in 1981 because of either an increase in your tax bracket and/or increase in S.S. taxes. Not to mention taxes were increased by your party every damn year after that! Factor in double-digit unemployment, recession, savings and loan etc. and your just living in fantasy land. And any economy would have exploded after Bush’s debacle!
http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/20/cx_da_0720presidents_print.html

So I’ll give you that. As for scare tactics it seems Bush is going around saying S.S. is going bankrupt, That seems kind of scary (not true though) If S.S. is going bankrupt because in 40 years it’ll pay 70 percent of its benefits, then isn’t the us govenrment bankrupt now? (we use 30 percent of revenue to pay interest) Oh rainjack! You’ve graduated from Dittohead University! congrats!

[quote]hedo wrote:
100

And what did he cut…did you not know about this? B-1, you know the one we are using…now. How about the Navy. You know the guys with the ships. Read up on what they lost.

I served in the military during the final Reagan years. He built it up after the Carter years. He gave the military their pride back.

This was about the time you were in pre-K wasn’t it?

The Carter buildup! Do you wear an out to lunch sign around your neck when you write this stuff.[/quote]

A.Check the budgets B. Mumble apology.
C. the B-1a was canceled because its mission(high altitude penetration) would have been suicide due to soviet improvements. The B-1 program continued and became the B-1b(low altitude penetration/low-radar crossection).
d. Thank you (sincerely) for your service!

[quote]100meters wrote:
I won’t even bother to defend the ineptness of Carter, [/quote]

can you?

And, while we’re at it, can you go one entire post merely debating issues and not making personal attacks?

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
100meters wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
One of the reasons given for Soviet problems in Afganistan–as given in one of those documentaries on the Military Channel or History Channel–was that they suddenly got very sensitive about casualties and destruction, so they didn’t fight a total war.

Much much like what happened to the US in VietNam…you’ve heard of VietNam, right? It’s that place John Kerry went for 4 months, got wounded a bunch of times and claims to have committed some war crimes.

yes, that does sound familiar this vietnam place…Yep, that’s where Kerry went, good joob Joe! (I think your off on the 4 months, but hell you got one fact right!)

John Kerry’s service in Vietnam lasted 4 months and 12 days, beginning in November 1968 when he reported to Cam Ranh Bay for a month of training. His abbreviated combat tour ended shortly after he requested a transfer out of Vietnam on March 17, 1969, citing Navy instruction 1300.39 permitting personnel with three Purple Hearts to request reassignment. So far as we are able to determine, Kerry was the only Swift sailor ever to leave Vietnam without completing the standard one-year tour of duty, other than those who were seriously wounded or killed.

I got more than one fact right, which is 1 more than you’ve gotten in the last month.[/quote]

Congrats Joe you can cut and paste! Directly from the swiftboat website no less! Of course your guys like to leave out his service on USS Gridley, but hey we all know they’re misleading liars right! Because just reading this makes you think he just served 4 months, why would they try to do that?

You are just in your own little world. Taxes went down. Revenues went up. Do you even remember who Carter was? He got creamed. If he was doing so well, why was unemployment in double digits? Why was interest at 20%? Are you going to blame Reagan for the hell hole left by president ‘Fire-side-Chat’?

Why did Reagan win so convincingly over Carter? Are going to blame that victory on a duped ignorant public? What about Mondale/Ferarro’s ass whooping? Another ignorant sap of a voting public?

The only person on these boards - hell in most of the right thinking world - that thinks you are even close to having an undeluded clue is you.

You can call me names. You can revise your limited view of history. You can even apply electioneering spin on your’facts’. But you are still going to be wrong. And you will always be on the wrong side of history.

Do you lift weights? Do you have a purpose for being here other than to ejaculate your political fantasies? Cause I’m looking, and I see nothing that even remotely resembles post in any other forum but here.

Unless…this is just a nome de plume and you are actually someone else without the balls show your face.

--------Edit-------
horrible spelling and grammar

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100

And what did he cut…did you not know about this? B-1, you know the one we are using…now. How about the Navy. You know the guys with the ships. Read up on what they lost.

I served in the military during the final Reagan years. He built it up after the Carter years. He gave the military their pride back.

This was about the time you were in pre-K wasn’t it?

The Carter buildup! Do you wear an out to lunch sign around your neck when you write this stuff.

A.Check the budgets B. Mumble apology.
C. the B-1a was canceled because its mission(high altitude penetration) would have been suicide due to soviet improvements. The B-1 program continued and became the B-1b(low altitude penetration/low-radar crossection).
d. Thank you (sincerely) for your service![/quote]

You have no grasp of military history, strategy or tactics son.

You’re welcome!

To those wasting their time with 100meters on his revisionist history:

First Law of Debate: Never argue with a fool – people might
forget who’s who.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
To those wasting their time with 100meters on his revisionist history:

First Law of Debate: Never argue with a fool – people might forget who’s who.
[/quote]
good point. Thank you.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Congrats Joe you can cut and paste! Directly from the swiftboat website no less! Of course your guys like to leave out his service on USS Gridley, but hey we all know they’re misleading liars right! Because just reading this makes you think he just served 4 months, why would they try to do that?[/quote]

gridley wasn’t in VietNam. If I remember correctly it wasn’t even actually on station.

I guess you can’t go even one post without a personal attack.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
To those wasting their time with 100meters on his revisionist history:

First Law of Debate: Never argue with a fool – people might forget who’s who.
[/quote]

Zap…Thank You!

That is a great morsel of wisdom that I am going to heed.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
You are just in your own little world. Taxes went down. Revenues went up. Do you even remember who Carter was? He got creamed. If he was doing so well, why was unemployment in double digits? Why was interest at 20%? Are you going to blame Reagan for the hell hole left by president ‘Fire-side-Chat’?

Why did Reagan win so convincingly over Carter? Are going to blame that victory on a duped ignorant public? What about Mondale/Ferarro’s ass whooping? Another ignorant sap of a voting public?

The only person on these boards - hell in most of the right thinking world - that thinks you are even close to having an undeluded clue is you.

You can call me names. You can revise your limited view of history. You can even apply electioneering spin on your’facts’. But you are still going to be wrong. And you will always be on the wrong side of history.

Do you lift weights? Do you have a purpose for being here other than to ejaculate your political fantasies? Cause I’m looking, and I see nothing that even remotely resembles post in any other forum but here.

Unless…this is just a nome de plume and you are actually someone else without the balls show your face.

--------Edit-------
horrible spelling and grammar[/quote]

Did I defend Carter? And your still wrong about taxes, except on the higher tax bracket, the average person’s tax burden went up under Reagan, and taxes did go up every year after 81, when for me and probably you taxes didn’t go down in the first place. And obviously revenue wasn’t nearly great enough to match spending hence massive debt. Again despite what CATO may have you believe the average american’s TOTAL tax burden went up! Since you were living it you must know that by 82 Reagan was already having to scale back 81’s tax cuts, including corporate, and personal!(To his credit, I should add.) The rest of your post is unrelated, and you still have a hard time accepting that maybe people vote for people they like, and maybe they don’t understand policy.They did afterall vote for Nixon, and Hoover, and in your states for Jim Crow laws(Oh the pride!). And haven’t conservatives been on the wrong side of history since, well since supporting King George III, and wasn’t the conservative movement made rationally irrelevant when Lincoln ended the Civil War, and haven’t conservatives been on the wrong side of every issue since ever? Blue states vs. Red states, looks like blues are handing it to reds in just about every category! Oh rainjack to be wrong so often!

Yes I do workout, I read everything Waterbury reads, part of what I like is that he uses facts!, and research! Currently I’m loving his 10x3 stuff! And yes I read the other boards but I had nothing to contribute to the others (except I say shave your head) and I don’t have better big tit photos to post than the ones already there! I post here because I’m addicted to the manipulated in here including yourself, hedo, zeb, joe weider and others. You’re all smart enought to love Biotest, yet politically too dumb to see through spin, I don’t get it?