[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
In my history class, we were discussing the 1980s and the topic of Reaganomics came up. My teacher (who’s a bleeding-heart Liberal) was saying that Reaganomics was a failure and ruined the American economy. So, for those of you who are old enough, what is your opinion on the subject matter?
CS[/quote]
Compared to the predecessor anything looked better. Carter was so bad he invented a economic phenomenon nobody had ever seen before, Stagflation. It’s hard to do worse.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
People also like to forget that his military spending helped defeat the Soviet Union.
CS[/quote]
It did? How exactly? We didn’t face them on the battlefield. The USSR, like most empires, collapsed from within. It was an inevitability. [/quote]
That’s an over generalization but it is true in a sense. The whole ‘star wars’ thing sent the Russians into a tizzy, their records revealed post-fall. It turned out that they really believed we had the technology and they were spending like mad to try and catch up. So it helped greatly worsen their economic system which in turn was partially responsible for the collapse. That and the bringing to market of the D5 ‘nuculer’ missile could carry up to 12 war heads and was sub based. Then the ramping up of all the conventional capabilities did have an effect. It forced the Russians to spend to bolster their capabilities, and chase a complete phantom in ‘star wars’, it did have a negative impact.
The star wars thing was funny. Reagan had everyone believing we had this capability and it wasn’t even close… The Russians bought it, that’s all that mattered.
[quote]Thomasm122 wrote:
Or just someone fucking with an overly conservative political sub-forum, which may as well be subtitled “Let’s Talk About Jesus and Bill O’Reilly!”[/quote]
Why would you bring that up in a post to me? Why would you think, 16 year old mind of yours, that I have participated in such talk? And if I have not then why mention it to me junior?
“misformulated” LOL (shaking head)
You’re not only a young punk but an idiot to boot. Reagan was the two term Governor of the largest state in the US prior to becoming President - Ever hear of California?
Have you even studied American history in High School yet? Before you spout off about things that you have not experienced and never studied you need to do some reading.
Is this what the forum has come to?
My Gosh go away little man.
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
In my history class, we were discussing the 1980s and the topic of Reaganomics came up. My teacher (who’s a bleeding-heart Liberal) was saying that Reaganomics was a failure and ruined the American economy. So, for those of you who are old enough, what is your opinion on the subject matter?
CS[/quote]
Your history professor, like many who teach at liberal Universities, is totally wrong. Ronald Reagan ushered in one of the biggest economic boon’s of all time. creating an economic climate where almost 20 million new jobs were created. Low unemployment and low interest rates as well. And like Obama he inherited a lousy economy from a previous President (Jimmy Carter). Unlike Obama Ronald Reagan lowered the tax rate to its lowest in decades and created a great economy especially for entrepreneurs.
Liberals love to rewrite history. They hated him when he ran and they still hate him even though he’s been dead for several years. It just tears them up inside that supply side economics worked. The only thing that I wish is that he had control of both houses of congress if that were the case spending would have been driven down as well. But as long as there are democrats in power spending will never go down. But yes, there is no question that Reaganomics worked. In fact it worked so well he won the biggest electoral landslide in history in defeating Walter Mondale in 1984.
I was there - I worked on his campaign (at a low level), I prospered from the results and it is all true.
Tell your Professor for me that he’s full of shit!
Thank you,
Zeb[/quote]
Haha, I’m in high school, but thanks anyways. People also like to forget that his military spending helped defeat the Soviet Union.
CS[/quote]
You’ve got that wrong, CS. If anything, the spending on military intervention helped consolidate public support(within the USSR) for the party regime. The USSR didn’t need any help collapsing on itself, The military spending just detracted(definitely to a lesser extent than the existing spending on “entitlements”) from the otherwise good fiscal policy. However, without Volcker(the FED Chariman at the time) raising interest rates to curb the monetization of large defecits, the additional inflation would have wiped out any positive effects of a lower tax policy. Ideally, spending would have gone down on par with the tax reductions and wiped out the inflation along side freeing up investment capital(via tax cuts). However, thazt didn’t happen because social security, welfare, etc… is untouchable to the voting public and the spineless congress then and now.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Gore Vidal…LOL…what a “source.”[/quote]
Um…he’s 16, probably a Sophomore or Junior in High School. What’s next some arrogant 12 year old political expert who quotes his 7th grade teacher?
Okay, funny stuff I suppose.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
In my history class, we were discussing the 1980s and the topic of Reaganomics came up. My teacher (who’s a bleeding-heart Liberal) was saying that Reaganomics was a failure and ruined the American economy. So, for those of you who are old enough, what is your opinion on the subject matter?
CS[/quote]
Your history professor, like many who teach at liberal Universities, is totally wrong. Ronald Reagan ushered in one of the biggest economic boon’s of all time. creating an economic climate where almost 20 million new jobs were created. Low unemployment and low interest rates as well. And like Obama he inherited a lousy economy from a previous President (Jimmy Carter). Unlike Obama Ronald Reagan lowered the tax rate to its lowest in decades and created a great economy especially for entrepreneurs.
Liberals love to rewrite history. They hated him when he ran and they still hate him even though he’s been dead for several years. It just tears them up inside that supply side economics worked. The only thing that I wish is that he had control of both houses of congress if that were the case spending would have been driven down as well. But as long as there are democrats in power spending will never go down. But yes, there is no question that Reaganomics worked. In fact it worked so well he won the biggest electoral landslide in history in defeating Walter Mondale in 1984.
I was there - I worked on his campaign (at a low level), I prospered from the results and it is all true.
Tell your Professor for me that he’s full of shit!
Thank you,
Zeb[/quote]
Haha, I’m in high school, but thanks anyways. People also like to forget that his military spending helped defeat the Soviet Union.
CS[/quote]
You’ve got that wrong, CS. If anything, the spending on military intervention helped consolidate public support(within the USSR) for the party regime. The USSR didn’t need any help collapsing on itself, The military spending just detracted(definitely to a lesser extent than the existing spending on “entitlements”) from the otherwise good fiscal policy. However, without Volcker(the FED Chariman at the time) raising interest rates to curb the monetization of large defecits, the additional inflation would have wiped out any positive effects of a lower tax policy. Ideally, spending would have gone down on par with the tax reductions and wiped out the inflation along side freeing up investment capital(via tax cuts). However, thazt didn’t happen because social security, welfare, etc… is untouchable to the voting public and the spineless congress then and now.[/quote]
Reagan’s increase in military spending caused the Soviet’s to go belly up as they tried to keep up. Anything to the contrary that you’ve been spoon fed by a liberal is so much crap. Did it taste good going down?
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
Ditto on the job creation and what-not. However, there’s still one thing that my teacher kept stressing and that was the declining standard of living and the increase in the gap between rich and poor (typical Liberal politics). Can anyone justify this?
I know that the standard of living is NOT the biggest indicator of the health of an economy nor is the gap between rich and poor, so shouldn’t that be irrelevant?
I think I answered my own question.
CS[/quote]
The gap between the “rich” and “poor” can be better described as the gap between those who spend a high percentage of their income on food and energy and those who spend a high percentage of their income on finished consumer goods and services.
The primary driver here is that food, energy, and commodity prices are the most sensitive to inflation(“money printing”) and are the first to see cost increases, while finished goods and services, and especially wages are the least sensitive and see little or no inflation before there is a rise in interest rates and a deflationary correction.
IN this regard, Reagan’s administration wasn’t much different than others with perpetual inflation being the norm for a century now. However, having Volcker as FED chairman doing the right thing and raising interest rates help alleviate the damage.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Thomasm122 wrote:
Or just someone fucking with an overly conservative political sub-forum, which may as well be subtitled “Let’s Talk About Jesus and Bill O’Reilly!”[/quote]
Why would you bring that up in a post to me? Why would you think, 16 year old mind of yours, that I have participated in such talk? And if I have not then why mention it to me junior?
“misformulated” LOL (shaking head)
You’re not only a young punk but an idiot to boot. Reagan was the two term Governor of the largest state in the US prior to becoming President - Ever hear of California?
Have you even studied American history in High School yet? Before you spout off about things that you have not experienced and never studied you need to do some reading.
Is this what the forum has come to?
My Gosh go away little man.
[/quote]
Ever hear of Alaska? Ever hear of Schwarzenegger governor of California, with the sole purpose of ushering in Bush 54 electoral votes? Go fuck yourself! Lol I ask you if you actually would like to go through and refute the over 80 reasons I LISTED which would suggest Reagan’s being a B-list shithead, and you imply I’m regurgitating other people’s shit? That this is just my dad or some other person talking? IMO, it was a poorly formulated- “misformulated”- desire. Ever read Shakespeare? He stuck to Webster’s pretty closely, I’m told. Languages never grow once they’re all written down in a day! Fucking worthless prick lol.
Isn’t it hard to condescend when your own head is that far up your ass? You’re right, I am a teenage dipshit who sticks to the drastically mediocre public school curriculum, and therefore I lack understanding of anything beyond my own asshole! The system obviously worked for you, considering you found it a comfortable enough position to maintain.
Refute the shit I listed! Bottom line is, you can’t. You have a years-gone by collegiate level understanding of American history. And it’s pathetic if you honestly believe that that has the potential to be comprehensive. Any dipshit with a brain can figure out what happened here.
You are just an asshole, honestly. Ignorance may be bliss but it’s sure as fuck not pretty
[quote]Thomasm122 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Thomasm122 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Thomasm122 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Oliver North was a hero and the only breaches of the constitution were committed by the prosecutors and investigators who went after him.[/quote]
People have a funny way of looking at things. [/quote]
Read North’s Taking the Stand if you’re interested. Also, in relation to “illegal wars” - Ike’s Bay of Pigs invasion, carried out by JFK would more closely resemble an operation requiring Congressional support than anything that happened under Reagan’s tenure.[/quote]
If you’re talking about one of my earlier posts I didn’t mean Reagan. Fuck, I don’t like JFK either man. I hate everybody. All the way through to the founding fathers. Those Masonically intertwined conspirators sure did do a good job of setting in action a 200 year plan to control the Earth. I watched National Treasure a couple years ago. That’s all the evidence I need! They had to know that, eventually, the government would become so corrupt it failed to impose the system of “checks” and “balances” the very same documents they crafted established! Shit, at least we got it through the Gilded Age[/quote]
I don’t like JFK either. But I was saying that Ike planned Bay of Pigs and JFK inherited it and carried it out. It was amateurs’ night and reflected badly on the CIA. But I’m not arguing against the objectives of the operation - only taking issue with the post from the onion mentioning “illegal wars.”
And in relation to the international Freemason conspiracy - nsnadpivodnvgibsiubdvis. If you know what that means then you know what I mean. Otherwise, you are a fluoride drinker who wouldn’t know how to shake my hand in the manner prescribed so it doesn’t matter anyway.[/quote]
Lol I’m just trolling now. Every male member of my family is a Freemason though, do I still drink fluoride?
[/quote]
No, it means your sexually inadequate and you are trying to rid yourself of body theatans
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
In my history class, we were discussing the 1980s and the topic of Reaganomics came up. My teacher (who’s a bleeding-heart Liberal) was saying that Reaganomics was a failure and ruined the American economy. So, for those of you who are old enough, what is your opinion on the subject matter?
CS[/quote]
Your history professor, like many who teach at liberal Universities, is totally wrong. Ronald Reagan ushered in one of the biggest economic boon’s of all time. creating an economic climate where almost 20 million new jobs were created. Low unemployment and low interest rates as well. And like Obama he inherited a lousy economy from a previous President (Jimmy Carter). Unlike Obama Ronald Reagan lowered the tax rate to its lowest in decades and created a great economy especially for entrepreneurs.
Liberals love to rewrite history. They hated him when he ran and they still hate him even though he’s been dead for several years. It just tears them up inside that supply side economics worked. The only thing that I wish is that he had control of both houses of congress if that were the case spending would have been driven down as well. But as long as there are democrats in power spending will never go down. But yes, there is no question that Reaganomics worked. In fact it worked so well he won the biggest electoral landslide in history in defeating Walter Mondale in 1984.
I was there - I worked on his campaign (at a low level), I prospered from the results and it is all true.
Tell your Professor for me that he’s full of shit!
Thank you,
Zeb[/quote]
Haha, I’m in high school, but thanks anyways. People also like to forget that his military spending helped defeat the Soviet Union.
CS[/quote]
You’ve got that wrong, CS. If anything, the spending on military intervention helped consolidate public support(within the USSR) for the party regime. The USSR didn’t need any help collapsing on itself, The military spending just detracted(definitely to a lesser extent than the existing spending on “entitlements”) from the otherwise good fiscal policy. However, without Volcker(the FED Chariman at the time) raising interest rates to curb the monetization of large defecits, the additional inflation would have wiped out any positive effects of a lower tax policy. Ideally, spending would have gone down on par with the tax reductions and wiped out the inflation along side freeing up investment capital(via tax cuts). However, thazt didn’t happen because social security, welfare, etc… is untouchable to the voting public and the spineless congress then and now.[/quote]
Reagan’s increase in military spending caused the Soviet’s to go belly up as they tried to keep up. Anything to the contrary that you’ve been spoon fed by a liberal is so much crap. Did it taste good going down?[/quote]
Lol. My parents and grandparents lived it. Also no one fed this to me. The Russians were already spending like crazy. The additional spending on the military had a net negative effect on our deficit which offset the net benefits gained by accelerating the Soviet spending. Also, because of our involvement, the party was able to conceal the deaths of soldiers killed in Afghanistan as military accidents for a much longer period of time than they otherwise could because of the bolstered political environment. This is coming from families(mine included) that actually had men die in this way. BTW, my mother and grandmother since living in the U.S. have come around to the view of limited government being best, so they’re not exactly “liberals”.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Gore Vidal…LOL…what a “source.”[/quote]
Um…he’s 16, probably a Sophomore or Junior in High School. What’s next some arrogant 12 year old political expert who quotes his 7th grade teacher?
Okay, funny stuff I suppose.
[/quote]
We should have a minimum age & IQ requirement. If you are under 18 and do not have an IQ of 100 or higher, your not allowed.
I have a teenager at home… They have the reasoning capability of an isolated wet noodle. It’s pretty much limited to 'Why I should have a smart phone"
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Thomasm122 wrote:
Or just someone fucking with an overly conservative political sub-forum, which may as well be subtitled “Let’s Talk About Jesus and Bill O’Reilly!”[/quote]
Why would you bring that up in a post to me? Why would you think, 16 year old mind of yours, that I have participated in such talk? And if I have not then why mention it to me junior?
[/quote]
Not good at that whole sense of humor thing, right? If I were you, I’d seriously be reconsidering the significance of age.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Gore Vidal…LOL…what a “source.”[/quote]
Um…he’s 16, probably a Sophomore or Junior in High School. What’s next some arrogant 12 year old political expert who quotes his 7th grade teacher?
Okay, funny stuff I suppose.
[/quote]
We should have a minimum age & IQ requirement. If you are under 18 and do not have an IQ of 100 or higher, your not allowed.
I have a teenager at home… They have the reasoning capability of an isolated wet noodle. It’s pretty much limited to 'Why I should have a smart phone"[/quote]
Disprove what I said! Then insult my mental capacity. Ever ask yourself why that mentality is predominant? Goddamn you just have to love your fine fellow citizens.
[quote]Thomasm122 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Gore Vidal…LOL…what a “source.”[/quote]
Um…he’s 16, probably a Sophomore or Junior in High School. What’s next some arrogant 12 year old political expert who quotes his 7th grade teacher?
Okay, funny stuff I suppose.
[/quote]
We should have a minimum age & IQ requirement. If you are under 18 and do not have an IQ of 100 or higher, your not allowed.
I have a teenager at home… They have the reasoning capability of an isolated wet noodle. It’s pretty much limited to 'Why I should have a smart phone"[/quote]
Disprove what I said! Then insult my mental capacity. Ever ask yourself why that mentality is predominant? Goddamn you just have to love your fine fellow citizens. [/quote]
huh?
[quote]Thomasm122 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Thomasm122 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I just don’t like getting lectured from people who are not yet old enough to buy a legal beer, or even vote.
I’m funny like that.[/quote]
Well, if I were you, I’d be more concerned about the fact that you were just attemptedly lectured by a person who woke up this morning, ate a can of pizza pringles and a half gallon of ginger ale as a START to his breakfast. If that’s not patriotism…
[/quote]
Anyone who calls Reagan a “B list shit head” is either an idiot, or a young punk who never lived during that time period and never studied it either.
Maybe you should back off on the ginger ale and pizza and start eating some fish?
Better yet go away little man.[/quote]
Or just someone fucking with an overly conservative political sub-forum, which may as well be subtitled “Let’s Talk About Jesus and Bill O’Reilly!” * See more
Pizza pringles*
*The firing of air traffic controllers, winnable nuclear war, recallable nuclear missiles, trees that cause pollution, Elliott Abrams lying to Congress, ketchup as vegetable, colluding with Guatemalan thugs, pardons for F.B.I. lawbreakers, voodoo economics, budget deficits, toasts to Ferdinand Marcos, public housing cutbacks, redbaiting the nuclear freeze movement, James Watt.
Getting cozy with Argentine fascist generals, tax credits for segregated schools, disinformation campaigns, “homeless by choice,” Manuel Noriega, falling wages, the HUD scandal, air raids on Libya, “constructive engagement” with apartheid South Africa, United States Information Agency blacklists of liberal speakers, attacks on OSHA and workplace safety, the invasion of Grenada, assassination manuals, Nancy’s astrologer.
Drug tests, lie detector tests, Fawn Hall, female appointees (8 percent), mining harbors, the S&L scandal, 239 dead U.S. troops in Beirut, Al Haig “in control,” silence on AIDS, food-stamp reductions, Debategate, White House shredding, Jonas Savimbi, tax cuts for the rich, “mistakes were made.”, inconclusive research regarding AIDS.
Michael Deaver’s conviction for influence peddling, Lyn Nofziger’s conviction for influence peddling, Caspar Weinberger’s five-count indictment, Ed Meese (“You don’t have many suspects who are innocent of a crime”), Donald Regan (women don’t “understand throw-weights”), education cuts, massacres in El Salvador.
“The bombing begins in five minutes,” $640 Pentagon toilet seats, African-American judicial appointees (1.9 percent), Reader’s Digest, C.I.A.-sponsored car-bombing in Lebanon (more than eighty civilians killed), 200 officials accused of wrongdoing, William Casey, Iran/contra. “Facts are stupid things,” three-by-five cards, the MX missile, Bitburg, S.D.I., Robert Bork, naps, Teflon. Campaigned for Nixon’s opponent, The Pink Lady in 1950, married an extremely conservative neurosurgeon’s daughter, 1962 campaign for an officer of The John Birch Society, 1964, campaign for segregationist Louisiana governor, campaign for Lloyd White, stances on welfare in California and in general, Donald Reagan and 1981 deregulations, “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem”, Africans fucking gorillas, the Moscow evil empire, approach to exponential growth in the oil industry, attempts to downsize and defund the EPA, staffing of the EPA, “winning the Cold War”.
http://www.alternet.org/story/18874/
The last 1/4 paragraph is my own, sources: Gore Vidal, from him, various press announcements, related. Take your pick: all of the above, and what we potentially don’t know about or remains unmentioned, or temporary improvements in an economic system and posterboy status for capitalist prevalence. Studying and paying attention; it doesn’t count if you only read books whose publishing houses are subsidiaries of corporations who employ executives who benefit from tax cuts which primarily took root during his presidency, or contribute greatly to Republican campaigns through whatever venue, have investments in firms benefiting from deregulation, etc, etc, etc. There has been some documented evidence in the past of some sorts of carryover from those types of things… Fuck off. He was an actor, all his life. That’s it. That’s why, IMO, he was a B-list shit head. For overextending his career to just another misformulated boyhood dream. [/quote]
Disprove this. This is what I posted in response to the statement that calling Reagan a B-list shit head required me to either be mentally disabled or a young, ignorant “punk”. You insinuated that, in lieu of this and related posts, evidently, my I.Q. was able to be inferred, and as such, the forum should adopt a policy of regulating intelligence and age, due to my obvious lack of argumentative skill, evidence to support conclusions, and young age.
I was saying, ever ask yourself why the mentality of “Why I need a smart phone” is prevalent amongst members of my generation, which you stated as the epitome of concomitant youth reasoning capacity (Not to mention making vast generalizations based on singular observation of experience)? Mainly because we live in an increasingly fascist corporatocracy, under the thinly veiled guise of a democracy! Fun, right? Shit, put your kid in front of a t.v. for 5 hours a day and see what happens! They can’t think! Put your dad in front of a t.v. for 5 hours a day, and turn on Fox, give 'em a book by Glenn Beck, or maybe Pat Buchanan if they’re a little more centrist-flavored, and guess what happens! They can’t think! And here’s ZEB…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Gore Vidal…LOL…what a “source.”[/quote]
Um…he’s 16, probably a Sophomore or Junior in High School. What’s next some arrogant 12 year old political expert who quotes his 7th grade teacher?
Okay, funny stuff I suppose.
[/quote]
We should have a minimum age & IQ requirement. If you are under 18 and do not have an IQ of 100 or higher, your not allowed.
I have a teenager at home… They have the reasoning capability of an isolated wet noodle. It’s pretty much limited to 'Why I should have a smart phone"[/quote]
This 16 year old knit wit takes it to a whole new level. It sort of causes me to think back to the good old days when we only had to put up with 22 year old foreign policy experts.
[quote]Thomasm122 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Thomasm122 wrote:
Or just someone fucking with an overly conservative political sub-forum, which may as well be subtitled “Let’s Talk About Jesus and Bill O’Reilly!”[/quote]
Why would you bring that up in a post to me? Why would you think, 16 year old mind of yours, that I have participated in such talk? And if I have not then why mention it to me junior?
[/quote]
Not good at that whole sense of humor thing, right? If I were you, I’d seriously be reconsidering the significance of age. [/quote]
And if I were you I would try to be more precise with my posts. And I would also try to master the use of written humor, or drop it altogether. These are a few of the many things you need to work on Skippy.
Oh one more thing, go after that high school degree and forget about trying to date the Prom Queen I don’t think that’s happening.
Karl Marx loved to fuck his physics, didn’t he? It’s all a metaphysical joke, meta-humorous. Politics, at least American politics, is bullshit! By trolling this thread, I’ve instigated symbolic ennui in numerous posters. Snap to defense of your discomfort with absurdity!
[quote]Thomasm122 wrote:
[quote]Thomasm122 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Thomasm122 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I just don’t like getting lectured from people who are not yet old enough to buy a legal beer, or even vote.
I’m funny like that.[/quote]
Well, if I were you, I’d be more concerned about the fact that you were just attemptedly lectured by a person who woke up this morning, ate a can of pizza pringles and a half gallon of ginger ale as a START to his breakfast. If that’s not patriotism…
[/quote]
Anyone who calls Reagan a “B list shit head” is either an idiot, or a young punk who never lived during that time period and never studied it either.
Maybe you should back off on the ginger ale and pizza and start eating some fish?
Better yet go away little man.[/quote]
Or just someone fucking with an overly conservative political sub-forum, which may as well be subtitled “Let’s Talk About Jesus and Bill O’Reilly!” * See more
Pizza pringles*
*The firing of air traffic controllers, winnable nuclear war, recallable nuclear missiles, trees that cause pollution, Elliott Abrams lying to Congress, ketchup as vegetable, colluding with Guatemalan thugs, pardons for F.B.I. lawbreakers, voodoo economics, budget deficits, toasts to Ferdinand Marcos, public housing cutbacks, redbaiting the nuclear freeze movement, James Watt.
Getting cozy with Argentine fascist generals, tax credits for segregated schools, disinformation campaigns, “homeless by choice,” Manuel Noriega, falling wages, the HUD scandal, air raids on Libya, “constructive engagement” with apartheid South Africa, United States Information Agency blacklists of liberal speakers, attacks on OSHA and workplace safety, the invasion of Grenada, assassination manuals, Nancy’s astrologer.
Drug tests, lie detector tests, Fawn Hall, female appointees (8 percent), mining harbors, the S&L scandal, 239 dead U.S. troops in Beirut, Al Haig “in control,” silence on AIDS, food-stamp reductions, Debategate, White House shredding, Jonas Savimbi, tax cuts for the rich, “mistakes were made.”, inconclusive research regarding AIDS.
Michael Deaver’s conviction for influence peddling, Lyn Nofziger’s conviction for influence peddling, Caspar Weinberger’s five-count indictment, Ed Meese (“You don’t have many suspects who are innocent of a crime”), Donald Regan (women don’t “understand throw-weights”), education cuts, massacres in El Salvador.
“The bombing begins in five minutes,” $640 Pentagon toilet seats, African-American judicial appointees (1.9 percent), Reader’s Digest, C.I.A.-sponsored car-bombing in Lebanon (more than eighty civilians killed), 200 officials accused of wrongdoing, William Casey, Iran/contra. “Facts are stupid things,” three-by-five cards, the MX missile, Bitburg, S.D.I., Robert Bork, naps, Teflon. Campaigned for Nixon’s opponent, The Pink Lady in 1950, married an extremely conservative neurosurgeon’s daughter, 1962 campaign for an officer of The John Birch Society, 1964, campaign for segregationist Louisiana governor, campaign for Lloyd White, stances on welfare in California and in general, Donald Reagan and 1981 deregulations, “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem”, Africans fucking gorillas, the Moscow evil empire, approach to exponential growth in the oil industry, attempts to downsize and defund the EPA, staffing of the EPA, “winning the Cold War”.
http://www.alternet.org/story/18874/
The last 1/4 paragraph is my own, sources: Gore Vidal, from him, various press announcements, related. Take your pick: all of the above, and what we potentially don’t know about or remains unmentioned, or temporary improvements in an economic system and posterboy status for capitalist prevalence. Studying and paying attention; it doesn’t count if you only read books whose publishing houses are subsidiaries of corporations who employ executives who benefit from tax cuts which primarily took root during his presidency, or contribute greatly to Republican campaigns through whatever venue, have investments in firms benefiting from deregulation, etc, etc, etc. There has been some documented evidence in the past of some sorts of carryover from those types of things… Fuck off. He was an actor, all his life. That’s it. That’s why, IMO, he was a B-list shit head. For overextending his career to just another misformulated boyhood dream. [/quote]
Disprove this. This is what I posted in response to the statement that calling Reagan a B-list shit head required me to either be mentally disabled or a young, ignorant “punk”. You insinuated that, in lieu of this and related posts, evidently, my I.Q. was able to be inferred, and as such, the forum should adopt a policy of regulating intelligence and age, due to my obvious lack of argumentative skill, evidence to support conclusions, and young age.
I was saying, ever ask yourself why the mentality of “Why I need a smart phone” is prevalent amongst members of my generation, which you stated as the epitome of concomitant youth reasoning capacity (Not to mention making vast generalizations based on singular observation of experience)? Mainly because we live in an increasingly fascist corporatocracy, under the thinly veiled guise of a democracy! Fun, right? Shit, put your kid in front of a t.v. for 5 hours a day and see what happens! They can’t think! Put your dad in front of a t.v. for 5 hours a day, and turn on Fox, give 'em a book by Glenn Beck, or maybe Pat Buchanan if they’re a little more centrist-flavored, and guess what happens! They can’t think! And here’s ZEB…[/quote]
LOL…kid you’ve proven nothing. You think quoting a few lefty’s is proof of something? Ha ha…you claimed Reagan was only a B list actor. I’ve schooled you in the fact that he was a two term Governor of California. And what do I get? No response.
You’re a joke boy.
But the good part is if you keep this up you’re going to draw plenty of attention from the rest of the PWI community and then…Then the fun will begin.
Since I know you’re not bright enough to heed my warning I’m sure I’ll be talking to you soon.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Thomasm122 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Thomasm122 wrote:
Or just someone fucking with an overly conservative political sub-forum, which may as well be subtitled “Let’s Talk About Jesus and Bill O’Reilly!”[/quote]
Why would you bring that up in a post to me? Why would you think, 16 year old mind of yours, that I have participated in such talk? And if I have not then why mention it to me junior?
[/quote]
Not good at that whole sense of humor thing, right? If I were you, I’d seriously be reconsidering the significance of age. [/quote]
And if I were you I would try to be more precise with my posts. And I would also try to master the use of written humor, or drop it altogether. These are a few of the many things you need to work on Skippy.
Oh one more thing, go after that high school degree and forget about trying to date the Prom Queen I don’t think that’s happening. [/quote]
Lol thanks sir! I appreciate your suggestion. Lucky for me, I’m going to college next year- early! Gee whiz we’re fucked right?
But why? Life isn’t precise. You get the most out of things by pointing a thought in a general direction, and chiseling at it. Along the way, little bits and pieces of other valuable things fall off. If you pick them up, you get better. If not, you stop thinking.
Thanks, Mr. Clement. I have a shitload of improving to do, and you are right, but you don’t know the half of it. You missed out on so much of the existential jocosity available for “enjoyment” here, how can you be anything but dimly aware of my actual style of written humor? It’s universal, like a sculpture. That’s what I was going for.
And no lol I’d be even more of an asshole if I pursued the prom queen at my school, why would I pursue an almost certain empty relationship with no potential for mutual growth? Besides, it’s not like I actually behave like this in real life. My comments in this thread were a weird ass (from some perspectives) artistic/philosophical experiment.