Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise
Was he brought to trial? Nope, didn't think so. You may call it treason, but as a "Ronnie Hater", I'm not taking it very seriously.
Ronnie aside, what would you call selling weapons to an enemy? Or do you just believe in changing the definition of 'wrong' depending on the actor(s) (no pun intended) involved?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie117
Letting Iraq and Iran destroy each other seems like a reasonable justification (according to Kissinger). The Soviets did the exact same thing; supplied both sides of the conflict hoping they would annihilate each other. Although the USSR did it in a last ditch effort to salvage their oil export market by keeping oil prices volatile. Of course, that one blew up in their faces since Reagan encouraged Saudi Arabia to triple production, which killed the price of oil, and in effect the Soviet Union.
Oh! THAT makes it OK! I didn't realize we were allowing the Soviets to determine just what was an acceptable course of action. We probably should've invested in a gulag too, eh?
nmnita (unable to remember what she had previously written, or unwilling to admit she was caught in a lie) wrote;
But when I showed her that they were BELOW 13% under Carter, she wrote;
Nice try at distorting/changing the subject but "About 18%" is not the same as 12.5-13%.
go back and read your figures as well: ok, 18% was on some home loans, believe me, I was selling real estate in Ca at the time, your figures state 14.something at the beginning of 1981, of course I do not remember the exact % but regardless they were not below 13% when Reagan was swore in. I might add, to call someone a lier on here is considered a personal attack. I may have been off on my figures but I am not a liar.
nmnita (unable to remember what she had previously written, or unwilling to admit she was caught in a lie) wrote;
You are in no position to call him/her a liar, seeing as you communicated several untruths of your own;
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgod
But Reaganomic caused TWO YEARS OF DOUBLE DIGIT unemployment. Funny no one ever mentions that.
(I suppose the BLS is lying about the UE rate from 1981-1983? )
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgod
Oh yeah, the entire "brought down the Soviet Union" line. COMPLETE BS. By 1980 the Soviet economy was spiraling downward and they were starting to cut their defense spending.
Finally;
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgod
But somehow Reagan thought, "let's spend money we don't have" and see if we can bankrupt our economy.
RR delivered his lines well and left us with a huge deficit due to tax cuts for the rich.. He was one of the worst Presidents ever. Bah, humbug to any Reagan holiday.
I agree. We are still suffering big time from "Reaganomics". I always found him to be half nutty and half phony....and really corny. Somehow Howdy Doody always comes to mind. Come to think of it, a holiday in memory of Howdy Doody would work a lot better for me!
I agree. We are still suffering big time from "Reaganomics". I always found him to be half nutty and half phony....and really corny. Somehow Howdy Doody always comes to mind. Come to think of it, a holiday in memory of Howdy Doody would work a lot better for me!
and what are you basing this on? Corny, I don't agree, but I can buy that, even maybe phony to those he did not really know the man, but nutty, please explain?
I have no problem with people who do not agree with others on politics or anything else, I do have problems with people who make totally negative comments about anyone and don't back them up...
I think that they are entitled to create a day for anything they want. If nothing else, Reagan was a product of Hollywood after all and as such, he certainly does belong to CA. If they want to give him a day, more power to them.
Trestles Beach is a direct RESULT of the Reagan governorship of CA.
Quote:
1966January 1: Reagan announces candidacy for governor of California. He promises to reduce the waste in government and to "clean up the mess at Berkeley."
November 8: Reagan elected by almost 1 million votes more than incumbent Democratic governor Edmund G. ("Pat") Brown.
Quote:
1967January 3: Reagan is sworn in as governor of California. He inherits a $200 million deficit in a state where the governor is required by Constitution to submit a balanced budget.
Quote:
1973January 18: Reagan submits $9.258 billion budget with a $1.1 billion surplus, and gives taxpayers a rebate.
The tax policy center is far from a "right-wing" organization. There is your one thing, you don't deserve any more with your far-left propaganda.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh! THAT makes it OK! I didn't realize we were allowing the Soviets to determine just what was an acceptable course of action. We probably should've invested in a gulag too, eh?
