PDA

View Full Version : A massive takedown of Reagan's reputation...



Soflasnapper
06-30-2011, 11:22 AM
Here. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard60.html)

Not from a leftist, but a conservative libertarian, Murray Rothbard, right after Reagan left office, a retrospective look.

LWW
06-30-2011, 03:59 PM
If your point was that Reagan was a statist ... I agree.

llotter
07-01-2011, 05:28 AM
The point is that if you can manage to discredit everyone else, The Pathetic Moron and other useful idiots of the Left, look less bad.

LWW
07-01-2011, 05:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The point is that if you can manage to discredit everyone else, The Pathetic Moron and other useful idiots of the Left, look less bad. </div></div>

That is obvious, and the O-cult is getting ever more desperate.

Being almost 55 and a news junkie since about age 10 ... I can remember when the plaintive wail of the far left was ...
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"B-B-B-BUT N-N-N-NIX - UNNNNN!"</span>

Gayle in MD
07-01-2011, 06:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Here. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard60.html)

Not from a leftist, but a conservative libertarian, Murray Rothbard, right after Reagan left office, a retrospective look. </div></div>

Waving the flag, carrying the cross....

An accurate review of how every single one of our current disasters, originated with Repiglican/Pseudo Conservative, RW Fascists, waving the flag, carrying the cross.

And through it all, they falsely blame the Dems, for the disastrous results of all of their own failed policies, just as they are doing to this day.

G.

LWW
07-01-2011, 09:14 AM
The idea that there are people who believe Murray Rothbard would be waving the flag while carrying a cross is a symptom of how intellectually deficient the modern rank and file leftist actually is.

llotter
07-01-2011, 01:27 PM
Reagan did manage to keep government from growing during his 8 years in office while growing the military and defeating the USSR. That great accomplishment required making compromises beyond what some conservative/libertarians might have approved of but with hindsight, he deserves a gold star.

Soflasnapper
07-01-2011, 07:36 PM
Except where the government grew like topsy, you mean?

I doubt the rate of growth of government spending went down at all, relative to his predecessor, who actually WAS a fiscal conservative (tight as a tick, they said), unlike Reagan turned out to be. If perchance the rate of growth turned slightly down, which I don't think is the case, it still grew-- a large amount.

Foolishly, in my view, Reagan argued in the election season that the Soviets had outspent us by $100 billion the previous 10 years. Clearly we were way behind (he said). However, the truth was that WE HAD OUTSPENT THEM on the military by that figure the prior 10 years. (The scare tactic to pump up their alleged spending was to cost out their personnel in US wages, although they did not pay their people anywheres near our military wages.)

By so blatantly misrepresenting the balance of forces, stating the opposite of the truth, the Soviets became convinced that all the talk from the Reagan team about 'winning a nuclear war' was far from just talk-- it was their actual intention. This gave the Soviet war hawks all they needed to resist reducing their spending or working toward more detente, or building on the strategic arms agreements.

He basically prolonged the Cold War, far from winning it, at a fearful price in treasure, and enduring debt.

As then-Dept. CIA director Robert Gates wrote in his memoir, 'Out of the Shadows' or something like that, the CIA and the administration had no idea, and were shocked to find out, that the Soviets gravely suspected we would sneak attack them in a first strike decapitation action, after we'd deployed first-strike accurate and capable weaponry like the Trident D-5s, the MX missiles, and the Pershing IIs.

We got within about 4 hours of full scale release of nukes on both sides, when they figured the large-scale NATO exercise Able Archer was a cover for this first-strike. They warned PM Thatcher at about 4 am local time that if the exercise started, they would pre-empt our imminent first strike.

LWW
07-02-2011, 02:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Except where the government grew like topsy, you mean?

I doubt the rate of growth of government spending went down at all, relative to his predecessor, who actually WAS a fiscal conservative (tight as a tick, they said), unlike Reagan turned out to be.</div></div>

Rewriting history again to support your fantasy?

Let's review.

In 1978, federal spending was $409.2B ... in 1980 it was $678.2B. That is an increase of 47.85% ... in 4 years. That's about 11.75% per year.

Under Reagan spending increased from $678.2B to $946.3 after one term. That would be an increase of 39.51%. That's about 9.75% per year.

In the second Reagan term it went from $946.3B to $1,143.7B ... an increase of 15.1%. That's about 3.75% per year.

Bottom line is that under Reagan, gubmint spending grew at about an 8% clip ... meanwhile under Carter.

Beyond that ... Carter's increase came will emasculating our military to the point that had the Soviets moved into western Europe our only options would have been surrender of global thermonuclear war as our conventional deterrent was essentially nonexistent.

OTOH, Reagan's increases paid for the military machinery we are still using to this very day.

Now ... which is a higher rate of growth, 11.75% or or 9.75% or 8% or 3.75%?

Next, which is better for the nation ... spending increases of 11.75% per year while increasing the risk of WWII, or 9.75% per year increase while rebuilding a military that would be the standard of the world even a quarter of a century later?

Next myth you would like to see die?

Oh, my source, THE OBAMA REGIME (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/).

llotter
07-02-2011, 08:21 AM
I was referring to government spending as a percent of GDP and using that measure, it was 18% when he started and 18% when he finished. This is the most common measure of the size of government and though I would like to see to cut down to about 6 or 7 percent, I was giving Reagan kudos for halting its expansion, at least for those 8 years.

Early in his campaign, Reagan wanted to phase out entitlements altogether but had to back off that goal in the face of political reality at the time. (Political reality should be understood as the ability of the Left to reign the fire of hell onto anyone who should dare to question their righteous agenda.)

llotter
07-02-2011, 08:22 AM
what a load of sheer garbage!!!! Pathetic!

LWW
07-02-2011, 12:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Foolishly, in my view, Reagan argued in the election season that the Soviets had outspent us by $100 billion the previous 10 years. Clearly we were way behind (he said). However, the truth was that WE HAD OUTSPENT THEM on the military by that figure the prior 10 years. (The scare tactic to pump up their alleged spending was to cost out their personnel in US wages, although they did not pay their people anywheres near our military wages.)

By so blatantly misrepresenting the balance of forces, stating the opposite of the truth, the Soviets became convinced that all the talk from the Reagan team about 'winning a nuclear war' was far from just talk-- it was their actual intention. This gave the Soviet war hawks all they needed to resist reducing their spending or working toward more detente, or building on the strategic arms agreements. </div></div>

Are you aware that the Soviets had concrete plans for starting a nuclear war with the US?

And, what they paid their troops is irrelevant to the claim that they outspent us on arms.

LWW
07-02-2011, 12:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We got within about 4 hours of full scale release of nukes on both sides, when they figured the large-scale NATO exercise Able Archer was a cover for this first-strike. They warned PM Thatcher at about 4 am local time that if the exercise started, they would pre-empt our imminent first strike. </div></div>

Where do you come up with this jibber jabber?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Soviet reaction

The double agent Oleg Gordievsky, whose highest rank was KGB resident in London, is the only Soviet source ever to have published an account of Able Archer 83. Oleg Kalugin and Yuri Shvets, who were KGB officers in 1983, have published accounts that acknowledge Operation RYAN, <span style='font-size: 11pt'>but they do not mention Able Archer 83.[36] Gordievsky and other Warsaw Pact intelligence agents were extremely skeptical about a NATO first strike</span>, perhaps because of their proximity to, and understanding of, the West. Nevertheless, agents were ordered to report their observations, not their analysis, and this critical flaw in the Soviet intelligence system – coined by Gordievsky as the "intelligence cycle" – fed the fear of US nuclear aggression.[37]

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>No Soviet political figure has publicly acknowledged Able Archer 83. Marshal Sergei Akhromeyev, who at the time was Chief of the main operations directorate of the Soviet General Staff, told Cold War historian Don Orbendorfer that he had never heard of Able Archer. The lack of public Soviet response over Able Archer 83 has led some historians, including Fritz W. Ermarth in his piece, "Observations on the 'War Scare' of 1983 From an Intelligence Perch", to conclude that Able Archer 83 posed no immediate threat to the United States.</span>[38]
[edit]

American reaction

In May 1984, CIA Russian specialist Fritz W. Ermarth drafted "Implications of Recent Soviet Military-Political Activities", which concluded: "we believe strongly that Soviet actions are not inspired by, and Soviet leaders do not perceive, a genuine danger of imminent conflict with the United States."[6] Robert Gates, Deputy Director for Intelligence during Able Archer 83, has published thoughts on the exercise that refute this conclusion:

Information about the peculiar and remarkably skewed frame of mind of the Soviet leaders during those times that has emerged since the collapse of the Soviet Union makes me think there is a good chance—with all of the other events in 1983—that they really felt a NATO attack was at least possible and that they took a number of measures to enhance their military readiness short of mobilization. After going through the experience at the time, then through the postmortems, and now through the documents, I don't think the Soviets were crying wolf. They may not have believed a NATO attack was imminent in November 1983, but they did seem to believe that the situation was very dangerous. And US intelligence [SNIE 11–9-84 and SNIE 11–10–84] had failed to grasp the true extent of their anxiety.[39] </div></div>

Next myth please. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_archer)

Soflasnapper
07-02-2011, 01:17 PM
You've dropped the transition year increase of the 4th to the 5th years, only counting the increase from 1 through 4, and then mentioning how the 8th related to the 5th, and either intentionally or not, missed the 11% increase from the 4th to the 5th year.

Also intentionally or not, you used two wrong figures for the Carter years, possibly reading across the wrong year and using that inadvertently.

Also, as Carter came into office with around a 7% inflation, if you used constant dollars, correcting for inflation, his real increases of spending would be considerably lower. These are current or nominal dollars, not constant dollars.

Comparing in real dollar percentage increase terms, Carter might come in at 11 - 7 = 4% real growth, and Reagan might come in at 9.7 - 4.5 inflation = 5.2% real annual growth. Both are actually lower in chain-linked growth, because the growth compounds annually.

That is, it is incorrect to take the total increase and divide by the number of years, as that ignores the compounding factor. If compounding is taken into account, both presidents' figures are lower than you've stated. Think of your APR statement. When they show it at 18% annually but compounded monthly, they quote the annual figure at higher than 18%.

What you've done is close, but no cigar. Generously, I'd give it a B-. Not at all all bad, but enough flaws in your methodology that your end conclusions are not accurate.

Your geopolitical commentary is whacked, however. The false analysis of the alleged window of vulnerability was proven false when they put the MX missiles directly in the allegedly vulnerable Minuteman silos. The trick of saying we were badly outnumbered by the Soviets was to add up all the Warsaw Pact numbers and compare them only the US forces, neglecting to also add in the NATO complement, to compare an alliance to an alliance.

Actually, Reagan had no usable weaponry that he didn't get from CARTER, through to the end of his presidency. What Reagan did extra was a waste of money, from resurrecting the obsolete B-1 to the tune of $100 billion '80s dollars, retrofitting battleships at a huge expense which proved ineffective and were returned to mothballs, and seeking the mythical round number of the 600 ship navy, which had to be stopped because the effort was robbing the other services to no good effect. Surface navies are sitting ducks, as the Exocet on the Sheffield had already proven early on in the '80s.

What you've really stepped on is your message about spending and taxation during the Reagan times. If it's true that the spending was reined in as you say, AND gdp growth was high, and government receipts were high, then how did the debt triple during the course of 8 years? Must have been the tax cuts, right?

llotter
07-02-2011, 01:31 PM
i am surprised that a good man like yourself would bother to go back decades to deconstruct our last great president. And you are doing a really bad job of it.

Soflasnapper
07-02-2011, 01:34 PM
Next myth please.

The myth here is that the linked piece disputes what I said. It does not. It supports exactly what I said, if anyone reads it. It quotes professional spies and professional military men whose jobs require them to hold secrets, those men denying it.

But there is ample evidence that their denials are false. What does the article begin with, as a summary of this matter?

Able Archer 83 was a ten-day NATO command post exercise starting on November 2, 1983 that spanned Western Europe, centred on the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) Headquarters situated at Casteau, north of the Belgian city of Mons. Able Archer exercises simulated a period of conflict escalation, culminating in a coordinated nuclear release.[1] The 1983 exercise incorporated a new, unique format of coded communication, radio silences, participation by heads of government, and a simulated DEFCON 1 nuclear alert.

The realistic nature of the 1983 exercise, coupled with deteriorating relations between the United States and the Soviet Union and the anticipated arrival of Pershing II nuclear missiles in Europe, led some members of the Soviet Politburo to believe that Able Archer 83 was a ruse of war, obscuring preparations for a genuine nuclear first strike.[1][2][3][4] In response, the Soviets readied their nuclear forces and placed air units in East Germany and Poland on alert.[5][6] This relatively obscure incident is considered by many historians to be the closest the world has come to nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.[7] The threat of nuclear war abruptly ended with the conclusion of the Able Archer 83 exercise on November 11.[8][9]

It's all there, as I said, and as 'many historians' believe was the closest we came to nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis. I invite any lurkers to look at this article, and give their opinion of whether it's saying it never happened, or actually did happen. Yes, they give these dissents, but they also directly say it happened (meaning these dissents are not taken as the final word).

So you have Americans who were tidying this up, so as not to admit we'd nearly blundered in our bellicosity into triggering the Soviets to launch pre-emptively. And you have former Soviet officials who have an equal public relations interest in hiding the fact that they almost launched WW III.

NEVER HEARD OF ABLE ARCHER, they said??? An obvious lie, unless they mean they called the NATO exercise something else in Russian. Perhaps they'd have their memories jogged if asked, remember that NATO exercise that cause all Soviet forces to go on alert, since the KGB had specified that all that was going on in that exercise were the clear precursors to a pre-emptive first strike by us? They would say, 'oh THAT Able Archer exercise, of course.'

LWW
07-02-2011, 05:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You've dropped the transition year increase of the 4th to the 5th years, only counting the increase from 1 through 4, and then mentioning how the 8th related to the 5th, and either intentionally or not, missed the 11% increase from the 4th to the 5th year.
</div></div>

I meant to type 1981 and not 1980 for Carter.

Other than that, I used Carter's first term, Reagan's first term, and Reagan;s second term.

Your myth was filleted.

Deal with it.

LWW
07-02-2011, 05:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[It's all there, as I said, and as 'many historians' believe was the closest we came to nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis. I invite any lurkers to look at this article, and give their opinion of whether it's saying it never happened, or actually did happen. Yes, they give these dissents, but they also directly say it happened (meaning these dissents are not taken as the final word).</div></div>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>B</span>ravo <span style='font-size: 11pt'>S</span>ierra.

What you said was this:

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>"We got within about 4 hours of full scale release of nukes on both sides, when they figured the large-scale NATO exercise Able Archer was a cover for this first-strike. They warned PM Thatcher at about 4 am local time that if the exercise started, they would pre-empt our imminent first strike."</span>

You have been busted so frequently on the facts lately that you are approaching Snoopy levels of inaccuracy.

Soflasnapper
07-02-2011, 07:19 PM
The CIA report excerpted below confirms that Thatcher herself warned Reagan of the Soviets' fear that the US was planning to nuke them in a pre-emptive strike (although it admittedly doesn't place that warning in the context of the morning of Able Archer).

That she was the one who got that phone call at 4 am to call off Able Archer is the statement of a noted international peace activist in The Nation magazine, who says she got that story directly from Thatcher. I subscribed to The Nation for over 20 years and read that when it came out originally.

I understand it's uncorroborated, but I have always credited its accuracy, because WHO ELSE knew anything about that matter in the mid-'80s? It was a very high level closed matter that did not receive publicity at all during that time, iirc. The woman (whose name sadly escapes me despite thinking about it and looking around the 'net upon challenge) apparently KNEW a lot of the details surrounding that stunningly dangerous time, and not from public resources. These stories were only related after the principles began their memoirs after retiring when the administration was over, 6 years or more after that fact. I still hold that her knowledge of this, which I find inexplicable unless her story was accurate, supports the likelihood that this part of the story was accurate.

Excepting that one relatively trivial detail, which doesn't change the import of what I said to a great degree, the rest of my comments are well supported. The nuclear scare which had reached crescendo levels only ended, as the article you linked to says, when the exercise was ended.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The "Iron Lady" and the "Great Communicator"
Did Gordievsky's reporting bring home the message that the war scare in the Kremlin was serious and that it posed a potential danger of Soviet overreaction? Gordievsky and British co-author Christopher Andrew have said so repeatedly. The information Gordievsky provided to the British "was of enormous importance in providing warning of the almost paranoid fear within some sections of the Soviet leadership that President Reagan was planning a nuclear strike against the Soviet Union," according to Andrew.93

Prime Minister Thatcher herself apparently delivered the chilling message to President Reagan, hoping to convince him to moderate his rhetoric and actions. She evidently believed that US policy toward the USSR had become risky and counterproductive by threatening to undermine NATO's consensus on deployment of US intermediate-range missiles. Thatcher also was mindful of the growing strength of the peace movement in Europe and especially in West Germany.

Thatcher publicly urged a shift in policy on 29 September in an address at the annual dinner for the Churchill Foundation Award in Washington, where she knew her remarks would attract media--and White House--attention. Her theme--"we live on the same planet and must go [on] sharing it"--was a plea for a more accommodating Alliance policy that she spelled out in subsequent speeches. She did not, according to a chronicler of the Thatcher-Reagan partnership, pick up the phone or approach Reagan directly, because:

The essence of the partnership at this stage was that the two governments were basing their decisions on much the same evidence and on shared assessments at professional level. In particular, both governments would have had the same intelligence. A critical contribution in this field was made over a period of years by Oleg Gordievsky....94

A US journalist who interviewed British intelligence sources believes Gordievsky's reporting had a significant impact on the White House.95 He adds an interesting twist to the story. The British claimed the KGB was exploiting, and perhaps manipulating, "bluster in Washington" to hype the US threat to Soviet leaders for the KGB's own bureaucratic purposes and interests. London's message to Washington was: stop helping the hawks and start supporting the doves. Whether the British were acting as analysts or spin doctors is open to question. President Reagan says in his memoirs--without reference to British intelligence reports or ABLE ARCHER--that in late 1983 he was surprised to learn that "many people at the top of the Soviet hierarchy were genuinely afraid of America and Americans," and "many Soviet officials feared us not only as adversaries but as potential aggressors who might hurl nuclear weapons at them in a first strike."96

In the broad scheme of things, election-year politics and polls showing that the President's anti-Soviet rhetoric was his highest "negative" with US public opinion probably played the main role in the more conciliatory tone he adopted in early 1984. But the President himself said the war scare was "something to think about." The British intelligence reports appear to have influenced President Reagan--as they were no doubt intended to do--more than they influenced senior White House policy aides, who remained skeptical of the Soviet war scare during 1981-83 and even after Gordievsky had defected and publicly surfaced in 1985.97 </div></div>

From the CIA library, their white paper on the subject of the 1983 Soviet Nuclear War Scare (https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/a-cold-war-conundrum/source.htm)

Soflasnapper
07-02-2011, 07:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Foolishly, in my view, Reagan argued in the election season that the Soviets had outspent us by $100 billion the previous 10 years. Clearly we were way behind (he said). However, the truth was that WE HAD OUTSPENT THEM on the military by that figure the prior 10 years. (The scare tactic to pump up their alleged spending was to cost out their personnel in US wages, although they did not pay their people anywheres near our military wages.)

By so blatantly misrepresenting the balance of forces, stating the opposite of the truth, the Soviets became convinced that all the talk from the Reagan team about 'winning a nuclear war' was far from just talk-- it was their actual intention. This gave the Soviet war hawks all they needed to resist reducing their spending or working toward more detente, or building on the strategic arms agreements. </div></div>

Are you aware that the Soviets had concrete plans for starting a nuclear war with the US?

And, what they paid their troops is irrelevant to the claim that they outspent us on arms. </div></div>

So did we, against them. Operation Dropshot was one such plan. McNamara has said there was always a faction in the Air Force (Curtis LeMay and Co. at SAC) who desired to start a nuclear world war III, sooner than later, so that we'd have a better chance to win.

The Soviets did not outspend us on armaments-- we outspent them, and by a large margin. As I said, by $100 billion in the decade prior to Reagan's election. They may have attained numerical superiority across many metrics, included the dreaded throw-weight gap which although true was meaningless, but they lagged severely in qualitative measures, command, control and communication, avionics, accuracy needed for first strike potential, and most severely, in computer capabilities, global naval power projection, and vulnerability of nuclear forces through their reliance on ground-based nukes.

Basically, every 'gap' we claimed over many years was false, or backwards, where in each case, we had the gap over them. The alleged 'gaps' we bleated were designed to gain support for ever more spending, and increasing our leads. US leaders hyped these supposed leads of the Soviets most cynically, and the Soviets knew the real order of battle arrayed, from national intelligence means and penetration of the US chain of command.

LWW
07-02-2011, 07:35 PM
And that, of course, still doesn't back up your claim ... it merely gives a larger word count piece of jibber jabber than before.

hondo
07-02-2011, 11:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The point is that if you can manage to discredit everyone else, The Pathetic Moron and other useful idiots of the Left, look less bad. </div></div>

That is obvious, and the O-cult is getting ever more desperate.

Being almost 55 and a news junkie since about age 10 ... I can remember when the plaintive wail of the far left was ...
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"B-B-B-BUT N-N-N-NIX - UNNNNN!"</span> </div></div>

Meanwhile, Generic Republican continues to lead Obama in the polls while "actual" Republicans trail miserably.
Hope and change?

LWW
07-03-2011, 03:40 AM
Obama will lose. Deal with it.

hondo
07-03-2011, 09:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama will lose. Deal with it. </div></div>

I dealt with 8 years of Bush. The country didn't fare so well, however.

LWW
07-03-2011, 10:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama will lose. Deal with it. </div></div>

I dealt with 8 years of Bush. The country didn't fare so well, however. </div></div>

How was it worse then that it is now?

Please be specific.

Remember, you swore to me that you don't let others think for you ... here's your chance.

hondo
07-03-2011, 11:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama will lose. Deal with it. </div></div>

I dealt with 8 years of Bush. The country didn't fare so well, however. </div></div>

How was it worse then that it is now?

Please be specific.

Remember, you swore to me that you don't let others think for you ... here's your chance. </div></div>

If i spent 8 years digging a hole and threw you in it and you spent the next 4 years trying to dig yourself out, would you expect compassion or criticism?

hondo
07-03-2011, 11:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama will lose. Deal with it. </div></div>

I dealt with 8 years of Bush. The country didn't fare so well, however. </div></div>

How was it worse then that it is now?

Please be specific.

Remember, you swore to me that you don't let others think for you ... here's your chance. </div></div>

Obama saved the banking industry (most workers bank), he saved the car industry in America and helped redefine what we see today in fuel efficiency standards (this year 2011 the car show in Fort Worth this week shows Amercan manufacturing is rebouding strong in car sales and innovation), he saved the insurance industry, he created green jobs, he put govt subsidies into innovation, science and research that will benefit american job growth by keeping us on edge. Jobs are growing, Wall Street is rebounding, health care, killed Osama, got us out of Iraq, stopped "don't ask, don't tell". America is improving.

LWW
07-03-2011, 04:47 PM
And still you cling to mythology.

hondo
07-03-2011, 04:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And still you cling to mythology. </div></div>

The word is "clinging", dearless leader, and I'm sorry I answered your question.
You really don't lose well, do you, genius?

LWW
07-03-2011, 04:59 PM
If you meant I don't lose often, you would be correct.

Now ... how many of your fantasy claims can you actually document?

Not using dear leader and his propagandists as source material that is.

What's that?

None?

I already knew that.

hondo
07-03-2011, 05:13 PM
In your mind you never lose.
What's sad is that you're the only one on here who thinks
of these opinion exchanges in terms of winning and losing.

This is why you're such a sad, comical character who is the laughing stock of this forum.
jennings loves you.
sev tolerates you.
Everyone else despises you.
You're a winner all right. LOL!

LWW
07-03-2011, 05:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In your mind you never lose.
What's sad is that you're the only one on here who thinks
of these opinion exchanges in terms of winning and losing. </div></div>

Actually ... you are the one who introduced it now, and has introduced it repeatedly in the past.

But, it is typical for leftists to project their sins upon others ... you are certainly no different.

hondo
07-03-2011, 05:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In your mind you never lose.
What's sad is that you're the only one on here who thinks
of these opinion exchanges in terms of winning and losing. </div></div>

Actually ... you are the one who introduced it now, and has introduced it repeatedly in the past.

But, it is typical for leftists to project their sins upon others ... you are certainly no different. </div></div>

I simply point out your weaknesses to you.
It appears this thread has run its course also.
You've become very boring and shallow, DL.
TTFN.

Soflasnapper
07-03-2011, 06:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And that, of course, still doesn't back up your claim ... it merely gives a larger word count piece of jibber jabber than before. </div></div>

It was Helen Caldicott who wrote that. She was a leading member of the nuclear freeze movement, nominated for a Nobel by two-time Nobelist Linus Pauling, and her Physicians For Social Responsibility was awarded a Nobel. I found her credible in her piece in The Nation, but I guess it depends on her source, ultimately.

Hadn't read or thought of this matter in 25 years or so, and clearly the exercise DID start, and went on for close to its 10-day time period.

As the Soviets had longed stated internally that any US attack would take 6-8 days to start, AND that any attack would most likely occur on one of their holidays, the final day of the exercise, after the 9 days of buildup the last day just happened to be a Soviet holiday, and they were seriously expecting to be hit. Her story was that a Politburo member called Thatcher to call it off, ex parte, and some of the history I've been reading on this exercise says it 'ended abruptly.' To me that implies 'prematurely, before scheduled ending,' but I suppose it may not.

The Nation appears to cut off their searchable database of articles in the late '90s, and I have not been able to locate the text of her article to review exactly what was said.

Soflasnapper
07-03-2011, 06:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i am surprised that a good man like yourself would bother to go back decades to deconstruct our last great president. And you are doing a really bad job of it. </div></div>

I'm sure you are aware of Murray Rothbard's fine reputation. He's an admitted hero and influence among many conservatives.

Why do you think HE wrote such a scathing review of Reagan's presidency and him as a person?

This is timely in my view because the Republican Party genuflects to this man's idol, and they claim to be using his principles as their guiding lights.

However, they ignore his real record, and gloss over all that they would now disagree with if it were coming from anyone not named Reagan.

We often hear about how stupid people were to think that Reagan would bring about WW III out of aggressiveness and nonchalance. And since it didn't happen, many argue the fear was ridiculous. However, we have in this case proof that it almost did happen, to Reagan's own shock and mortification when he finally learned what he'd almost caused. That, and of course, the made for television movie, 'The Day After,' which apparently sealed his change of mind on these issues, according to the call he himself made to the director of the film.

LWW
07-04-2011, 02:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And that, of course, still doesn't back up your claim ... it merely gives a larger word count piece of jibber jabber than before. </div></div>

It was Helen Caldicott who wrote that.

</div></div>

Being that what she wrote doesn't support what you claimed ... I'd say all you are doing now is attempting to cover up your tall tale with jibber jabber.

At least way back when you could confess:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I regret the error, and as always appreciate the correction, although of course, it was not intended to be a factual statement (TM).</div></div>

LWW
07-04-2011, 02:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why do you think HE wrote such a scathing review of Reagan's presidency and him as a person?</div></div>

My guess is because he was an anarchist.

What is truly telling is that, in apparent desperation, you reach out to the works of someone you would otherwise denounce as an enemy of the state.

Tell us ... what else of Rothbard do you agree with?

Qtec
07-04-2011, 03:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd say all you are doing now is attempting to cover up your tall tale with jibber jabber. </div></div>

Your Reagan is a myth.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Politico Punctures The Gipper Mythology

July 01, 2011 2:07 pm ET by Simon Maloy

<span style="color: #990000">I've always been amused watching conservatives attack progressives for their "worship" of Obama (alternately and pejoratively dubbed "The Obamessiah" or simply "The One") and then raise their own voices in unalloyed praise of Ronald Reagan, who they insist saved America by relentlessly cutting taxes and shrinking government. The beatification of Reagan by the right, however, is a classic example of mythology overtaking the man.</span> Ronald Reagan -- the small-government champion of trickle-down economics -- raised taxes.

He raised taxes quite a bit, actually. And he did so both to reduce the deficit and stabilize Social Security. The media have been lax in pointing this out whenever Republican presidential candidates proudly declare their tax-cutting, deficit-exploding economic plans to be a continuation of the policies laid out by the 40th president. So it was refreshing to see Politico publish a good examination of Reagan's tax-hiking policies and how they would fare in today's political climate:

With the nation at risk of default next month, the Republicans' fierce anti-tax orthodoxy is running square into the Ghost of the Gipper -- the GOP's great modern, pre-tea party hero, Ronald Reagan.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Indeed, a POLITICO review of Reagan's own budget documents shows that the Republican president repeatedly signed deficit-reduction legislation in the 1980's that <u>melded annual tax increases with spending cuts just as President Barack Obama is now asking Congress to consider.</u></span>

The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) is the most famous, because of its historic size and timing, a dramatic course correction that quickly followed Reagan's signature income tax cuts in 1981. But in the six years after were four more deficit-reduction acts, which combined to almost double TEFRA's revenue impact on an annual basis.

[...]

In Reagan's case, he also signed major tax reform and his signature 1981 tax cuts forever changed the landscape.

A decade after his 1981 Economic Recovery Act, for example, Reagan budgets predicted those tax cuts would reduce annual receipts for the Treasury by as much as $350.2 billion. But the same tables also show that the combination of TEFRA and the four other deficit-reduction bills effectively took back a third of this in the name of deficit reduction.

The rich diversity of Reagan-era tax changes is most striking, impacting even such conservative priorities now as the estate tax. At the same time, Reagan also signed laws to double the federal gasoline tax to build more roads and increase payroll taxes to stabilize Social Security.

This part of the Reagan legacy is often overlooked, owing in large part to the determined right-wing effort to push the Reagan myth at the expense of historical accuracy.

</div></div>

Ghost of Gipper looms over GOP . (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58198.htmlhttp://)

link (http://gratewire.com/topic/politico-punctures-the-gipper-reagans-mythology)
Q

LWW
07-04-2011, 04:19 AM
I agreed way back on that ... Reagan should have held the lying congressional feet to the fire.

Next deflection?

Soflasnapper
07-04-2011, 03:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why do you think HE wrote such a scathing review of Reagan's presidency and him as a person?</div></div>

My guess is because he was an anarchist.

What is truly telling is that, in apparent desperation, you reach out to the works of someone you would otherwise denounce as an enemy of the state.

Tell us ... what else of Rothbard do you agree with? </div></div>

Like Lew Rockwell and libertarians in general, I agree with about 80% of Rothbard, while reserving certain areas of disagreement. In particular, I share their anti-war views, and as that is a most serious area of public policy, it is an agreement of very core principles.

Soflasnapper
07-04-2011, 03:23 PM
Being that what she wrote doesn't support what you claimed

Yes it does. What I wrote paraphrased her reporting that a Politburo member called Thatcher to warn her not to go forward with the final day's plans (I mistakenly forgot it had been a 10-day exercise, and the prior 9 days had indeed taken place prior to the very last day's deadly import to the Soviets).

Looking into some of the reporting extensively, we find Robert Gates had intervened with Reagan, to make sure he did not go into seclusion as his part of the command exercise, as Thatcher and the German leader had done at different earlier times. Gates made sure Reagan appeared in public with attendant publicity. I found clips of Gates stating this himself, and other accounts mentioning this action of Gates as a 'save.'

What else was repeatedly stated was the opinion of various intelligence officers, including the double agent reporting to MI-6 and Thatcher, that this crisis came about from a) Soviet leadership paranoia, and b) Reaganite rhetoric.

Indeed, what did Reagan famously do in December that year, right after these events that nearly brought the world to nuclear war in November? He made his infamous 'joke' during the sound check for his weekly radio address: "My fellow Americans, I am please to announce I've signed legislation outlawing the Soviet Union. Bombing will commence in one hour."

LWW
07-05-2011, 04:22 AM
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>B</span>ravo <span style='font-size: 14pt'>S</span>ierra.

What you said was this:

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>"We got within about 4 hours of full scale release of nukes on both sides, when they figured the large-scale NATO exercise Able Archer was a cover for this first-strike. They warned PM Thatcher at about 4 am local time that if the exercise started, they would pre-empt our imminent first strike."</span>

Soflasnapper
07-07-2011, 06:50 PM
I know what I said, and I repeated what was said in that Nation article.

As you have not seen it, I'm wondering how you can correct me. This was her report of what she'd learned, although pertaining to the LAST day of the exercise, not the beginning day, as I wrongly stated.