More Reagan failures from the 80's
Wbarwell
economic columnist Scott Burns wrote about the recent stock market bubble
crash. Federal Reserve statistics show that this bust cut the net worth of
the United States $3.8 Trillion from a national net worth of $42.2 trillion.
The worst since WWII. We have had three such episodes where we lost
net worth,between 1960-1, where we lost $5 billion on net worth of $2
trillion. And 1989-90, we lost $22 ibllion on $19 trillion. Compared to
this bust, these two early episodes were trivial.
And here's the interesting part, net worth of the US since WWII.
Decade % nominal % inflation adjusted
increase real increase
50's 6.06 % 4.26%
60's 6.28 3.38
70's 11.11 3.01
80's 4.5 2.47
90's 8.5% 5.55%
Annualized average growth since WWII? 3.8%
So, real growth under Reagan in the 80's was the worst decade
since WWII. So much for Reaganonomics or Reagan as the great
wealth creator. Reagan's decade was under par, not even reaching the
average.
And don't forget this saw personal spending power for the 2nd and 3rd
quintiles, working Americans was cut to 72% of what it was under Carter,
wealth that was created gravitated to the wealthy.
Ohhh Brettt! Kottman! Where did that little rascal run away to?
I bet he won't put this info on his Hammering reality website.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
Dudhorse
from the Democrat Jimmy Carter.
"Wbarwell" <Wbar...@munnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:3f6f7f4e$0$127$811e...@news.mylinuxisp.com...
Sid9
the Nixon/Carter mess just as Bush,Jr's
successor will have a mess of heroic
proportion to resolve.
-
-
-
"Dudhorse" <nondi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:lv_bb.155828$3o3.11...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Steve Hiner
"Dudhorse" <nondi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:lv_bb.155828$3o3.11...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> from the Democrat Jimmy Carter.
Just to keep things accurate and factual:
Yearly Inflation Rate
Carter Years
1977 6.62
1978 7.59
1979 11.28
1980 13.48
1981 10.36
Reagan Years
1982 6.16
1983 3.21
1984 4.37
1985 3.54
1986 1.86
1987 3.66
1988 4.12
1989 4.81
National Debt
Carter Years
12/30/1977 - 718,943,000,000.00
12/29/1978 - 789,207,000,000.00
12/31/1979 - 845,116,000,000.00
12/31/1980 - 930,210,000,000.00
12/31/1981 - 1,028,729,000,000.00
+ 309,786,000,000.00
Reagan Years
12/31/1982 - 1,197,073,000,000.00
12/31/1983 - 1,410,702,000,000.00
12/31/1984 - 1,662,966,000,000.00
12/31/1985 - 1,945,941,616,459.88
09/30/1986 - 2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1987 - 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1988 - 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/29/1989 - 2,857,430,960,187.32
+ 1,660,357,960,187.32
Wbarwell
> .. just for the record Reagan inherited a inflation rate of at least 18%
> from the Democrat Jimmy Carter.
>
No. Carter inherited inflation from Nixon/Ford.
Paul Volker, with Carter's concurence, raised interest rates until
inflation was crushed. Reagan thus inherited tamed inflation and it was
this action on part of the Fed, once again, with Carter's acquiesence,
crushed the wage-price spiral that was feeding inflation.
Inflation was cut in half for Reagan, by Carter/Volker.
And dropped thereafter.
This actually screwed Reagan, Stockman in his book "The Triumph of
Politics" admitted Reaganomics worked on paper to balance the budget by
1983 only because high inflation was a conveyer belt feeding money to the
government.
When Volker and Carter cut the inflation rate in half, this meant that
the conveyer belt was stopped and instead of a balanced budgte, we'd
instead have $100 billion + deficits, and he knew this even before
Reagan was elected.
If you have not read this book, you know little about Carter, Reagan and
economics of the 80's
Stockman screwed up and admits and tells how it all came about.
Its just real honest and like, he didn't tell the American public about
this until he wrote his 1986 book. Neither did Reagan or the GOP, who not
only have never told the truth, but have rather, lied about all of this for
23 years now.
Kevin
how much shadiness, how much unethical and illegal behavior was going
on with his crew. But, here's a man in his seventies with total shiny
shoe dye black hair who smilingly claimed he never dyed it. :)
Oh lord, you really test us with these Republicons!
Wbarwell <Wbar...@munnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:<3f6f7f4e$0$127$811e...@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
Kevin
Wbarwell <Wbar...@munnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:<3f6f7f4e$0$127$811e...@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
Steve Hiner
"Kevin" <kevp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9342cef7.03092...@posting.google.com...
> Yep, when you examine Reagan's time in office you're forced to realize
> how much shadiness, how much unethical and illegal behavior was going
> on with his crew. But, here's a man in his seventies with total shiny
> shoe dye black hair who smilingly claimed he never dyed it. :)
>
> Oh lord, you really test us with these Republicons!
And the scoreboard says;
Reagan - 31 felons
Clinton - 0 felons
searn
nuclear codes. Only a smart/competent man like Clinton would do that.
! BOOM !
Wbarwell
> For being a stupid/incompetent guy, at least Reagan never lost the
> nuclear codes. Only a smart/competent man like Clinton would do that.
>
> ! BOOM !
When the Republicans started to make a big deal over the Wen Ho Lee
situation and started to blame Clinton with loss of secrets to China,
it came out in teh paper that the Chinese had stolen plans to create small
nuclear war heads over tegh Reagan/Bush years and the repugs shut up.
Thanks Reagan and thanks Bush.
Allowing China to learn how to make small, easily concealed or MIRVable
warheads, selling weapons to Khomeinin, and allowing Saddam to import
anthrax and botulism cultures into Iraq.
Bad people, stupid people.
Cheerful Charlie
--
silic...@lycos.com
Houston Chronicle (liberal gasrag that it is). I only read the first
few lines to get what I needed, but came back here after exchanging
with MW Hodges (whom has the Grandfather Debt Report) online.
Then I noticed the rest of the posts.
So let me get this straight. In your world when inflation is rampaging
so out of control under Jimmy Carter,that there is a newly created
MISERY INDEX, and people line up at gas stations because Jimmy is so
wimpy a rabbit can wipe him out,and Jimmy sustains this crap for 4
years - ever increasing it's furious burden on the American People, it
all comes down to Volkert screwing Reagan with Jimmy's concurrence ?
Reagan gets a hold of his first budget the rabbit is dead and the gas
is flowing and "stagflation" becomes a "proud flag bearing Nation".
Yes, you have to really love it when history by some is exactly the
opposite of what we all lived through.
Hey, you know what ? I finally really figured it out. Clinton's
economy of the late 90's wasn't the computer revolution after all. It
was the result of the amazing implementation of President Herbert
Walker Bush, who reworked the economic and capital institutions back up
to their pre Carter/Mondale levels so the economy could really start
soaring. Of course Clinton's first fours years were lousy because it
takes a while for the former's changes, but then it really gave us some
job growth and stock market growth. I'll never forget Bush 41 for
having saved us in the late 90's from stagflation, ready to rise up
again,with his institutional changes. You know if it wasn't for Ronald
Reagan making some daring changes that really helped, President Bush 41
really couldn't have seen all the errors Volkert/Carter left brewing,
and made the resolute solutions we saw work once we had computers to
take advantage of them.
Right Wbarrel ? I knew you'd totally agree.
silic...@lycos.com
Clinton the bonehead it did.We all know it. He made 50 million doing it
so why blame him. Try the Cox Report chapter 2. Here's the link:
http://www.house.gov/coxreport/chapfs/ch2.html
Secondly, Reagan got our hostages OUT.
Carter flipped peanut butter sandwhiches for 444 days in comparison,
while they tortured and raped our people for a year and a half.
If Reagan sold the towelheads some arms, so Saddam wouldn't crush them,
all the more power to Reagan.
Further,what Saddam imports was Saddam' business, as the UNIMOVEC,
UNSCOM, and the recent Oil for Palaces and weapons and secret banks
accounts debacle can easily tell you.
Be cheery, but don't think you can pass bullcrap on me.
ą
<silic...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1103503676.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Yeah, sure.
> Clinton the bonehead it did.We all know it. He made 50 million doing it
> so why blame him. Try the Cox Report chapter 2. Here's the link:
> http://www.house.gov/coxreport/chapfs/ch2.html
>
> Secondly, Reagan got our hostages OUT.
Reagan traded WMD's and rockets and money for hostages after he told America
he wouldn't make deals with terrorists.
In the end, Pugs always deal with terrorists.
Carter stuck by his guns while that hairy baboon Reagan wimped out and
commited TREASON!.
JHS II
>From: "ą" ą@ą.net
>Date: 12/20/2004 1:59 AM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <DRuxd.16420$pC1....@fe06.lga>
>
>
><silic...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>news:1103503676.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Yeah, sure.
>> Clinton the bonehead it did.We all know it. He made 50 million doing it
>> so why blame him. Try the Cox Report chapter 2. Here's the link:
>> http://www.house.gov/coxreport/chapfs/ch2.html
>>
>> Secondly, Reagan got our hostages OUT.
>
>Reagan traded WMD's and rockets and money for hostages after he told America
>he wouldn't make deals with terrorists.
Nice bit of history revisionism.
Who would you have had win the Iran/Iraq war and dominate the Middle East for
generations to come?
Come to think of it, Reagan never traded WMD's to or for anyone. But it is a
nice piece of Soviet-style propaganda you're come up with.
>In the end, Pugs always deal with terrorists.
In the end, liberals ignore the facts in lieu of false accusations and
personal attacks.
>Carter stuck by his guns while that hairy baboon Reagan wimped out and
>commited TREASON!.
jimmy carter bent over and grabbed ankles for the terrorists.
Reagan held the terrorists at bay while simultaneously defeating the Soviet
Union in the Cold War.
Judging by your post I'd say that your side lost the Cold War. It would
explain the bitterness and hate.
John H. Schneider II
Shel Scott
>Reagan traded WMD's and rockets and money for hostages after he told America
>he wouldn't make deals with terrorists.
>
Aren't they freedom fighters, asshole? That's what you lot of
dipshits tell us!
>In the end, Pugs always deal with terrorists.
>Carter stuck by his guns while that hairy baboon Reagan wimped out
>
Carter turned Iran's resources over to a long-fomenting Islamic
fundamentalist theocracy, one that is only now being dealt with by the
world. This is a wound that has festered since the first seeds of
this Marxist/Islamist hybrid were sown in French universities in the
early part of the 20th century.
>and commited TREASON!.
>
*PLONK*
--
): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
(: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)
Harry
Just for the record, Reagan solved his problem by creating, almost
immediately upon entering office, the deepest and second longest
recession since the 1930's. I remember I was living in NYC at the
time, and watched the streets fill up with homeless. Six months after
the first term, most New Yorkers knew the names of the families living
in their subway stops. And just for the record, he then proceeded to,
what? quadruple the national debt and produce ten years of bad economic
times for working people. It killed the first Bush presidency, and it
took the Clinton administration most of the first term to reverse
course and bring back some prosperity for working people.
Similarly, the Cheney-Lay administration has basically bankrupted the
US economy, spending the money on killing folks with oil in order to
tie our economy to this disasterous and depleted energy source for
another thirty years. Look for at least ten years of sluggish economic
growth, or worse.
BTW, you folks ARE aware that the Index of Leading Economic Indicators
went up slightly last month after being down for four months in a row?
You folks are aware that we've just seen four years of declining real
average wages?
In fact, you're looking at the economic "boom". This is as good as
it's going to get. The next recession is about eight months away, and
of course, the high unemployment watermark of the 2001-2004 recession
will be slightly exceeded this time, and the low unemployment watermark
of the recovery will be just slightly above the last watermark, as we
slouch toward a real average wage equal to Guatamala's.
Mind you, people who own factories or live off interest like the idea
of Guatamalan wages for the rest of you, like it very much.
ą
"Shel Scott" <WellDone> wrote in message
news:74ies0d0l00pdgalh...@4ax.com...
> "ą" <ą@ą.net> wrote:
> >Reagan traded WMD's and rockets and money for hostages after he told
America
> >he wouldn't make deals with terrorists.
> >
> ... and he never did make deals with terrorists.
> Aren't they freedom fighters, asshole? That's what you lot of
> dipshits tell us!
>
> >In the end, Pugs always deal with terrorists.
> >Carter stuck by his guns while that hairy baboon Reagan wimped out
> >
> Carter turned Iran's resources over to a long-fomenting Islamic
> fundamentalist theocracy, one that is only now being dealt with by the
> world. This is a wound that has festered since the first seeds of
> this Marxist/Islamist hybrid were sown in French universities in the
> early part of the 20th century.
>
> >and commited TREASON!.
> >
> *PLONK*
Absolute liar.
richar...@hotmail.com
on what tactics they you, how they are thought,and whether or not they
are opposed to you.
Look at the definition of terror:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terror
and compare it to shock:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=shock
And Awe:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=awe
(aka Shock and Awe, remember that?)
Oh yes, and remember the MOAB?:
http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens031203.asp
" Defense officials reportedly describe the purpose of the weapon as
primarily 'psychological.' The daisy cutter was employed in such a role
during the 1991 Gulf War. DoD has certainly made no effort to keep the
effects of this weapon secret. This lack of secrecy meshes with another
recent news report claiming that a centerpiece of a campaign of shock
and awe would be the purposeful destruction of an Iraqi Republican
Guard unit as an incentive to others to surrender"
The use of fear to get people to give up. Sort of sounds like what Al
Qaeda is trying to do, isn't it?
Anyhow, war is war. But, humans definitely do slimy things in the USA.
I will say America doesn't try to intentionally target civilians
unlike the Bin Laden Bunch. Civilians do get hurt none-the-less, and
America had armed insurgents and thug regimes in order to further its
ends in the past. Now, hopefully, it can clean up its mess.
- Richard Hutnik
silic...@lycos.com
" > almost
immediately upon entering office, the deepest and second longest
recession since the 1930's. I remember I was living in NYC at the
time, and watched the streets fill up with homeless. Six months after
the first term, most New Yorkers knew the names of the families living
in their subway stops. < "
Well Harry I appeciate your attmept at a studious post, however giving
the Merry Christmas Season and the impending doom partisanship it
displayed, I'll have to relegate most all of it to the bottom of the
dustbin complaint file. It seems to me Reagan sure straightened out
that Carter stagflation. We all cheered. He got re-elected in the
biggest landslide majority this Nation and indeed the world has ever
seen, with immense applause from millions of newly converted Reagan
democrats as well as the standard republican support.
See > menu by general year 1984 - REAGAN WON THE ENTIRE MAP OF THE USA
except for Minnesota.
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/frametextj.html
Good Lord! By anyone's standard that is an awesome xxs- kicking MANDATE
in a second term.
Well, that dispatches your whining.
Merry Christmas, Mr. Scrooge !
silic...@lycos.com
"And the scoreboard says;
Reagan - 31 felons
Clinton - 0 felons"
My oh my Steve- it appears your scoreboard is malfunctioning something
fierce. I suppose when the local paper was shoved in my face under
Clinton and the indictment imprisonment administrative count was 57 and
rising - your scorekeeper fell asleep and hasn't awoken since. Give RIP
a nudge would ya, the game buzzer sounded years ago ?!
Bill Bonde
Can you explain why trading arms for hostages is 'treason'? This seems
like a very popular claim with Liberals and I've never really figured
out what they are going for.
--
Opening her own letter Dorothea saw that it was a lively continuation of
his remonstrance with her fanatical sympathy and her want of sturdy
neutral delight in things as they were—an outpouring of his young
vivacity which it was impossible to read just now. -+George Eliot,
"Middlemarch"
Eric Chomko
: "±" wrote:
: >
: > <silic...@lycos.com> wrote in message
: > news:1103503676.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
: > > Yeah, sure.
: > > Clinton the bonehead it did.We all know it. He made 50 million doing it
: > > so why blame him. Try the Cox Report chapter 2. Here's the link:
: > > http://www.house.gov/coxreport/chapfs/ch2.html
: > >
: > > Secondly, Reagan got our hostages OUT.
: >
: > Reagan traded WMD's and rockets and money for hostages after he told America
: > he wouldn't make deals with terrorists.
: > In the end, Pugs always deal with terrorists.
: > Carter stuck by his guns while that hairy baboon Reagan wimped out and
: > commited TREASON!.
: >
: Can you explain why trading arms for hostages is 'treason'? This seems
: like a very popular claim with Liberals and I've never really figured
: out what they are going for.
It means that if you want arms then kidnap hostages. But, make sure that
you deal with the party that is not currently in office.
Eric
: --
Eric Chomko
: "±" <±@±.net> wrote:
: >Reagan traded WMD's and rockets and money for hostages after he told America
: >he wouldn't make deals with terrorists.
: >
: ... and he never did make deals with terrorists.
: Aren't they freedom fighters, asshole? That's what you lot of
: dipshits tell us!
Actually Reagan is the one that called them freedom fighters, yet what we
call them today is terrorists.
: >In the end, Pugs always deal with terrorists.
: >Carter stuck by his guns while that hairy baboon Reagan wimped out
: >
: Carter turned Iran's resources over to a long-fomenting Islamic
: fundamentalist theocracy, one that is only now being dealt with by the
: world. This is a wound that has festered since the first seeds of
: this Marxist/Islamist hybrid were sown in French universities in the
: early part of the 20th century.
We created a coup in Iran with the British back in 1953, which installed
our puppet the Shah. The Iranians got tired out it (wouldn't you?!) and
kicked him out in 1979.
: >and commited TREASON!.
: >
: *PLONK*
Plonk yourself! You you fail to understand that we make policy that
eventually bites on the ass years later by befriending today tommorrow's
thugs. Many examples exist.
I'm concerned about the "thanks" we're going to get from Iraq for
liberating them now in 2004. Somewhere around 2030, I shudder to think
about it...
Eric
: --
Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )
Eric Chomko wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde (std...@mail.com) wrote:
>
> : "ą" wrote:
> : >
> : > <silic...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> : > news:1103503676.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> : > > Yeah, sure.
> : > > Clinton the bonehead it did.We all know it. He made 50 million doing it
> : > > so why blame him. Try the Cox Report chapter 2. Here's the link:
> : > > http://www.house.gov/coxreport/chapfs/ch2.html
> : > >
> : > > Secondly, Reagan got our hostages OUT.
> : >
> : > Reagan traded WMD's and rockets and money for hostages after he told America
> : > he wouldn't make deals with terrorists.
> : > In the end, Pugs always deal with terrorists.
> : > Carter stuck by his guns while that hairy baboon Reagan wimped out and
> : > commited TREASON!.
> : >
> : Can you explain why trading arms for hostages is 'treason'? This seems
> : like a very popular claim with Liberals and I've never really figured
> : out what they are going for.
>
> It means that if you want arms then kidnap hostages.
>
That isn't how it worked out. The arms deal was the beginning of the end
of the hostage taking in Lebanon and that area. And I asked how it was
'treason'. It seems like a policy decision well within the rights of the
president. Since no efforts were ever made to impeach Reagan or, in
fact, do anything to anyone regarding the arms sales to Iran, my point
of view is clearly correct.
--
"So I'm going to write a little novel entitled 'The History of the Idea
of Justice' which will be terribly funny, but I'm absolutely parched,
what about you?" -+Gustave Flaubert, "Sentimental Education"
silic...@lycos.com
Sadly- trading arms for hostages never happened. The hostages were
released an hour after Reagan was sworn in. History states the Iranians
were scared shitless of the Cowboy Reagan.
Later on in the Administration - the Iran Contra affair developed.
Since then - liberals are pretending there's some sort of
connection...which there isn't.
The sad truth is - they are to stupid to even know that they are
talking about 2 different things.
Me >Secondly, Reagan got our hostages OUT.
Carter flipped peanut butter sandwhiches for 444 days in comparison,
while they tortured and raped our people for a year and a half.
Not only did Carter blow it - he really blew it with a failed rescue
attempt.
Later on in Reagan's Terms - Iran's fears were confirmed when Mohhamar
Kdafi's terror fortress was sky bombed by the Gipper - blasting Kdafi's
daughter to bits.
A fine example of identical occurrence times two is seen with the
knowledge that Huday and Qusay Saddam are also RIP- thank you President
and Commander In Cheif George W Bush !
It doesn't take a genuis to figure out that Reagan's former Cabinet is
sitting in the White House with Bush now....and when Kdafi saw Saddam
dragged from his cockroach hole- he more than certainly was warned he
was next.
Comvinced by the power and example the White House Administration
delivered years ago under Reagan, and it's current ressurection, Kdafi
the shitrat caved in, forwarding the destruction of Islamic terror,
signaling a gigantic victory not only for the Bush adminuistration- but
for the now resting Gipper !
The rest of this shit is about arms for hostages is some crap the
liberals made up to try to belittle the tremendous recent victories the
conservative republicans have enjoyed as Commander in Cheif.
silic...@lycos.com
Sorry Eric- you're selective history combined with amnesia is not going
to pass.
***We created a coup in Iran with the British back in 1953, which
installed
our puppet the Shah. ***
The Shah of Iran had been ruling Iran since 1941 you fucktard. In
1952-53 Mohammed Mossadeq- the recently installed prime minister tried
to pull a power grab and take the oil, and army from the Shah. After a
failed first attempt- he became luckier and pulled the coup for the
period of 1 year.
During that time Mossadeq- the Islamic fanatic backed Nation thief
stole the entire mulit billion dollar oil infrastructure the British
owned, and kicked them out. The British responded with a Naval embargo
and the oil did not flow for 1 year. At that time the pain was too
great and the Shah of Iran returned to his rightful place as LEADER OF
IRAN.
Now- as for the Islamic overthrow and coup de etat of the Khomeni -
wghich occurred later in 1969 - let me give you some backround there so
you don't quack off some idiot liberal talking point and think you've
won some sort of debate.
The Khomeni shia fanatic- attempted his first coup against the Shah of
Iran - in 1963-64 - and was banished from Iran. He wound up guess
where?
He wound up in IRAQ - for a full 14 years- supported by the shia there-
and of course you know whom else- don't you- that's right- SADDAM
HUSSEIN HIMSELF.
In 1978 - 14 goddamned years later - the Khomeni was expelled from
Iraq for misbehavior and wound up guess where?
He wound up in FRANCE- that's right - FRANCE...
In 1979 - with Khomeni's Shia rebellion and second coup de etat - run
from FRANCE- and the support he gained in southern IRAQ over a decade -
a neighbor to IRAN- as you know fucktard- the Shah gained a bad
reputation- putting down the fomenting Islamic Fanaticism.
France pressure on the Shah- and it's idiotic shit support for
Khomeni- busted the Shah bubble and a thoecratic Islamic shithole was
born.
The people of Iran were cracked down upon in the change- and very
quickly were sorry they did not realize how good they had it under the
rule of the Shah 1941- 1979 - (53) excepted. Gone was the music - gone
was the drink- gone went the nightclubs and the hotdogs and the make-up
and the freedoms the Shah had provided.
Today - the of the pressure building to get rid of the current
bastard Khomeni 2 is becoming almost unbearable for the present regime.
The recent news event indicating the size of the rebellion was the
speech of the Khomeni asswipe to collegiate students on Tehran proper-
where the students rose out of their chairs and hurled angry loud
uninhibited insults and complaints toward the unelected Islamic ruler
whom has promised western demoratic reforms and failed to deliver.
Of special note were the statements calling for the return of the Shah
of Iran style ruler- the students demanding that be given the freedoms
their parents enjoyed and often tells them about.
good day to you, you lying ignorant leftist talking point jackass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadeq
the Shah > http://www.sedona.net/pahlavi/mrp.html
READ UP YOU GODDAMNED BONEHEAD-
PS - Everything I typed above is from studied memory- I don't need some
bonehead liberal jackass piping shit down this rooms throat !
silic...@lycos.com
JUST SO YOU DON'T GET AWAY WITH THIS BULLSHIT- YOU QUACKING LIBERAL
GASSBAG- I AM GOING TO POST THE LINKS AND TRUTH THAT EXPOSES YOUR BIG
FAT FUCKING LIE BELOW.
SHITHEAD LIB CHOMKSY ERIC LOVER SAYS > ***We created a coup in Iran
with the British back in 1953, which installed
our puppet the Shah. The Iranians got tired out it (wouldn't you?!) and
kicked him out in 1979.***
TRUTH > Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi ascended the throne on September 16,
1941, when he was a few weeks short of his twenty-second birthday
(October 26). At the time of the golden jubilee of the Pahlavi dynasty
he had ruled for thirty-five years, thus more than doubling the period
during which his father directed Iran's policies as head of state.
TRUTH LINK > http://www.sedona.net/pahlavi/mrp.html
NOW YOU QUACKING LIBERAL PEON MIND CONTROLLED LEFTIE PRESS TALKING
POINT ZOMBIE...THE SHAH WAS NOT INSTALLED IN 1953- YOU GOOBER ASSBAG.
HE WAS RETURNED TO HIS RIGHTFUL PLACE OF POWER THAT HE ENJOYED FOR 12
YEARS PRIOR TO ITS THEFT BY ISLAMIC RADICALS BACKED BY FRANCE AND IRAQ-
AND RUSSIA YOU GODDAMNED IDIOT.
Here is a left leaning outline of Mossadeq's betrayal of the ruling
Shah- and his successful efforts to seize the reigns of power in Iran:
***Thus, during the royal approval of his new cabinet, Mossadegh asked
the Shah to grant him full control of the military, and Ministry of
War. The Shah refused, and Mossadegh announced his resignation.
Ahmed Qavam was appointed as Iran's new prime minister. On the day of
his appointment, he announced his intention to resume negotiations with
the British to end the oil dispute. This blatant reversal of
Mossadegh's plans sparked a massive public outrage. Protestors of all
stripes filled the streets, including communists and radical Muslims
led by Ayatollah Kashani. Frightened by the unrest, the Shah quickly
dismissed Qavam, and re-appointed Mossadegh, granting him the full
control of the military he had previously requested.
Taking advantage of his atmosphere of popularity, Mossadegh convinced
the parliament to grant him increased powers and appointed Ayatollah
Kashani as house speaker. Kashani's radical Muslims, as well as the
Iranian Communist Party, proved to be two of Mossadegh's key political
allies.***
THERE YOU HAVE A GOOD OUTLINE YOU IDIOT FUCK. MOSSADEQ- WITH SUPPORT OF
RADICAL ISLAM - AND RUSSIAN BACKED COMMUNISM SEIZED POWER FROM THE
SHAH- WHO HAD BEEN RULING SINCE 1941- YOU BRAIN DEAD MORONIC SHITLIB.
NEXT TIME YOU DECIDE TO TAKE A SHIT LIBERAL TALKING POINT TO HEART AND
CRACK THE SPEW OUT IN A GOOGLE POL POST, HOPE LIKE HEL I'M NOT AROUND !
I'm through with you, you bean brained lefty- you've been properly
dispatched .
Eric Chomko
Just because Reagan didn't get impeached doesn't mean he was morally
justified supplying arms to Iran.
Your point of view is slanted as usual.
Eric
: --
Thom
>Bill Bonde Dec 21, 12:13 am
>
>Sadly- trading arms for hostages never happened. The hostages were
>released an hour after Reagan was sworn in. History states the Iranians
>were scared shitless of the Cowboy Reagan.
>
>Later on in the Administration - the Iran Contra affair developed.
>
>Since then - liberals are pretending there's some sort of
>connection...which there isn't.
>
>The sad truth is - they are to stupid to even know that they are
>talking about 2 different things.
>
>Me >Secondly, Reagan got our hostages OUT.
>Carter flipped peanut butter sandwhiches for 444 days in comparison,
>while they tortured and raped our people for a year and a half.
well what do you expect from right wingers, especially religious right
wingers?
>
>Not only did Carter blow it - he really blew it with a failed rescue
>attempt.
I'm sure its because of the gutted Clinton Military???
>
>Later on in Reagan's Terms - Iran's fears were confirmed when Mohhamar
>Kdafi's terror fortress was sky bombed by the Gipper - blasting Kdafi's
>daughter to bits.
>
>A fine example of identical occurrence times two is seen with the
>knowledge that Huday and Qusay Saddam are also RIP- thank you President
>and Commander In Cheif George W Bush !
>
>It doesn't take a genuis to figure out that Reagan's former Cabinet is
>sitting in the White House with Bush now....and when Kdafi saw Saddam
>dragged from his cockroach hole- he more than certainly was warned he
>was next.
>Comvinced by the power and example the White House Administration
>delivered years ago under Reagan, and it's current ressurection, Kdafi
>the shitrat caved in, forwarding the destruction of Islamic terror,
>signaling a gigantic victory not only for the Bush adminuistration- but
>for the now resting Gipper !
>
>The rest of this shit is about arms for hostages is some crap the
>liberals made up to try to belittle the tremendous recent victories the
>conservative republicans have enjoyed as Commander in Cheif.
You left out the part where Bush 41 started the Terrorist Group, the
CONTRAS who murdered over 10,000 innocent civilians and ran drugs for
Bush.
THOM
>
bill.n...@cballiance.com
be released as long as Carter was president. The hostages were released
the day Carter ceased to be president. Reagan had nothing to do with
their release. The people who were responsible for the release of the
hostages were the American voters who voted for Reagan, thereby meeting
the terms that the Ayatollah laid down.
Thom
>In early 1980, Ayatollah Khomeini declared that the hostages would not
>be released as long as Carter was president. The hostages were released
>the day Carter ceased to be president. Reagan had nothing to do with
>their release.
You left out the part where Reagan made a deal with the Iatiolet
Kockamamie to not release them under Carter.
>The people who were responsible for the release of the
>hostages were the American voters who voted for Reagan, thereby meeting
>the terms that the Ayatollah laid down.
So you republicans sided with the Iranians much like you did with
Hitler in WW2? No wonder Iran/Contra happened.
THOM
>
At Last
"Thom" <toml...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
news:41cc140f...@news.melbpc.org.au...
> On 23 Dec 2004 16:24:21 -0800, bill.n...@cballiance.com wrote:
>
>>In early 1980, Ayatollah Khomeini declared that the hostages would not
>>be released as long as Carter was president. The hostages were released
>>the day Carter ceased to be president. Reagan had nothing to do with
>>their release.
>
> You left out the part where Reagan made a deal with the Iatiolet
> Kockamamie to not release them under Carter.
Prove it.
Reagan did say on more than one occasion the Iranians wouldn't get any
better deal from him.
>
>>The people who were responsible for the release of the
>>hostages were the American voters who voted for Reagan, thereby meeting
>>the terms that the Ayatollah laid down.
>
> So you republicans sided with the Iranians much like you did with
> Hitler in WW2? No wonder Iran/Contra happened.
You dems sided with Stalin. Bet you feel good about that.
>
> THOM
>>
>
At Last
"Eric Chomko" <echom...@polaris.umuc.edu> wrote in message
news:cqcohi$24mh$1...@news.ums.edu...
what does morality have to do with national interest? Rooseveldt allied
himself with Stalin. Moral?
At Last
> On 22 Dec 2004 02:44:19 -0800, silic...@lycos.com wrote:
>
>>Bill Bonde Dec 21, 12:13 am
>>
>>Sadly- trading arms for hostages never happened. The hostages were
>>released an hour after Reagan was sworn in. History states the Iranians
>>were scared shitless of the Cowboy Reagan.
>>
>>Later on in the Administration - the Iran Contra affair developed.
>>
>>Since then - liberals are pretending there's some sort of
>>connection...which there isn't.
>>
>>The sad truth is - they are to stupid to even know that they are
>>talking about 2 different things.
>>
>>Me >Secondly, Reagan got our hostages OUT.
>>Carter flipped peanut butter sandwhiches for 444 days in comparison,
>>while they tortured and raped our people for a year and a half.
>
> well what do you expect from right wingers, especially religious right
> wingers?
>>
>>Not only did Carter blow it - he really blew it with a failed rescue
>>attempt.
>
> I'm sure its because of the gutted Clinton Military???
No, it was becasue Carter was a demolib idiot who first of all undermanned
the mssion, second of all tried to micromanage it and thirdly, cut and run
at the first sign of trouble. Just like the demolib nutzis did in Viet Nam
and now want to do in Iraq.
Thom
wrote:
>
>"Thom" <toml...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
>news:41cc140f...@news.melbpc.org.au...
>> On 23 Dec 2004 16:24:21 -0800, bill.n...@cballiance.com wrote:
>>
>>>In early 1980, Ayatollah Khomeini declared that the hostages would not
>>>be released as long as Carter was president. The hostages were released
>>>the day Carter ceased to be president. Reagan had nothing to do with
>>>their release.
>>
>> You left out the part where Reagan made a deal with the Iatiolet
>> Kockamamie to not release them under Carter.
>
>Prove it.
>
>Reagan did say on more than one occasion the Iranians wouldn't get any
>better deal from him.
then him and Bush sold out America during Iran/Contra
THOM
Eric Chomko
: "Eric Chomko" <echom...@polaris.umuc.edu> wrote in message
You're right. On the same token don't be surprized when a former ally,
like bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, turns out to be your next enemy.
It appears that 'instant gratification' extends beyond just entertainment
and into who our allies are when the intel suits us.
: >
: > Your point of view is slanted as usual.
Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )
Reagan's actions were legal. If they had not been, there would've been
something for Walsh to go on. The Iran side of it was never at issue.
The issue was whether or not diverting the profits to the Contras was
something that was illegal.
I have zero idea what the moral issues are with the arms transfer other
than that Reagan cared very deeply for the hostages and their families,
who were calling every day claiming he was doing nothing when he was
doing everything he could. Reagan was a great man but he was also a good
man and his actions were completely those of a man who cared about the
people he was sworn to serve.
Eric Chomko
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: >
The problem is how do you bring a whole adminstration up on drug charges?
It was SO big that it was better to sweep it under the rug. Reminds me of
the JFK assassination.
We as a nation can catch folks like Clinton for lying about a BJ. Or catch
Nixon trying to claim he had no knowledge about a second rate burglary.
But to admit a coup occured or that we paid for arms with dope money? No,
THAT is something we don't dare even acknowledge! The term 'parapolitics'
comes to mind.
: I have zero idea what the moral issues are with the arms transfer other
: than that Reagan cared very deeply for the hostages and their families,
: who were calling every day claiming he was doing nothing when he was
: doing everything he could. Reagan was a great man but he was also a good
: man and his actions were completely those of a man who cared about the
: people he was sworn to serve.
Right the ends justifies the means and that would include using drug money
to pay for the arms to free the hostages. THAT, Bondo, is what YOU need to
understand when you toss around words such as "great".
How much did Reagan know? That is hard to say. But not knowing makes him
guilty by ommission. IMO, Reagan was more a figurehead for those that got
him into power. The modern neocons that rose to power during the Ford
administration of which have a huge stake in the current administration,
were doing a lot of the behind the scenes stuff why Reagan was president
as well.
Eric
: --
Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )
Walsh sought anything he could find long into the next administration.
The Iran part was never an issue even though proving that Reagan ordered
the arms transfer was trivial since he said he ordered it from the
start. The only place where Iran is at issue is really here on usenet or
other places populated by crank hate Reagan Libs.
> We as a nation can catch folks like Clinton for lying about a BJ. Or catch
> Nixon trying to claim he had no knowledge about a second rate burglary.
> But to admit a coup occured or that we paid for arms with dope money? No,
>
What? The arms were bought at more than full price by Iran.
> THAT is something we don't dare even acknowledge! The term 'parapolitics'
> comes to mind.
>
> : I have zero idea what the moral issues are with the arms transfer other
> : than that Reagan cared very deeply for the hostages and their families,
> : who were calling every day claiming he was doing nothing when he was
> : doing everything he could. Reagan was a great man but he was also a good
> : man and his actions were completely those of a man who cared about the
> : people he was sworn to serve.
>
> Right the ends justifies the means and that would include using drug money
> to pay for the arms to free the hostages. THAT, Bondo, is what YOU need to
> understand when you toss around words such as "great".
>
Drug money? What are you talking about?
> How much did Reagan know? That is hard to say. But not knowing makes him
> guilty by ommission.
>
Does that apply to Clinton as well, you know, right along with him
already being guilty be emission.
> IMO, Reagan was more a figurehead for those that got
> him into power. The modern neocons that rose to power during the Ford
> administration of which have a huge stake in the current administration,
> were doing a lot of the behind the scenes stuff why Reagan was president
> as well.
>
Have you thought of taking a nice tall frosty glass of lithium carbonate
for that paranoia?
bill.n...@cballiance.com
camp and Khomeini because, although I think there is some substance to
that, it is not as obvious as the fact that the American electorate did
in fact do the bidding of the Ayatollah in ousting Carter.
In similar fashion, the Bush administration is doing the bidding of Al
Qaeda through their response to the 9/11 massacre. They are turning
America into much less of a democracy than it was before and that is
all bin Laden really wanted.
Thom
Points broight up before but still very valid.
THOM
>
JHS II
>From: toml...@melbpc.org.au (Thom)
>Date: 12/25/2004 6:42 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <41cdfab9...@news.melbpc.org.au>
>
>On 24 Dec 2004 11:15:21 -0800, bill.n...@cballiance.com wrote:
>
>>I left out the alleged pre-election negotiations between the Reagan
>>camp and Khomeini because, although I think there is some substance to
>>that, it is not as obvious as the fact that the American electorate did
>>in fact do the bidding of the Ayatollah in ousting Carter.
Yet you repeat the long-discredited liberal fantasy here.
The fact is that the ayatollah had exactly who they wanted as President in
Jimmy Carter. They didn't fear Carter - they did fear a President Ronald
Reagan.
>>
>>In similar fashion, the Bush administration is doing the bidding of Al
>>Qaeda through their response to the 9/11 massacre. They are turning
>>America into much less of a democracy than it was before and that is
>>all bin Laden really wanted.
You still give out the old Soviet-era propaganda pretty well. All this shows
is that you're still bitter that the we won the Cold War and your side lost.
>Points broight up before but still very valid.
You mean liberal propaganda brought up before and thoroughly discredited.
>THOM
>>
>
>
John H. Schneider II
I've lost none of my freedoms - except under liberals.
Swiss Observer
Yes, the point is well-made, but I don't recall that Osama or al-Qaeda
ever said anything about wanting America to be less of a democracy or
anything else except "out of Saudi Arabia". The idea that al-Qaeda is
against America itself is a Bush invention, for obvious reasons --
al-Qaeda has always said clearly that it is fighting the Saudi regime
and its like-minded "godless" allies in the region. They never even
mentioned the Palestinians' cause until Osama's latest video release.
bill.n...@cballiance.com
JHS II wrote:
> >Subject: Re: More Reagan failures from the 80's
> >From: toml...@melbpc.org.au (Thom)
> >Date: 12/25/2004 6:42 PM US Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <41cdfab9...@news.melbpc.org.au>
> >
> >On 24 Dec 2004 11:15:21 -0800, bill.n...@cballiance.com wrote:
> >
> >>I left out the alleged pre-election negotiations between the Reagan
> >>camp and Khomeini because, although I think there is some substance
to
> >>that, it is not as obvious as the fact that the American electorate
did
> >>in fact do the bidding of the Ayatollah in ousting Carter.
>
> Yet you repeat the long-discredited liberal fantasy here.
>
> The fact is that the ayatollah had exactly who they wanted as
President in
> Jimmy Carter. They didn't fear Carter - they did fear a President
Ronald
> Reagan.
Wrong dynamic, Festus. It's not fear. It's hatred. They don't fear
anyone. They hated Carter. They loved Reagan. You can only guess why.
>
> >>
> >>In similar fashion, the Bush administration is doing the bidding of
Al
> >>Qaeda through their response to the 9/11 massacre. They are turning
> >>America into much less of a democracy than it was before and that
is
> >>all bin Laden really wanted.
>
> You still give out the old Soviet-era propaganda pretty well. All
this shows
> is that you're still bitter that the we won the Cold War and your
side lost.
What the hell are you talking about? I guess that's what the new
national socialist party does these days when they are out of reason.
Make raving but insignificant references to their glorious past.
>
> >Points broight up before but still very valid.
>
> You mean liberal propaganda brought up before and thoroughly
discredited.
You're out of arguments, aren't you?
JHS II
>Date: 12/26/2004 4:37 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <1104097061.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
>
>
>JHS II wrote:
>> >Subject: Re: More Reagan failures from the 80's
>> >From: toml...@melbpc.org.au (Thom)
>> >Date: 12/25/2004 6:42 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <41cdfab9...@news.melbpc.org.au>
>> >
>> >On 24 Dec 2004 11:15:21 -0800, bill.n...@cballiance.com wrote:
>> >
>> >>I left out the alleged pre-election negotiations between the Reagan
>> >>camp and Khomeini because, although I think there is some substance
>to
>> >>that, it is not as obvious as the fact that the American electorate
>did
>> >>in fact do the bidding of the Ayatollah in ousting Carter.
>>
>> Yet you repeat the long-discredited liberal fantasy here.
>>
>> The fact is that the ayatollah had exactly who they wanted as
>President in
>> Jimmy Carter. They didn't fear Carter - they did fear a President
>Ronald
>> Reagan.
>
>Wrong dynamic, Festus. It's not fear. It's hatred. They don't fear
>anyone. They hated Carter. They loved Reagan. You can only guess why.
>
Love your ideological spin.
They hated and feared Reagan because they knew he wouldn't back down when
they challenged him. Reagan was a cowboy to them, and they remembered that the
cowboy took no BS from anyone.
"The bombers are airborne."
They saw that Reagan would do it - carter wouldn't.
>>
>> >>
>> >>In similar fashion, the Bush administration is doing the bidding of
>Al
>> >>Qaeda through their response to the 9/11 massacre. They are turning
>> >>America into much less of a democracy than it was before and that
>is
>> >>all bin Laden really wanted.
>>
>> You still give out the old Soviet-era propaganda pretty well. All
>this shows
>> is that you're still bitter that the we won the Cold War and your
>side lost.
>
>What the hell are you talking about?
I'm talking about what you've been posting - the Soviet-era propaganda that
ignores reality in place of ideology.
>I guess that's what the new
>national socialist party does these days when they are out of reason.
>Make raving but insignificant references to their glorious past.
Now you're projecting.
>
>>
>> >Points broight up before but still very valid.
>>
>> You mean liberal propaganda brought up before and thoroughly
>discredited.
>
>You're out of arguments, aren't you?
Not in the slightest. Among other things I'm helping you prove that you can't
form an arguement that isn't based on failed propaganda. You've still got the
chance though.
>
>>
>> >THOM
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>> John H. Schneider II
>>
>> I've lost none of my freedoms - except under liberals.
>
When you want to come back and have a conversation with the adults, please
leave your ad hominum attacks at the door.
John H. Schneider II
Eric Chomko
No read "Cocaine Politics" by Jonathon Marshall and Peter Dale Scott.
Walsh and Kerry, during his Senate Intelligence Committee investigation of
Iran/Contra, intentionally didn't open certain doors.
It was NOT a free for all with no limitations.
: The Iran part was never an issue even though proving that Reagan ordered
: the arms transfer was trivial since he said he ordered it from the
: start. The only place where Iran is at issue is really here on usenet or
: other places populated by crank hate Reagan Libs.
No true. We invaded their country back in 1953 and installed the Shah as
our puppet. It was THAT policy that lead to his going into exile and the
hostage taking at the embassy.
: > We as a nation can catch folks like Clinton for lying about a BJ. Or catch
: > Nixon trying to claim he had no knowledge about a second rate burglary.
: > But to admit a coup occured or that we paid for arms with dope money? No,
: >
: What? The arms were bought at more than full price by Iran.
: > THAT is something we don't dare even acknowledge! The term 'parapolitics'
: > comes to mind.
: >
: > : I have zero idea what the moral issues are with the arms transfer other
: > : than that Reagan cared very deeply for the hostages and their families,
: > : who were calling every day claiming he was doing nothing when he was
: > : doing everything he could. Reagan was a great man but he was also a good
: > : man and his actions were completely those of a man who cared about the
: > : people he was sworn to serve.
: >
: > Right the ends justifies the means and that would include using drug money
: > to pay for the arms to free the hostages. THAT, Bondo, is what YOU need to
: > understand when you toss around words such as "great".
: >
: Drug money? What are you talking about?
Where do you think the money came from to buy the arms?
: > How much did Reagan know? That is hard to say. But not knowing makes him
: > guilty by ommission.
: >
: Does that apply to Clinton as well, you know, right along with him
: already being guilty be emission.
There is a theory that states that Clinton was aware that Mena, Arkansas
was being used in the Iran/Contra affair and allowed it to happen while he
was govenor of that state. I have no reason to doubt it.
: > IMO, Reagan was more a figurehead for those that got
: > him into power. The modern neocons that rose to power during the Ford
: > administration of which have a huge stake in the current administration,
: > were doing a lot of the behind the scenes stuff why Reagan was president
: > as well.
: >
: Have you thought of taking a nice tall frosty glass of lithium carbonate
: for that paranoia?
I see that you are are already drinking form the glass that provides you
with denial.
Eric
: --