Reply With Quote
Their complete lack of self awareness is funny to me.
Serious question. After conversing with one on political topics I always seem to walk away from the conversation thinking to myself....what an idiot. Or....what a whiny little . What makes most conservatives come off like this?
Their complete lack of self awareness is funny to me.
I think you are spot on with your analysis of the fact that they tend to make decisions based on emotion rather than fact. As you can see by several posters on this board, you're dealing with hyper emotional and volitile men who regularly lash out when their worldview is challanged.
Under Ronald Reagan three embassys were attacked and resulted in the loss about 17 americans. Now any loss of american life is too much, and all the families deserve to know what happened. But the whole Benghazi ordeal seems to be political football at this point.
that this is something new
Reagan also got 200+ marines killed due to his naivite and, well, administrative incompetence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Be...rracks_bombing
Saint Ronnie gets a pass for that though, right?
at blaming the Lebanon bombing on Reagan.
Did he get a pass? I'm pretty sure if you did a little work to go with your assertion, you'll see he got it from both sides and the media. Nothing like the treatment Obama received. Reagan also didn't try and cover it up for an election.
Reagan or his SOD did not receive requests that they needed more security.
*SOS
The barracks bombing is not somethign that most devotees of St. Ronnie know about or will admit to.
I am old enough to remember this. It was a bit before I really started paying attention to the news though. I am old enough to remember that he was not really regarded as a good president when he left office from either Republicans or Democrats.
It was only in later years that he was lionized by younger Republicans who didn't remember things like this, in their rush to romanticize him. The current Reagan fetish puzzles me.
The Lebanese civil war saw the regular use of truck bombs against targets in that country, well prior to the arrival of peace keeping forces.
Keep digging. It was quite forseeable, in hindsight. The problem then is the same as problems now with Republicans. They tend to view knoweldge of the rest oft he world with the same anti-intellectualism that drives them today. That has real costs when it comes to managing Iraq, etc. As I have said before, the thousands of dead servicemembers in Iraq were a sad consequence of Republican cronyism and total ignorance about the rest of the world in general. I can't forgive them for that, and it always shocks me when members of the military give the Republican party a pass for ing up Iraq so badly and getting so many troops NEEDLESSLY killed. It was a betrayal of our armed forces of the highest order.
It doesn't puzzle me. Corporations and lobbyists want people to think Reagan was a good president so they've been pouring resources into lionizing him for decades.
[QUOTE=RandomGuy;6611562]The Lebanese civil war saw the regular use of truck bombs against targets in that country, well prior to the arrival of peace keeping forces.
Keep digging. It was quite forseeable, in hindsight. The problem then is the same as problems now with Republicans. They tend to view knoweldge of the rest oft he world with the same anti-intellectualism that drives them today. That has real costs when it comes to managing Iraq, etc. As I have said before, the thousands of dead servicemembers in Iraq were a sad consequence of Republican cronyism and total ignorance about the rest of the world in general. I can't forgive them for that, and it always shocks me when members of the military give the Republican party a pass for ing up Iraq so badly and getting so many troops NEEDLESSLY killed. It was a betrayal of our armed forces of the highest order.[/QUOTE]
kind of sums up my feelings on the benghazi outrage.. half truths and incorrect 'intel' caused thousands of lives in the iraq war and not one peep from the benghazi crowd...
Jeezus. The main thing liberals lack is common sense. Only liberals can come up with the idea that amassing huge amounts of debt is a good idea. smh.
Reagan and Bush thought it was a good idea.
"Deficits don't matter" - Cheney
Oh really? The spending by Reagan and Bush is nowhere near the level that it is under Obama. Try again.
The national debt tripled under Reagan while Bush inherited record surpluses and turned them into record deficits.
lol revisionist history about the fiscal irresponsibility of Reagan and Bush
lol Republicans suddenly up in arms about national debt the minute Bush leaves office
Much like Liberals after Aurora and Sandy Hook don't you think?
My favorite conservative battle cry is their championing of individual liberty, freedom, and Cons utional rights..........unless you're gay, black, Mexican, a sexually active woman, poor, or a Muslim, in which case your liberty can go itself because the government needs to regulate how you live your lives.
Let’s compare Obama and Reagan.
To put this in historical context, consider the nearby table that compares deficits as a share of GDP under Presidents Reagan and Obama. The 1981-82 recession was comparable in severity to the one Mr. Obama inherited and reached similar heights of unemployment. The deficits that resulted from that recession were the source of huge political consternation, with Democrats, the press corps and even some senior Reagan aides insisting that only a huge tax increase could save the country from ruin.
Yet as the table shows, the Reagan deficits never reached more than 6% of GDP, and that happened only in 1983, the first year of economic recovery. As the 1980s expansion continued, the deficits fell, especially as the pace of spending slowed in the latter part of Reagan’s second term.
[...]The Obama deficits are double that, and more than one-third higher than even the Gipper’s worst year. What explains this? Part of it is that Democrats are simply spending much more, sending outlays as a share of GDP above 25% for the first time since World War II. The White House now says outlays will be higher in 2011, at 25.1% of GDP, than at the height of the stimulus in 2009 and 2010.
[...]The other explanation for the record Obama deficits is that revenues have been so anemic, thanks to the lackluster economic recovery. In the Reagan years, revenues as a share of GDP never fell lower than 17.3%, despite (or we would say because of) his pro-growth tax cuts. In 2010, by contrast, the White House now says tax revenues will hit an astonishing low of 14.5% of GDP, rising only to 15.8% in 2011, even with the huge tax increase that hits on January 1, 2011.
Tax cuts worked, and government spending failed. Next time, let’s do what works – not what feels good.
lol cherry picked stats
lol intellectually dishonest disregard for sandwich Bush left Obama to deal with
lol using a chart that shows Obama has cut the deficit as a % of GDP in half since he took office
lol using the national debt tripling as proof that Reagan's policy works
Clinton was the last president to leave office with national surpluses. Did he raise taxes or cut taxes?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
