Revisional History?

[Hasty8]

You made the accusations, now show your facts. We don't want to see a study done by some unknown blowhard leftist dipthong, we want to see hard facts of wrongdoing by Reagan.

Prove he flooded the country with illegal drugs in order to fund right-wing cells in other countries. Show me the congressional record of the committee formed especially to confront this.

Prove he willingly denied the CDC, or any other govt. agency, the means to study a...at the time...disease that wasn't common, nor especially deadly. More people STILL die of the flu, or heart disease, than have died from HIV/AIDS. Why didn't Jimmy Carter do anything about it? Why didn't Clinton with his 8 years, do anything about it?

Prove that he sold arms to Iran, show me the invoice with his signature on it. Telling his people to "take care of it", is a long way from saying specifically to do so.

Why do you think the USSR was in decline? Jimmy's politics? How about trying Reagans steadfastness in the face of the Soviet leadership. How about his threatening to, then deploying the Pershing II medium range missiles? The Soviet spending to counter that brilliant chess move nearly wiped them out. Trying to maintain a multi-ocean blue water Navy that could match or defeat ours was also a near impossibility for the Soviet system. Not to mention our wooing China and Pakistan into our camp. Yes Reagan played a dangerous nuclear game, as were the Soviets...remember the Cuban missile crisis...Mr. Reagan knew that the ONLY thing the Soviets responded to, was a show of resolute force.

Reaganomics was a deal made with the deplorable liberal controlled congress. For every dollar Reagan spent, congress agreed to cut 2 dollars from the budget. This was a gentlemans agreement, but as we all know, liberals ain't too gentlemanly. So, Ron cut our taxes by the widest margin in history, and spent his one dollar. However, congrees did NOT cut their 2 dollars as agreed, but added spending clauses to nearly every bill that came across their desks. This resulted in the huge deficit of the 80's. While the good people were attempting to put America First, liberal politicking was breaking the piggy bank. Despite that, tax incentives to the manufacturing base helped rebuild the US factories into the modern, outstripping the rest of the world in production and services. I remember well the wonderful exchange rate in Europe, when an Army Private could live like a King off-post in Germany with his measly pay. But Reagan fixed that too, with his DOD budget allowing huge pay increases to our military. See, most of all that military spending...was for pay, housing, and recruiting incentives, not for whiz-bang stuff.

These are all FACTS, easily found in any congressional report of the time. I, nor anyone else, made any of it up to discredit.

Hilarious Army. You sound like the perfect little soldier. All brawn and no brains.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that Ollie acted alone just as I refuse to believe that Oswald was the only one with a gun pointed at Kennedy in Dallas.

I find it quite noteworthy that you don't want and "leftist" evidence against Reagan. As if there would be any "righty" evidence against him. So let's go.

Yes, there is obvously no hard evidence against Reagan or he would most likely would have died in jail. Yes, Poindexter too the blame not only for the divertion of the funds from the sales of the rockets to Iran but also to the resulting coverup.

But, isn't the President responsible for the actions of his people?

Of course you will say no, as would be the typical knee jerk reaction I would expect.

Hey Army, try to read something other than a weapons catalog. Try reading what the FAS foud about the Iran-Contra Scandal.

[Hasty8]

Army, you're wasting your time. These pinheads would argue the direction the sun rises if they thought a conservative had anything to do with it.

They're the epitome of small minded closet elitists, that think the average American isn't capable of making a rational thought.

They hate the country, they hate decency, and most of all they hate themselves.

They'd rather tear down than build up, rewrite history instead of make it.

What a sad miserable existance.

Facts, why it is not okay for me to insult your "icon" but you can insult me?

You don't know a god damn single thing about me and this pst just totally sickens me. Did I call you names? Did I insult you? Why is learning the truth rewriting? Because it scares little people like you.

Fact's your words here are unwarranted and unwnated.

As soon as I amde a single comment that you and deadeye felt were differnt from your I was labeled a tool, idiot or pinhead.

Well here is one for you sir.

Morons, such as yourself incase you wondered who I was talking to, are the detriment of this fantastic nation. You choose to use every muscle save the one that is most vital. You listen to party rhetoric and soak it up. You refuse to think.

You insist on calling me a liberal when time and again I have clearly spelled out to you just how much I dislike them too.

I am a moderate sir.

How many times do I have to repeat that before it finally manages to soak through that hard frontal plate you have there?

You say I hate this country. You could not be father from the truth and perhaps if you bothered to even get a cerebral synapse to fire you might understand that.

I love this country.

It's the government I hate.

Illegal legislation. Politicians doing what they want and getting away with it. Lawyers turning what was once the greatest legal system into a lottery system. Medical HMO's making life and death decisions instead of the doctors. Congressmen decding the economy instead of people who actually know how the economy works (they are called economists).

And in the middle of it all are the obsequious, self-adsorbed, self-important, self-indulgant repulsive, vile little turds such as yourself. Blindly bumbling your way down the street thinking life is great.

But then again, what else should I expect from someone who is just waiting for the "pop".

[Hasty8]

I can't begin to say how thoroughly I'm enjoying the rants of these liberal lightweights.

One says I sound communist, then in the same post says I'm fascist.


I always knew libs were borderline schizo.

Oh and Hasty, your little superior dance about ghengis? Show me where I disputed your "skooling". I said it went back to Ghengis. It did. The fact that it seems it originated with the romans negates that fact how?

As for "my little video", first, it is not "mine". It shows nothing more than liberals being liberals.

In all their glory.

As for your link...

I guess anyone with a geocities website is now, according to the libs anyways, the singular source for news?

I can now understand where you get your viewpoints.

As for my other thread and not allowing any dissenting opinions.

You did not give a dissenting opinion. You trolled. Purposely. I do appreciate you cleaning it up. That thread is not there for political debate. It is there to discuss the services of President Reagan. When the services are no longer front page news, the thread will disappear off the front page.

As for your thread, the word is revisionist, not revisional.

But you have the mechanics down right. Take blatant lies and attempt to rewrite history with them.

But see, unlike you and your diminutive sidekick PG, some of us actually lived through Reagans Presidency, and didn't have to learn about it from some skewed liberal textbook.

Jesus Fool. You really think argumentative crap like that works.

If I say that the Iran-Contra Scandal went all the way back to Reagan you would fly off the handle because you know damn well that I was saying that it originates with. That exactly what the phrase is used to imply and you know it so to say that something like using the riderless horse in a funeral procession goes "all the way back to Ghengis" who was only significant from approximately 1190-1220 yet the Roman Empire (who truly originated that particular custom as far as written history tells us) were in existance for more than a thousand years before Ghengis was an itch in his daddies pants.

You call it trolling because it was in opposition to your beliefs yet it was just as much trolling when Army gave his cute little speech about his shirt wet from his tears cause he was the greatest president ever, which was, is, and forever will be a huge pile of crap.

Even when asked why I did not like Reagan I refused to answer until Army gave us that cute little toilet floater. sorry if I felt I had a backbone enough to speak out.

And why does your living through his administration make you such an expert? I lived through it too and I am also living through the aftermath.

As for saying that you seemed somewhat communist to me, how could you blame me. You threathened my with moderator action if I did not remove my words. Sounds like that actions of what the commies did. And I never said you were facist. If I did then it was a typo.

The essential difference here is that when you ask for proof I supply it.

when I ask for proof I get insulted.

[Hasty8]

here is how you structure this. First create a resoltion. Reagan was a [good] [bad] president. Then you provide your core value, in other words WHY you say these things. such as he killed or he created jobs or he raised education etc. you then create your contentions which are facul based arguements. These contentions should suport your core value. This is not hard to do.

I think the two people here doing the best job are Hasty8 and 1stDeadEye. Why? They presented some facts, be the generalizations or not. I would like links to facts people present. The best post was mae by BRAK. Its advice we all, including myself because reading this post has gotten me a bit heated, need. We all need to just calm down and be sensible human beings and disscuss our opinions back them by facts and be open to the possibility of changing our opinion.

well i guess im done for now...ironic my first political post on AO, as long as ive been here heh, and it has nothing to do with "current politics".

Here is my answer to why I feel that Reagan was not only one of the worst but one of the worst who will have the longest taint on American government.

First, it is undeniable that he wholly ignored the AIDS issues. Reports of the existance of GRID/AIDS went as far back a 1978. Even after the CDC issued a warning that it was a blood transferred disease Reagan still refused to act thereby putting the rest of the country at risk.

Put aside the lack of funding.
Put aside the lack of public awareness.

REAGAN FAILED TO ACT IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE POPULATION!

By Reagan's total failure anyone who was ever in an accident or who required regular blood dosing was not at risk to contract AIDS. The CDC issued their warning in 1983. Koop did not issue a public health warning until 1986 and it only speaks of sex education. It says nothing about the disease being spread by blood, either through transfusion or drug needle use.

The death toll in 1983 was 1,503. The death toll in 1986 was 12,077. The death reate multiplied by a factor of 8 in just three years and you expect me to believe that the President did not know something was going on? Please. It is solely because of Reagan's inaction that Ryan White contracted AIDS on December 17, 1984 after surgery that was supposed to save his life and later died on April 8, 1990.

Now, at the time Ryan contract AIDS he was 13 years old. He was neither gay nor was he a drug user. The doctors found out he had AIDS two hours after the surgery.

Second, the funding issue. Reagan's paltry amount of money being spent was nauseating when compared to the wild spending going on over at the Pentagon. Army likes to think that money went to

most of all that military spending...was for pay, housing, and recruiting incentives, not for whiz-bang stuff.

but he is living in a total dream world. The Pentagon is a huge cash vacuum. The development of the Bradley Fighting Machine alone took over 15 years and 17 billion dollars and the end result was a freaking joke. It was a death trap the Colonel James Burton fought like hell to disarm and, luckily, did.

Add to that Reagan's insipid "STAR Wars" program which has soaked up counteless billions of dollars yet has not ever, to my knowledge, demostrated a single strike on a moving target.

Add to that the cost of all the nukes that Reagan just had to have. Now with the world standing down a lot of these nukes [Russias, not ours] are being lost and could find their way here.

Because of Reagan's incessant need to have a bigger, better gun we still all live under the threat of a nuclear attack.

Here are some facts.

A single aircraft carrier costs 1.4 billion dollars, give and take a few million depending on what options you want.

Reagan claism that he gave over 500 million to the CDC during the time period of 1982-1986 yet his administration requests for CDC budget for the same time period totaled to 213.5 million. This means that Congress went far beyound administration requests and gave additional funding.

Yet, it gives one reason to pause. WHat if Reagan had bought just one less shiny toy for his bathtub and had perhaps directed that money towards research and public awareness.

Perhaps then the worldwide death toll would not have hit 22 million in 2001.

It's scary to think but due to Reagan's inaction AIDS will be responsible for more world wide deaths then will the Black Plauge was.

Also add to this mix all the public programs that Reagan had to gut in order to buy his toys.

Do I think he had a hand in the eventual dissolving of the USSR. Sure I do. But a pyrrhic victory is a victory at to great a cost.

[Koosh]

So basically you are blaming the entire AIDs epidemic on Reagon?

Sure he might have been able to slow it down a little bit, but do you honestly believe that the world would be AIDS free today had Reagon done everything in his power to stop it? What about Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr? Are they doing satisfactory research for you?

How about internationally, can the US be the only ones expected to make the cure? Africa is basically infested with this disease, is that Reagons fault as well?

Seriously man, put away the blind hate, stop talking down to people for no reason... Yes calling Army a "nice little soldier" is demeaning and mean spirited.

I like to call myself a democrat, but you are a disgrace.

[Hasty8]

So basically you are blaming the entire AIDs epidemic on Reagon?

Sure he might have been able to slow it down a little bit, but do you honestly believe that the world would be AIDS free today had Reagon done everything in his power to stop it? What about Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr? Are they doing satisfactory research for you?

How about internationally, can the US be the only ones expected to make the cure? Africa is basically infested with this disease, is that Reagons fault as well?

Seriously man, put away the blind hate, stop talking down to people for no reason... Yes calling Army a "nice little soldier" is demeaning and mean spirited.

I like to call myself a democrat, but you are a disgrace.

I in now way said that Reagan was to blame for AIDS and if my words implied that then I apologise.

I do feel that his inaction greatly hastened it's spread and I'll not rehash the details as to why. They have already been posted ad nauseum.

I never said that I was a democrat. If you could find the post where I labeled myself a democrat I would be most appreciative.

As for how I spoke to Army, talk to me like I'm an idiot and I'll do it back. To insist that I present a signed bill with Reagans name on it to show that he sold rockets to Iran while he goes on claiming that Reagan's insane need to buy more and more weapons is the primary reason for the collapse of Russia is preposterus and insulting.

[Kai]

Damn libbies... With their rap music.

[1stdeadeye]

I in now way said that Reagan was to blame for AIDS and if my words implied that then I apologise.

I do feel that his inaction greatly hastened it's spread and I'll not rehash the details as to why. They have already been posted ad nauseum.

I never said that I was a democrat. If you could find the post where I labeled myself a democrat I would be most appreciative.

As for how I spoke to Army, talk to me like I'm an idiot and I'll do it back. To insist that I present a signed bill with Reagans name on it to show that he sold rockets to Iran while he goes on claiming that Reagan's insane need to buy more and more weapons is the primary reason for the collapse of Russia is preposterus and insulting.

AIDS did not originate in America. IT was not created here. You keep going back to this issue over and over. You sound like a special interest group. Were you even alive during Reagan's presidency?

We lived with a lot of threats. Mutually Assured Destruction, Inflation, Etc... Reagan did a great job knocking out a lot of these. And guess what they were interconnected. Reagan did the same thing FDR did. He spent us out of the recession in 1981.

The rest of your posts are so non-sensical and hate filled, I am just going to ignore you from now on! Welcome to my ignore list!

[Rooster]

Ah the insipid little liberals crawling out of the ground like the locusts they are.

Reagan didn't just defeat the Russians, he destroyed their way of life. And he did it without firing a shot. The little liberal mind has trouble wrapping itself around reality, so I'll spell it out. Reagan outspent them. The civil unrest was caused by the classic guns or butter problem. But to understand that requires education and the ability for critical thought.

And yes, Reagan could have done something about the spread of AIDS. He should have killed the problem at its source. With a fuel-air bomb.

You see, the modern liberal is wrapped in his own dogma and is no longer able to understand reality, and so they scream and rant and rave, but mostly just come off as an autistic child banging his head against the wall.

[Hasty8]

AIDS did not originate in America. IT was not created here. You keep going back to this issue over and over. You sound like a special interest group. Were you even alive during Reagan's presidency?

We lived with a lot of threats. Mutually Assured Destruction, Inflation, Etc... Reagan did a great job knocking out a lot of these. And guess what they were interconnected. Reagan did the same thing FDR did. He spent us out of the recession in 1981.

The rest of your posts are so non-sensical and hate filled, I am just going to ignore you from now on! Welcome to my ignore list!

First, your argument is obsurd.

Simply because AIDS did not originate in America we should ignore it?

So does that imply that Communism originated in America?
Was Facism?
Was cocaine?

Second, your argument is plain wrong. I have posted this several times so it just goes to demonstrate you complete lack of ability to learn something.

The US is one of the four primary areas of initial infection. The other three are Sweden, Tazania and Haiti.

Reagan did not end the possibility of MAD. He created it. It wasn't until future Presidents said enough is enough and got disarmament talks underway that the threat of MAD has been lightened.

As for ignoring me, it's just the typical "stick my head in the sand and ignore the rest of the world" reaction that I have come to expect from both sides.

And by the way, yes, I was alive during the atrocity that was his administration. Since that seems to make someone an expert on the topic according to Fol, I figured I would just add that in.

[Hasty8]

Ah the insipid little liberals crawling out of the ground like the locusts they are.

Reagan didn't just defeat the Russians, he destroyed their way of life. And he did it without firing a shot. The little liberal mind has trouble wrapping itself around reality, so I'll spell it out. Reagan outspent them. The civil unrest was caused by the classic guns or butter problem. But to understand that requires education and the ability for critical thought.

And yes, Reagan could have done something about the spread of AIDS. He should have killed the problem at its source. With a fuel-air bomb.

You see, the modern liberal is wrapped in his own dogma and is no longer able to understand reality, and so they scream and rant and rave, but mostly just come off as an autistic child banging his head against the wall.

And where exactly should the FAB been detonated Rooster?

The US?

Or perhaps Sweden?

Or maybe Tazania or Haiti?

All four of these countries showed out breaks of the immuno disease at about the same time. In the US and Sweden it was target specifically in the gay community but in Tazania and Haiti it was much more prevalent in the heterosexual community.

No need to think to hard on who you would fry.

And what a wonderfully typical republican response.

Dont cure, just kill.

And while I may come off as a

an autistic child banging his head against the wall

you come off as something worse. You refuse to attack my facts, because you cannot, and instead make insipid and childish personal attacks.

As for me being a liberal, I'm not going over that again.

[Kellen_p8nt]

hey rooster. Um im a liberal. Im the biggest liberal you will ever meet. I have not said once digracefull, beliberant, or hatefull thing once in this entire topic. SO i thank you, I thank you for generalizing.

Even if you think Hasty is acting in a childish way, you've begun acting in the exct same way. Don't say well he acted that way first(that goes for you too hasty) youll sound even more childish. AND someone needs to be the bigger man.


But perhps we have our answer to this threads question. If people exist on the other side of the spectrum who believe some of his spending was frivolous, I also hear Iran-Contra cited at one point(i have no idea what that is time to research) and Hasty8s AIDS arguement then he can in no way be the perfect president. He can however have been the best ever, assuming that all other presidents did worse things than him. He alo can be considered a good president Its a matter of relativity. Good versus bad weigh ot to either be slighty worsen than the middle or slightly better.


of course you can continue to argue with Hasty about what Reagan did wrong. But regardless of that i believe its impossibl to make any president out nto be high and mghty or perfect, or even the greatest. The reason I find this so hard it so hard to believe is because i truely believe the founding presidents(in otherwords the first few presidents) must true have been the greatest thing to happen our nation. And i believe the political spectrum today nd in Reagans time, was a nasty disgusting structure in comparison with the original structure. Anyone that deals in that system, in my opinion, already has a bit of taint on himself.



Sooooooooooooooooo how bout we all play nice. Or are we all to stubborn stuckup and righteousabout or own ideals to have a decent conversation like civilized adults?

[Kellen_p8nt]

Reagan didn't just defeat the Russians, he destroyed their way of life. And he did it without firing a shot. The little liberal mind has trouble wrapping itself around reality, so I'll spell it out. Reagan outspent them. The civil unrest was caused by the classic guns or butter problem. But to understand that requires education and the ability for critical thought

OK rooster. I think your trying to support Reagan here right? But somehow, just simply reading that first line. "Reagan didn't just defeat the Russians, he destroyed their way of life" you really are not making a great case for the man. Anyone that destroys another persons way of life looses a good-point in my eyes. I wont say that Reagans spending alone caused the fall. I ill attribute it to three things, that to the best of my knowledge are factual, i ranking order.

1. Use of fear and lies agianst enemy. Citing Star Wars program. As i understand it(watching lot of HIstory Channel and A&e) a good chunk of the STAR WARS program was a myth, allbeit there arre real parts to it such as laser that are now being used as a possible space propulsiopn system. The important thing is that it worked

2. outspending. I put this in a freaking close second. It may very well be first. But this is the way ive seen things.

3. Internal turmoil.not to far down from the others.


i have an education. A very nice one, if i do say so myself. And I have the capacity for critical thought, and I am expressing it in this post.

[Hasty8]

hey rooster. Um im a liberal. Im the biggest liberal you will ever meet. I have not said once digracefull, beliberant, or hatefull thing once in this entire topic. SO i thank you, I thank you for generalizing.

Even if you think Hasty is acting in a childish way, you've begun acting in the exct same way. Don't say well he acted that way first(that goes for you too hasty) youll sound even more childish. AND someone needs to be the bigger man.


But perhps we have our answer to this threads question. If people exist on the other side of the spectrum who believe some of his spending was frivolous, I also hear Iran-Contra cited at one point(i have no idea what that is time to research) and Hasty8s AIDS arguement then he can in no way be the perfect president. He can however have been the best ever, assuming that all other presidents did worse things than him. He alo can be considered a good president Its a matter of relativity. Good versus bad weigh ot to either be slighty worsen than the middle or slightly better.


of course you can continue to argue with Hasty about what Reagan did wrong. But regardless of that i believe its impossibl to make any president out nto be high and mghty or perfect, or even the greatest. The reason I find this so hard it so hard to believe is because i truely believe the founding presidents(in otherwords the first few presidents) must true have been the greatest thing to happen our nation. And i believe the political spectrum today nd in Reagans time, was a nasty disgusting structure in comparison with the original structure. Anyone that deals in that system, in my opinion, already has a bit of taint on himself.



Sooooooooooooooooo how bout we all play nice. Or are we all to stubborn stuckup and righteousabout or own ideals to have a decent conversation like civilized adults?

[Hasty8]

But to understand that requires education and the ability for critical thought.

Let's discuss the requirement of an education and the ability for critical though for just a moment, shall we Rooster?

Originally posted by Rooster - "I am in no part a monkey. But your little liberal friends beleive they are decended from them. Who am I to disagree?"

Can you please show me a single paleontologist who has ever once said that humans are decended from monkeys or any other primate? This is a typical retort given by those who refuse to believe anything other than god and his "immaculate creation".

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers --all are related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).

The claim Rooster, is not that we decended from monkeys or any other primate but that all primates (humans and all other monkeys) have a COMMON ANCESTOR!

It is a scientific fact that all the separates humans from the gorillas is less than 2% genetic material, however, that 2% gives us Mozart, Bach, Pasteur, Einstein, Dahmer, Gacy and Hitler.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with our beliefs. That's is your right as a free thinking person and I am not here to try and convert you.

But the least you could do is at least get it right before you make fun of us.