Wisdom from Reagan

[Bronson]

The US did. Reagan trained and armed arab militants. But I love the urgent and desperate denials of your Boob in Chief, the man who gave Bin Ladin stinger missiles.

Wrong. You're lying. Par for the course.

The United States never funded or trained the Afghan Arabs.

factcheck.org : Rand Paul’s Bin Laden Claim Is ‘Urban Myth’

The whole thing about us recruiting and training and paying and arming Arabs is one of those hardy perennials people love to make,” Bearden told us in a phone interview. “It’s a story too delicious to actually check. … It’s an urban myth.

P.S. Wikipedia is not a credible source.

 

[blaxshep]

P.S. Wikipedia is not a credible source.

Neither is HOJ. :lamo

 

[JayDubya]

He was the dumbest more immoral president ever

The irony of grammar mistakes when disparaging others' intelligence aside...

Three words for you.

Japanese.
Internment.
Camps.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Reagan neither trained or armed bin laden. Bin Laden wasnt a foot soldier. He was an organizer and financeer. We funnelled our support to the mujahadeen through Pakistani intelligence and bin laden got his funding from Saudi Arabia. Whats more, the mujahadeen fought against the bin laden supporting Taliban under the new name Northern Alliance.

Speaking of the bombings, a former U.S. diplomat specializing in Saudi Arabia told me recently, "Whether the attacks were carried out by the same or allied Islamic militant groups is not the most important thing. What is far more troubling is that these attacks illustrate the changing nature of terrorism since the Cold War. There's been a marked decline in the fairly well funded, ideologically organized groups like the Red Brigades. More and more we're seeing a proliferation of amorphous underground Islamic groups that we've never heard of before." He added that larger numbers of people are prone to enter the new-style groups. "That, to me, is highly worrisome. Their operations are easy to do. They're basically low-tech. Sure, a certain amount of training is required -- and then you go to a feedstore and to a Radio Shack. The common element in all these attacks -- whether in Cairo or Riyadh, Isla or Algiers, Europe or New York -- is today's equivalent of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade: the 'Afghan Arabs,' the veterans of the Afghanistan war."

SIXTEEN years have passed since the CIA began providing weapons and funds -- eventually totaling more than $3 billion -- to a fratricidal alliance of seven Afghan resistance groups, none of whose leaders are by nature democratic, and all of which are fundamentalist in religion to some extent, autocratic in politics, and venomously anti-American. Washington's financial commitment to the jihad was exceeded only by Saudi Arabia's. At the time the jihad was getting under way there was no significant Islamist opposition movement in Saudi Arabia, and it apparently never occurred to the Saudi rulers, who feared the Soviets as much as Washington did, that the volunteers it sent might be converted by the jihad's ideology. Therein lies the greatest paradox of the bombing in Riyadh: it and the explosions in Peshawar and Islamabad could well prove to be part of the negative fallout -- or "blowback," in intelligence parlance -- of the U.S.- and Saudi-orchestrated Afghan jihad.

Blowback - 96.05

PS....
Omar Abdel-Rahman (Arabic: عمر عبد الرحمن‎, ‘Umar ‘Abd ar-Raḥman; born 3 May 1938), commonly known in the United States as "The Blind Sheikh", is a blind Egyptian Muslim leader who is currently serving a life sentence at the Butner Medical Center which is part of the Butner Federal Correctional Institution in Butner, North Carolina, United States. Formerly a resident of New York City, Abdel-Rahman and nine others were convicted of seditious conspiracy,[1] which requires only that a crime be planned, not that it necessarily be attempted. His prosecution grew out of investigations of the World Trade Center 1993 bombings.

 

[Porchev]

View attachment 67148799

^^^ Someone posted this on his timeline on Facebook this morning. So I looked for some other Reaganisms:







And my personal favorite:



Anyone care to argue he was wrong?

You might like this:
Why was Ronald Reagan the greatest President of the 20th Century?

"...Reagan had three parts to his genius. First, he was a visionary; he believed that people wanted freedom and would do well when more of it was given to them. Whether he was undermining the Soviets, challenging an unlawful union, or deregulating oil production he tried to move in a consistent direction of greater freedom and less government. According to Dinesh D’Souza, “Reagan’s greatness derives in large part from the fact that he was a visionary—a conceptualizer who was able to see the world differently from the way it was.” Reagan knew where he wanted to go: Jimmy Carter, by contrast, had multiple plans to create energy, to generate revenue, and to cut inflation. Often they were contradictory; all of them failed. Reagan was more consistent because he had vision: He knew where he wanted to go and how he wanted to get there.

Second, Reagan had character, and in the eyes of America’s Founders, character was a necessary ingredient for greatness. Reagan stood for a set of ideas, and when trouble came he looked not to polls, but instead he applied courage, kindness, and persistence to achieve his ends. At the end of his presidency, his critics—from Sam Donaldson to Ted Kennedy—admitted that Reagan had changed the world and had done so with candor and honesty.

Third, Reagan was teachable. That trait was essential. If one has vision and character, he must also be teachable to make his life flow in a constructive direction. Course corrections are needed because none of us has life figured out at age thirty. We have to believe in something and we have force of character, but we also have to be ready to modify..."

 

[head of joaquin]

and that picture proves Reagan trained and funded Bin Laden?
Jesus.

No, it represents the fact that he was so stupid that he supported jihadists and even met with them. What proves that he supported Bin Ladin was the stinger missiles he foolishly sent the jihadist in his Cold War lunacy.

 

[head of joaquin]

Wrong. You're lying. Par for the course.

The United States never funded or trained the Afghan Arabs.

factcheck.org : Rand Paul’s Bin Laden Claim Is ‘Urban Myth’



P.S. Wikipedia is not a credible source.

Pssst: the sources are cited in Wikipedia. You lose.

But I love how conservatives will do anything to pretend Reagan didn't support acid throwing jihadist in Afghanstan against the forces of modernity.

Hey, where did the 9-11 terrorists train again -- in Reaghanistan!

 

[head of joaquin]

You might like this:
Why was Ronald Reagan the greatest President of the 20th Century?

"...Reagan had three parts to his genius. First, he was a visionary; he believed that people wanted freedom and would do well when more of it was given to them. Whether he was undermining the Soviets, challenging an unlawful union, or deregulating oil production he tried to move in a consistent direction of greater freedom and less government. According to Dinesh D’Souza, “Reagan’s greatness derives in large part from the fact that he was a visionary—a conceptualizer who was able to see the world differently from the way it was.” Reagan knew where he wanted to go: Jimmy Carter, by contrast, had multiple plans to create energy, to generate revenue, and to cut inflation. Often they were contradictory; all of them failed. Reagan was more consistent because he had vision: He knew where he wanted to go and how he wanted to get there.

Second, Reagan had character, and in the eyes of America’s Founders, character was a necessary ingredient for greatness. Reagan stood for a set of ideas, and when trouble came he looked not to polls, but instead he applied courage, kindness, and persistence to achieve his ends. At the end of his presidency, his critics—from Sam Donaldson to Ted Kennedy—admitted that Reagan had changed the world and had done so with candor and honesty.

Third, Reagan was teachable. That trait was essential. If one has vision and character, he must also be teachable to make his life flow in a constructive direction. Course corrections are needed because none of us has life figured out at age thirty. We have to believe in something and we have force of character, but we also have to be ready to modify..."

Fourth he supported every politically criminal organization on the planet, including Bin Ladin, Saddam Hussein, and Ruiz Montt (recently conviced of genocide).

Fifth, he thought trees polluted, introducing the use of factoids in to America's political discourse. He invented dishonest conservative rhetoric.

 

[head of joaquin]

Your insightful post is breath-taking.

It's better than Reagan worship.

Jesus, the guy supported genocide and terrorism around the world.

 

[head of joaquin]

That picture proves Reagan armed Saddam Hussein and gave him WMD?
Jesus.

It certainly represents how immoral and stupid he was, sending his own guys to shake hands with a tyrant and then arming him with poison gas.

Nothing like shaking hands with dictators -- Reagan loved doing that.

 

[Northern Light]

That quote by Reagan is absolutely correct, too bad he didn't put it into practice. He created the DEA, the war on drugs, and the most bloated law enforcement polity that we have seen in our nation's history. That continues to be a blight on our democracy. He de-regulated Wall Street which, coupled with further disastrous policies of successive administrations, lead us to where we are today.

Insolvency started with Reagan. He taught us that de-regulation leads to corruption and cronyism. Too bad the lesson was understood too late or just fell on deaf ears, as we now have corporations dictating law in Congress.

 

[babilfish]

*snip*

Adding debt doesn't make one a bad President in itself.

Reagan didn't have to deal with the financial disaster in 2008 nor the recession following it. Debts fine, as long as it's manageable and there is a plan to make sure it isn't permanent or is reduced and paid off in a sustainable way.

 

[Woodman909]

The lowly government employees have no say so they don't count.

These 'lowly government employees' , their pensions, their 'tenure' of their jobs have a lot to say as their impact is contributing to the mess we are in.

 

[babilfish]

View attachment 67148878

Yes, well, it's obvious Reagan's policies sucked. You know compared to Obama.

As I've already stated, Reagan did not face a financial crisis comparable to crash in 2008.

 

[washunut]

View attachment 67148799

^^^ Someone posted this on his timeline on Facebook this morning. So I looked for some other Reaganisms:







And my personal favorite:



Anyone care to argue he was wrong?

I will take the other side of your favorite quote and point to examples. Social security and then Medicare were set to so the elderly would avoid abject poverty. To a large extent the programs have succeeded in their goals. They are key parts of our safety net. That being said, they are not programs where you can say we did what the program called for so now we can stop them. Withdraw those two programs and many millions of retired will in fact fall into abject poverty with no way to escape.

 

[MaggieD]

I will take the other side of your favorite quote and point to examples. Social security and then Medicare were set to so the elderly would avoid abject poverty. To a large extent the programs have succeeded in their goals. They are key parts of our safety net. That being said, they are not programs where you can say we did what the program called for so now we can stop them. Withdraw those two programs and many millions of retired will in fact fall into abject poverty with no way to escape.

There's no doubt about those two programs. My mind always goes to other entitlements, though. Like the SNAP program - there's another thread on board on that subject. And Section 8. And the sad excuse we have for public schools in the inner-city because (I believe) lack of parental involvement and our insistence on modeling those schools after the successful schools where there's plenty of parental involvement. Truly. I believe that if those in the inner-city ever figure out what we as a society are doing to them, we will have a civil war.

 

[Occam's Razor]

And my personal favorite:

They [Democrats] are the same people who rediscover poverty every election and promise to cure it. They've cured it so often that they've now made a profession of it. They thrive on failures, on righting wrongs, on aiding victims, and so forth. It must be understood that success in those tasks would put them out of business. No matter how many programs are set up and operating, their proponents never claim success for them. To do so would be to say the problems have been solved, meaning the programs are no longer needed. And the programs, not the problems, are their very reason for being.
Anyone care to argue he was wrong?

All hail the soundbyte and vilification of our fellow americans... applause please

By the way, the same can be said of the republicans from the 80's and on about abortion.

They rediscovered it every election cycle, yet in 40 years have solved nothing. But man does it bring out the vote... or did. If they had overturned Roe, they would have lost one of their biggest emotional get out the vote base issues.

It's politics. Partisan Theater. Look at every trend line on every metric of US quality of life, ignore the dates and which party is in power... there is no real difference. We don't need catch phrases, we need solutions and open honest gov't.

 

[washunut]

There's no doubt about those two programs. My mind always goes to other entitlements, though. Like the SNAP program - there's another thread on board on that subject. And Section 8. And the sad excuse we have for public schools in the inner-city because (I believe) lack of parental involvement and our insistence on modeling those schools after the successful schools where there's plenty of parental involvement. Truly. I believe that if those in the inner-city ever figure out what we as a society are doing to them, we will have a civil war.

While I agree with your general direction, I also disagree somewhat. I will pick on one of your examples above, section 8. At one time I owned a multi-family home and rented to people who were on the program. These people had jobs and had to pay rent based on their earning power. They were supplemented by the government so they could afford decent housing. The people we rented to were very nice for the most part but could have not afforded to live in the section of town or the type of house we had without aid. The neighbors gave us a lot of problems because we rented to section 8 people so we eventually sold.

The people who rented from us had a better life because of section 8.

 

[sangha]

There's no doubt about those two programs. My mind always goes to other entitlements, though. Like the SNAP program

Before Food Stamps, malnutrition was so common, that during WWI, the military had to reject a lot of candidates due to poor health. Since SNAP, malnutrition has diminished greatly.

 

[Occam's Razor]

There's no doubt about those two programs. My mind always goes to other entitlements, though. Like the SNAP program - there's another thread on board on that subject. And Section 8. And the sad excuse we have for public schools in the inner-city because (I believe) lack of parental involvement and our insistence on modeling those schools after the successful schools where there's plenty of parental involvement. Truly. I believe that if those in the inner-city ever figure out what we as a society are doing to them, we will have a civil war.

SNAP... Yes, by all means, lets not make sure the poor have no access to fresh fruits and veggies so they and their children are less healthy and clog the clinics and emergency rooms, driving up healthcare costs, straining services, etc. 80% of chronic disease is a result of lifestyle pertaining to diet.

 

[Bronson]

Pssst: the sources are cited in Wikipedia. You lose.

But I love how conservatives will do anything to pretend Reagan didn't support acid throwing jihadist in Afghanstan against the forces of modernity.

Hey, where did the 9-11 terrorists train again -- in Reaghanistan!

Factcheck.org is Wikipedia? Who knew

I love how rabid Obama worshipers still try and pretend the United States trained and funded OBL and the Afghan Arabs when we didn't. This is not about winning and losing. This is about facts and reality. Facts and reality are on my side. It's that simple.

So go ahead and embarrass yourself with another pathetic response. :lol:

 

[head of joaquin]

All hail the soundbyte and vilification of our fellow americans... applause please

By the way, the same can be said of the republicans from the 80's and on about abortion.

They rediscovered it every election cycle, yet in 40 years have solved nothing. But man does it bring out the vote... or did. If they had overturned Roe, they would have lost one of their biggest emotional get out the vote base issues.

It's politics. Partisan Theater. Look at every trend line on every metric of US quality of life, ignore the dates and which party is in power... there is no real difference. We don't need catch phrases, we need solutions and open honest gov't.

Reagan invented using factoids as rhetoric, and that's now the entire vocabulary of conservatives.

 

[head of joaquin]

Before Food Stamps, malnutrition was so common, that during WWI, the military had to reject a lot of candidates due to poor health. Since SNAP, malnutrition has diminished greatly.

This is typical of conservativethink. Progressive solves or ameliorate social problems like hunger, pollution, tainted food, lack of access to medical care, and conservatives then say, "Why do we need these programs -- there's no problem?"

It's like history started yesterday with them

 

[head of joaquin]

It certainly represents how immoral and stupid he was, sending his own guys to shake hands with a tyrant and then arming him with poison gas.

Nothing like shaking hands with dictators -- Reagan loved doing that.

Notice how none of the Reagan worshippers have even touched this. I guess when your hero supported a war criminal (and Reagan did so often), it's best to stay silent when somebody points it out.

 

[washunut]

Reagan invented using factoids as rhetoric, and that's now the entire vocabulary of conservatives.

Do you have anything to add to this discussion other than insults. Not sure why it is allowed but your goal seems to shut down threads, because people turn away from your vitriol.