Second Worst President in US History.

[williatw]

So was the Aurora ever built?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(aircraft)

What about the black triangle TR-3A Black Manta?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TR-3_Black_Manta

I'm not aware of any firm evidence for either, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The "donuts on a rope" that supposedly come from a methane pulsed detonation engine have been observed several times, so something like Aurora is quite possible. I personally find it hard to believe we would retire the Blackbird based on only sat ops. That's the story but I find it incredible.

I likewise think we would not have retired the F-117's unless we had something better. My guess is a UCAV with better performance. The F-117's weren't especially capable except for their stealth--first gen and all that.

I have never seen anything to justify all the nonsense about the TR-3. Yes, lots of people have sighted black triangles. No, those sightings don't justify the nonsense found all over the web by people claiming to know how the TR-3 was constructed.

Basically, "black programs" are called that because we don't know what they're all about.

Well the Russians in response to the Aurora were working on this back in the '80's AJAX: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaks

Worked by useing the rarefied ionized air in the upper atmosphere, pulled in manipulated by the Magnetic field generated by a MHD generator. The air pushed directly by the field to generate thrust, and also pulled in to mix with fuel at high altititudes, by a sort of "magnetic funnel" and to reduce friction on the aircraft at high speeds. Top speed 4600m/s (about 10K mph vaster than the aurora) One can only wonder what we/they have now.

[Diogenes]

FDR did not end the depression. He prolonged it.He also stole Gold from American Citizens.
He also let thousands of Americans be killed just so he would have an excuse to get involved in World War II. He is responsible for initiating Social Security which was never a viable idea. He also did great destruction to our Federal Court system by packing the Federal courts with socialist loons. A legacy still bearing rotten fruit to this very day.
I could go on and on about the failings of FDR, but I think you have plenty enough links to read already, if you bother to do so.
Objectively, FDR was a disaster.

Let me see now if the latest in a long line of conspiracy books is right, he "knew" the japs were going to attack and at pearl harbor? Sounds like the people who think bush knew about 9-11 and let it happen(or even did it). Okay if the base had been better prepared if forewarned, the jap attack would presumably have not have gone as well. But any attack by the japs on us successful or not, would have brought us into the war, he didn't have to not warn the base. Doubt if the number of ships sank being less or fewer people being killed would have mattered to the American public. Hard to believe FDR would risk exposure by taking an unnecessary risk like that. .

On his behalf, I will point out that FDR was advised by Military experts that Japan could not successfully launch torpedo attacks against American Ships in Pearl Harbor because the harbor was so shallow that the torpedoes would hit bottom and never recover. Unaware to both Roosevelt and the Military experts is the fact that the Japanese had overcome this problem.

Roosevelt wasn't aware of how bad an attack would actually be. It is possible he wanted a cosmetic attack, but never appreciated that it wouldn't be cosmetic, but massively destructive in terms of property and loss of life.

More likely they had intel that was unclear/incomplete. I remember hearing a story from years ago that they knew an attack was coming but didn't know where, thought it would be somewhere else.

I have read that the British had decoded radio intercepts of explicit plans by the Japanese navy to attack pearl harbor a month in advance of the actual attack. It is inconceivable that Churchill would not have provided this information to Roosevelt. Much of Roosevelt's pre-war behavior can only be construed as bizarre unless it was his intention to have the United States attacked as an excuse to enter into the war.

Woodrow Wilson had done something similar previously, (Lusitania) so why would it be so shocking for Roosevelt to have followed the same methodology?

Yeah have heard the argument that some of the things he did didn't work and may have made it worse, but ultimately he got us out of the great depression on his watch.

You mean the rooster took credit for the sunrise. World War II got us out of the Great Depression. If you want to give Roosevelt credit for involving us in that ( A position which you objected to above) then you have a point, but it certainly was not his economic policies that made any improvement in the American Economy.

And his massive spending and leadership lead this country to its greatest military victory in our nations history against the existentialist threats of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy & Imperial Japan in WWII.

Yes, he was riding the horse when it crossed the finish line. Doesn't mean he contributed anything to winning the race.

The American people and the world owe him for that. FDR started SS but it was a considerably more modest program under him, it was originally intended to be only a supplement to retirement income.

Opponents predicted at the time that it would turn into a massive government debt program. Guess who turned out to be right? This Cartoon is from 1934.

Sorry but you don't get to blame him for what was allowed to happen decades after he died, when other prez's and congress's did nothing to curb it.

He threw the rock that broke the first window. He cast the first stone at the witch. He fired the first shot. He led the mutiny. He started the avalanche. He lit the match. Without him going first, there would have been no subsequent abuses.

As for the thing about making it illegal to own gold, that wasn't changed until under Ford 30 or so years after FDR died, many repub before Ford and after FDR could have changed it if they wanted to, again they don't get a pass.

Many president's could have given back the land that Andrew Jackson stole from the Indians too, but that didn't happen either. That doesn't make any of them as culpable as the man who stole it in the first place! Apart from that, you miss the significance of his seizure of American's gold property.

No, the real reason for Roosevelt’s gold seizure was twofold: First, he seized people’s gold for the same reason that Castro later seized people’s homes and businesses — to enrich the coffers of the federal government. Second, but more important, he did it to prevent the American people from protecting themselves from the onslaught of ever-depreciating paper money that he planned to use to finance his ever-extravagant welfare-state programs.

So then I guess that Reagan is a failure since he started the largest(at the time) peacetime deficits to pay for his military spending(&growth of entitlements).

I keep seeing this accusation repeated. Reagan built up the military to defeat the Soviet Union. Congress Ramped up budget spending to pay off their political contributors and keep pork barreling themselves back in office. They dealt dishonestly with Reagan at every turn. One of my good friends is always telling me about how Tip O'Neal (Super @sshole from Massachusetts) Hammered his gavel down and declared that Congress had met the provisions of Grahm-Rudman. Tip O'Neal was a lying Democrat Sack of Sh*t then, and would still be one if he were still alive. His legacy of idiocy lives on in his assistant Chris Mathews.



The point is, Reagans tax breaks resulted in an INCREASE of government revenue, more than enough to pay for his military buildup. However, that pile of Scum (The Democrat Congress) simply could not refrain from spending money on stupid crap, all the while blaming Reagan for the Deficit.

The Fault for the Deficit lies with the Democrat Congress. It always has. They are simple minded Party Freaks with the mindset of the Grasshopper in that children's story, and they have no comprehension of cutting costs or saving money. They are like teenagers with their daddy's credit card.

To sum it up, for Reagan's Defense expenditures and policies, we won the cold war and got rid of the Soviet Union. For the Democrat Congress' excessive lack of discipline during the same era, we got lots of federal dollars spent on useless and counter productive crap.

Since it was in their best interest to blame Reagan instead of themselves, that is the popular narrative around Democrat Circles. It is not the truth. It is a lie.

Sorry Diogenes no sale I blame Reagan and the Dems equally. If ones a piece of excrement then they both are..Reagan signed off on those budgets, you don't get to be prez and not take responsibility.

Reagan traded something necessary for something unnecessary. (He traded Winning the cold war for Democrat Pork.) He made the right decision. It was worth putting up with idiot democrat spending on social programs and pet projects to contain and eliminate the threat of a Militarily aggressive soviet union. It is not right that he should be blamed for THEIR excess and stupidity regarding the deficit.

Just like you don't get to be prez sell arms by the billion to our enemy khomeini's Iran, and say well Reagan gets a pass for that because carter should have double downed on the soon to be dead Shah(talk about betting on a dead horse). That would be like giving Obama a pass for not stopping the Iranians from getting the bomb (though I understand he and the Israelis are sabataging/assasinating left and right) because bush didn't do much. Sorry no sale

Again, there is no evidence that Reagan knew what Oliver North was doing, but what Oliver north did was exactly the right thing to do. The Democrat congress had cut off the money we had promised to the Contras (Much the same way that Democrat President John Kennedy had Cut off the Air and Naval support to the Cuban Freedom Fighters who would have taken Cuba back away from Castro.) thereby backstabbing the people we had made promises to. Oliver North Sold missiles and components to Iran, cheated them heavily in the bargain, and used the proceeds to finance the Rebels in Nicaragua. The man deserves the medal of freedom for what he did, and those Democrat Bastards who cut off the money should have been placed against a wall and shot.

I personally think that Ted Kennedy and others were voluntary agents of Soviet policy, and were working with the Soviets behind the scenes.

Which led to Bush senior even larger ones (& of course Bush junior's larger still) and onewards to Obama's insanely large ones.

George H.W. Bush was the worst mistake Reagan ever made. I cannot express myself sufficiently at the degree of disgust I feel towards that man. The ONLY thing he did right was nominating and defending Clarence Thomas. George H.W. Bush was just another one of those North-Eastern Rockefeller Republicans (Elite Country Club out of touch) who had transplanted to Texas, thereby fooling people into thinking he was a sensible person.

But you are right. George H.W. Bush (using Deficits under Reagan as justification) ramped up Federal Spending, and set the standard for subsequent administrations to go even more insane. Clinton would have done so as well, but his support for Gun Control Legislation cost his party control of congress.,( I know, I helped knock out one of them personally.) and while being forced to deal with a newly elected Republican Congress ( Before they had a chance to get corrupted by living in Washington) they forced him to cut spending.

It's funny that Clinton is given credit for his spending restraints when he had to be dragged kicking and screaming into them. The Media, of course, made it appear that those evil and draconian Republicans were just wanting old people and children to die from starvation or some such.

So then by the same argument Reagan must be a failure too since the monster deficit spending of today are clearly his legacy...sure there are a few posters here who whould vehemently disagree with that.

You are apparently not listening and not bother to learn what happened. Reagan TRIED to restrain Democrat spending, but he had to work with them. They lied and broke every promise to constrain spending, but he still had to work with them. In order to get his Necessary and ultimately vindicated spending, he had to put up with the little childish idiots in control of the congress spending money on stupid and worthless sh*t.

One of the greatest regrets of several members of the generally sound Reagan administration was that in an effort to cut spending significantly, President Reagan went along with some tax hikes sought by Democrats in his first term in office.

It seemed like a good idea at the time: Supposedly there would be $3 worth of spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases.

But it didn't work out that way.

The tax increases were imposed, but the spending cuts failed to materialize. As Reagan later wrote, "The Democrats reneged on their pledge and we never got those cuts."

Like I said, we got something useful and tangible for Reagan's spending. What did we get for the Democrat Congress' spending of that era?

What did we get Diogenes? Those Entitlements so beloved by a large portion of the white elderly american public. The bulk of our spending, deficit & debt. Doubt if most of your elderly white tea-party members would want SS or Medicare touched, they have made that abundantly clear. My understanding is they want the government to "not touch their medicare."

Social Security and Medicaid are left-overs from the Roosevelt and Johnson Administrations respectively. The Democrats did not create these programs between 1980 and 1988 so therefore your point is based on mistaken information. The Entitlements we got during the 80s were Democrat pet projects such as the expansion of money for AIDS research. (Everyone knows that the members of the Homosexual lobby are heavily into the Democrats.) We got funding for the Big Dig. ( A horribly expensive Massachusetts pork barrel project) Increases in welfare and housing spending (making the social problems worse, not better.)

In 1986, 41 cents out of every dollar spent by the government went to cash payments to individuals representing 47% of the population; 28 cents out of each dollar went to defense spending; 15 cents on each dollar paid the interest on the national debt; 6 cents went to essential government services (like the FBI and the National Weather Bureau); and the remaining 10 cents funded aid to states and local governments for such things as schools and urban renewal.

57% Democrat crap, (72% if you count the interest on the debt they created) and 34% for Necessary government and military expenditures.

[Diogenes]

What did we get Diogenes? Those Entitlements so beloved by a large portion of the white elderly american public. The bulk of our spending, deficit & debt. Doubt if most of your elderly white tea-party members would want SS or Medicare touched, they have made that abundantly clear. My understanding is they want the government to "not touch their medicare."

Which is true.

I take issue with this statement. I have quite a good understanding regarding the wants and desires of the Tea-Party folk, and the topic of SS or Medicaid has not been broached in any discussion I have ever been a party too. The topic just doesn't come up. What comes up is Federal Deficit spending, Lawlessness in the Executive branch (Fast and Furious, IRS threats on Political Enemies, Gun Control attempts, Silencing Whistle blowers, payoffs to politically connected Companies, abuses by the TSA, and a whole host of other dictatorial abuses of power and privilege, not the least of which is Socialized Health Care.)


As for them being mostly White, what do you expect? 95% of black folk vote Democrat, as do 80% of Jewish Folk and 60% of Hispanic folk. In MY party, we don't judge people based on the color of their skin, we judge them on the content of their character. We don't bother to make fake efforts to demonstrate how many of each diversity group happen to be with us at any given time. We are all Americans and most of us are mongrels anyway.

That being said, some of our best and most promising leaders are black folk. Herman Cain, Alan Keyes, Lloyd Marcus, Alan West, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, and AlfonZo Rachel, off the top of my head.

Back in 1994, I personally called up J.C. Watts while he was a member of the Corporation commission and volunteered my time and money in an effort to get him to run against Dave McCurdy for the District 4 House seat. (He eventually agreed to run for the seat, and me and my people bought advertising for him on Radio and in the newspapers.)

New Deal era programs were useful in that the promoted social cohesion. The Great Society by contrast was an exercise in social balkanization.

I often think that LBJ was cynically trying to bribe with government dollars, people he didn't like anyway, but wanted to co-opt as a solid chunk of the Democrat voting demographic.

”These Negroes, they‘re getting pretty uppity these days and that‘s a problem for us since they‘ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we‘ve got to do something about this, we‘ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

~Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat)

[Diogenes]

Perhaps you will eventually get so old and wise that you will become a conservative.

Fat chance Diogenes I couldn't afford the necessary surgery on my health insurance. The one where they stick that tube in my ear suck out half my brain and replace it with bovine excrement.

Why should you need something done twice? What you need now is a bullshitectomy which I am trying to give you if you will just hold still. This may hurt a bit.

[Diogenes]

Re: FDR and WW2.

I have done extensive research on that and it is true he had a warning. But it was not specific - read Gordon W. Prange "The Verdict of History" on the subject. The book was written when the Ultra/Magic stuff was public knowledge. It is extensively discussed.

The high command in the US thought the Philippines was the target. No one imagined that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor. Every one thought it would be a suicide mission and the Japanese were too smart for that. Fortunately for us our carriers (the actual target of the attack) were at sea.

The crime was MacArthur. He had 12 hours warning after the Pearl attack and instead of attacking the Japanese bases in Formosa he got caught with his aircraft on the ground. But Mac was a hero and FDR a goat.

And BTW the Officers Commanding Pearl were idiots. In war games in the late 30s a defense against an attack from the North was actually practiced. Instead of preparing for an attack they prepared for sabotage. The high command was reamed for not making their warning "War Warning" more explicit. Why did they prepare for sabotage when they were warned of war? Because attacking Pearl would be suicide. Bad mindset.

By Midway the efficiency of the Navy was way up. And the Navy was both prepared and lucky. Guadalcanal was the real test. Only the Japanese figured that out too late. At first they considered it a sideshow. They thought the action was elsewhere.

I knew a Marine who fought at the 'canal. He never talked about the fighting but his hands were crusted with some white stuff (some kind of jungle rot) he picked up there. Mel Tepper. I shook his hand often. Even at 13 (and earlier and later) I knew it was an honor.

Both of my Fathers fought in the pacific During WWII, (Biological father was Army, Adopted father was Marine (Says he knew Pappy Boyington.) as did one of my Uncles. (U.S. Navy.)

I speak to WWII vets all the time, though not so many as their used to be. I know one man who guarded Nazi Nuclear Scientists just after WWII and who was also stationed in Iran when it fell to the Islamists. If you think *I'M* bad regarding what I say about Carter, you should listen to what *HE* says about Carter. He still blames Carter for "D@mn near getting me killed."

Anyway, My adopted father firmly believed that Roosevelt knew of an impending Japanese attack and chose to leave us vulnerable so as to create an excuse to go to war. For years I just thought this was a quirk he had, but I eventually discovered there is a lot of circumstantial evidence supporting this view.

Given the history of Democrats in general, I lean towards believing that Roosevelt cynically maneuvered us into that conflict on purpose. Or Churchill did, which I would not put past him.

[GIThruster]

Well the Russians in response to the Aurora were working on this back in the '80's AJAX: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaks

Worked by useing the rarefied ionized air in the upper atmosphere, pulled in manipulated by the Magnetic field generated by a MHD generator. The air pushed directly by the field to generate thrust, and also pulled in to mix with fuel at high altititudes, by a sort of "magnetic funnel" and to reduce friction on the aircraft at high speeds. Top speed 4600m/s (about 10K mph vaster than the aurora) One can only wonder what we/they have now.

IIRC, there's no evidence that Ajax exists, and in keeping that the Soviets were often making claims to technology they had only conceived of and not built, there would seem to be reasons to suspect it's never been built. You can however find a excellent analysis of the ideas involved in the concept here:

http://www.amazon.com/Future-Spacecraft ... PAUL+Czysz

It's a little spendy but worth every penny. Excellent book.

[MSimon]

It would be like affirmative action on steroids...and we know how much largely white male republican business owners loved affirmative action.

It has to do with ability. Republicans are into the money. You really have a warped understanding. If there were people with ability out there who were undiscovered as a class Republicans would find them and profit.

The reason for AA is that most in such classes are unprofitable. Sorry 'bout that.

====

D,

Progressive: with the right laws and government guns (the right calls it the nanny state) man can be perfected or at least greatly improved.

That fits your "Conservative" philosophy to a T.

It bears no relationship to the Conservatives of 1900.

====

BTW Republicans would win elections forever if they gave up their version of the nanny state. Just watch - the Ds will be on the ropes after the coming election and the Right will start in on its religious crusades as they always do when in power and in 4 or 8 years it will be the Republicans back on the ropes. What is it about "leave us alone" that you don't understand?

What is it about Hayek and the knowledge problem that you don't understand?

Progressivism is good for ant colonies not humans.

If you start in ordering humans about they will do the opposite (the spirit of rebellion) otherwise they will do as they dam-n well please.

[williatw]

On his behalf, I will point out that FDR was advised by Military experts that Japan could not successfully launch torpedo attacks against American Ships in Pearl Harbor because the harbor was so shallow that the torpedoes would hit bottom and never recover. Unaware to both Roosevelt and the Military experts is the fact that the Japanese had overcome this problem.

Roosevelt wasn't aware of how bad an attack would actually be. It is possible he wanted a cosmetic attack, but never appreciated that it wouldn't be cosmetic, but massively destructive in terms of property and loss of life.

I have read that the British had decoded radio intercepts of explicit plans by the Japanese navy to attack pearl harbor a month in advance of the actual attack. It is inconceivable that Churchill would not have provided this information to Roosevelt. Much of Roosevelt's pre-war behavior can only be construed as bizarre unless it was his intention to have the United States attacked as an excuse to enter into the war.

Woodrow Wilson had done something similar previously, (Lusitania) so why would it be so shocking for Roosevelt to have followed the same methodology?

Assuming such alleged intel reached FDR's desk, and assuming it was believed. After all the Brits were known to be desperate for us to join. The basic point is..it would have been irrelevant to the American public if the attack by the japs had failed, because pearl was warned & prepared. From the moment they attacked, we were a war with them regardless if we routed them or they us. FDR would have no reason to take such bizzare means to make the jap attack go well, it would make no difference. If you think that your just as stupid & biased as those who think Bush(or his minions) put incendiary/explosive device in the twin towers (and bld 3) to make sure the terrorist knocked them down completely. Again why would you do that? The 2nd they crashed the planes into the tower we were at war with them, regardless of how many people killed or bld knocked down.

You mean the rooster took credit for the sunrise. World War II got us out of the Great Depression. If you want to give Roosevelt credit for involving us in that ( A position which you objected to above) then you have a point, but it certainly was not his economic policies that made any improvement in the American Economy.

The man was faced with the greatest economic catastrophe in our nation's history..he gave strong leadership and hope when it was needed. Not surprising that everything he tried didn't work. Everyone knows it was WWII that got us out of the Great Depression, the point is FDR sucessfully navigated us through both.

And his massive spending and leadership lead this country to its greatest military victory in our nations history against the existentialist threats of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy & Imperial Japan in WWII.

Yes, he was riding the horse when it crossed the finish line. Doesn't mean he contributed anything to winning the race.

Didn't contribute anything to winning the war other than he was prez from beginning to almost the end, formulating policy. The Manhattan project, D-day, even Lend lease before the war.. yeah right he had nothing to do with any of those things. As opposed to Reagan who came into the cold war pretty late in the game but your nose is so far up his backside you seem to think he single handedly won it. Greatest president since Washington?! You gotta be freaking kidding me.

let's see 1948 to 1980:

Berlin air lift/Korean war: Truman
U2crises/McCarthyism: Eishehower
Cuban missile crises/space race/start Vietnam war: Kennedy
Space race/Vietnam war: Johnson
Recognition of China/ending said war/detente/SALT: Nixon/Ford

Seem to me your god Reagan came onto the game pretty late to be given such almost single handed credit for winning the whole thing. Would say Reagan was far more just riding the horse when it crossed the finish line than FDR was.

The American people and the world owe him for that. FDR started SS but it was a considerably more modest program under him, it was originally intended to be only a supplement to retirement income.

He threw the rock that broke the first window. He cast the first stone at the witch. He fired the first shot. He led the mutiny. He started the avalanche. He lit the match. Without him going first, there would have been no subsequent abuses.

Doesn't excuse presidents from Eisenhower through Reagan, Clinton , and Bush up to Obama doing nothing about the explosive growth of entitlements. Your elected president to lead this country, not make excuses for what your predecessor started. If you don't think that's acceptable you have no business being president. The point is that SS worked fine under FDR that's what he is responsible for, what happens when he is captain of the ship.

[/b]As for the thing about making it illegal to own gold, that wasn't changed until under Ford 30 or so years after FDR died, many repub before Ford and after FDR could have changed it if they wanted to, again they don't get a pass.

Many president's could have given back the land that Andrew Jackson stole from the Indians too, but that didn't happen either. That doesn't make any of them as culpable as the man who stole it in the first place!

No not for what Jackson did persee...but they did or were party to more than enough land taken/treaties broken on their own.

So then I guess that Reagan is a failure since he started the largest(at the time) peacetime deficits to pay for his military spending(&growth of entitlements).

I keep seeing this accusation repeated. Reagan built up the military to defeat the Soviet Union. Congress Ramped up budget spending to pay off their political contributors and keep pork barreling themselves back in office. They dealt dishonestly with Reagan at every turn.
The point is, Reagans tax breaks resulted in an INCREASE of government revenue, more than enough to pay for his military buildup. However, that pile of Scum (The Democrat Congress) simply could not refrain from spending money on stupid crap, all the while blaming Reagan for the Deficit.

To sum it up, for Reagan's Defense expenditures and policies, we won the cold war and got rid of the Soviet Union. For the Democrat Congress' excessive lack of discipline during the same era, Since it was in their best interest to blame Reagan instead of themselves, that is the popular narrative around Democrat Circles. It is not the truth. It is a lie.

Sorry Diogenes no sale I blame Reagan and the Dems equally. If ones a piece of excrement then they both are..Reagan signed off on those budgets, you don't get to be prez and not take responsibility.

Reagan traded something necessary for something unnecessary. (He traded Winning the cold war for Democrat Pork.) He made the right decision. It was worth putting up with idiot democrat spending on social programs and pet projects to contain and eliminate the threat of a Militarily aggressive soviet union. It is not right that he should be blamed for THEIR excess and stupidity regarding the deficit.

It is perfectly right, Reagan signed the budget he was president he shares in the blame along with the Dems.

Just like you don't get to be prez sell arms by the billion to our enemy khomeini's Iran, and say well Reagan gets a pass for that because carter should have double downed on the soon to be dead Shah(talk about betting on a dead horse). That would be like giving Obama a pass for not stopping the Iranians from getting the bomb (though I understand he and the Israelis are sabataging/assasinating left and right) because bush didn't do much. Sorry no sale

Again, there is no evidence that Reagan knew what Oliver North was doing, but what Oliver north did was exactly the right thing to do. The Democrat congress had cut off the money we had promised to the Contras (Much the same way that Democrat President John Kennedy had Cut off the Air and Naval support to the Cuban Freedom Fighters who would have taken Cuba back away from Castro.) thereby backstabbing the people we had made promises to. Oliver North Sold missiles and components to Iran, cheated them heavily in the bargain, and used the proceeds to finance the Rebels in Nicaragua. The man deserves the medal of freedom for what he did, and those Democrat Bastards who cut off the money should have been placed against a wall and shot.

Come now Diogenes it was designed to leave him out of the loop of operations/planning to give him plausible deniability if uncovered. Shot for passing the law banning aid to the Contras signed by Reagan? What about god Reagan should he also have been shot? After all he signed it into law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolan_Amendment

You are apparently not listening and not bother to learn what happened. Reagan TRIED to restrain Democrat spending, but he had to work with them. They lied and broke every promise to constrain spending, but he still had to work with them. In order to get his Necessary and ultimately vindicated spending, he had to put up with the

What did we get Diogenes? Those Entitlements so beloved by a large portion of the white elderly american public. The bulk of our spending, deficit & debt. Doubt if most of your elderly white tea-party members would want SS or Medicare touched, they have made that abundantly clear. My understanding is they want the government to "not touch their medicare."

Social Security and Medicaid are left-overs from the Roosevelt and Johnson Administrations respectively. The Democrats did not create these programs between 1980 and 1988 so therefore your point is based on mistaken information. The Entitlements we got during the 80s were Democrat pet projects such as the expansion of money for AIDS research.

Who suggested Regan or the dems(of Reagan's congress) started the entitlements? But they blew up under Reagan he signed the budgets, "trying" to hold the line on spending isn't good enough when you are president. Again he is as responsible as the dems the 2nd he signs the budgets.

[MSimon]

Everyone knows it was WWII that got us out of the Great Depression

That is only true in the sense that FDR was forced to take as many fetters off business as he could. He needed the production. The other side effects of the war helped, but that was the main one.

I hope we don't need a WW to do the same.

[MSimon]

Who suggested Regan or the dems(of Reagan's congress) started the entitlements? But they blew up under Reagan he signed the budgets, "trying" to hold the line on spending isn't good enough when you are president. Again he is as responsible as the dems the 2nd he signs the budgets.

The problem is the political process - "You want more for DOD? We want more for program xxx." Otherwise gridlock.

If you were a deep student of the American political process you would know this.

[williatw]

What did we get Diogenes? Those Entitlements so beloved by a large portion of the white elderly american public. The bulk of our spending, deficit & debt. Doubt if most of your elderly white tea-party members would want SS or Medicare touched, they have made that abundantly clear. My understanding is they want the government to "not touch their medicare."

Which is true.

I take issue with this statement. I have quite a good understanding regarding the wants and desires of the Tea-Party folk, and the topic of SS or Medicaid has not been broached in any discussion I have ever been a party too. The topic just doesn't come up. What comes up is Federal Deficit spending, Lawlessness in the Executive branch (Fast and Furious, IRS threats on Political Enemies, Gun Control attempts, Silencing Whistle blowers, payoffs to politically connected Companies, abuses by the TSA, and a whole host of other dictatorial abuses of power and privilege, not the least of which is Socialized Health Care.)

Which says it all, "doesn't come up"?! The most massive increase in gov spending in the history of the republic is on entitlements, mostly SS, medicare & medicaid. They are/should therefore be the cornerstone of what I have been led to believe is the the tea party movements primary concern (quite justified) about the explosive growth in gov spending. And yet somehow the biggest example of which doesn't come up?. Cognitive dissonance I believe is the term. That's why I am rapidly becoming more Libertarian.

[MSimon]

williatw,

Well it was Reagan who won the cold war. (My chance to gore your ox). The Soviet economy was creaking along and the politics of the day said "accommodate". Reagan sad, "We will do a defense build up that they can't match which will change the correlation of forces." He did and it did. Bye bye USSR.

[MSimon]

williatw,

Let me explain the TEAs. They are older folks who understand that new programs will bankrupt the state and they will not get what they were "promised".

Not pure enough for you? OK.

For me it is a start. Rome was not destroyed in a day.

The TEAs if successful will halt the expansion. Then when you grow up you can work on contraction.

[williatw]

williatw,

Well it was Reagan who won the cold war. (My chance to gore your ox). The Soviet economy was creaking along and the politics of the day said "accommodate". Reagan sad, "We will do a defense build up that they can't match which will change the correlation of forces." He did and it did. Bye bye USSR.

He presided over the last chapter of the cold war and navigated it to a somewhat successful conclusion. He contributed to the solidarity movement in Poland with the aid of the Pope, that was pretty clever enlisting him. He was also aided by the gullibility of Gorbachev(Glasnost?!). However the current head of russia is the "democratically elected" former KGB agent Putin.
I am not being gored by Diogenes...he is more like an old guy who can't find his glasses screaming at the coat rack thinking it is me.

[WizWom]

It is a horrid fallacy, and one touted by the left and right, that WWII ended the great depression.
The depression did not end until '47 - after the wartime limits were removed, and production returned to things people wanted, rather than being wasted on blowing other peoples things up.