Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2014 4:41 pm » wrote:Okay, so your argument, as I see it, is that Reagan merely enriched the corporatocracy with all of his borrowing from the unborn - by-passing the hoi palloi (Ike warned us about this scoundrel, did he not?).

I'm not really seeing much a defense of Reagan. What policies of his do you argue had anything to do with this alleged economic recovery?

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2014 5:53 pm » wrote: As Silver Fox reminded us, Reagan was the guy who changed how unemployment numbers (and vegetables) were counted.

He wanted to count catsup on a hamburger as a vegetable in school lunches. His buddies in the military industrial complex could afford artichokes and Brussels sprouts - but **** America's school children. For them, CATSUP was a veggie.

The man was a monster.

Spirit of Molly » 17 Feb 2014 5:57 pm » wrote: I see

And I guess this one is as well

This is nominal GDP growth on a ten-year rolling average – for people who do not think that what the economy is doing right now today is necessarily the best way to gauge its condition.

Note how growth peaks around 1980, rebounds a tad around '82, then goes downhill, pretty steadily, ever since. This is a nice little picture of Reagan's legacy.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 12:42 am » wrote:
Your first link verifies every critique I made of reagan

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 2:56 am » wrote:I want to give credit where it's due: Glory Hole Clem is the fool who got me to googling and discovering these facts. My own nature is what gets me crowing about it.

Contards, you are on notice: CARTER WAS BETTER FOR THE ECONOMY THAN REAGAN. SO WAS CLINTON - BETTER THAN REAGAN, BUSH AND BUSH. You people suck at business and the economy - and everything else. You even suck off men in public bathrooms.

Spirit of Molly » 17 Feb 2014 5:57 pm » wrote: I see

And I guess this one is as well

This is nominal GDP growth on a ten-year rolling average – for people who do not think that what the economy is doing right now today is necessarily the best way to gauge its condition.

Note how growth peaks around 1980, rebounds a tad around '82, then goes downhill, pretty steadily, ever since. This is a nice little picture of Reagan's legacy.

1983 4.6%
1984 7.3%
1985 4.2%
1986 3.5%
1987 3.5%
1988 4.2%
http://useconomy.about.com/od/GDP-by-Ye ... istory.htm

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2014 2:32 pm » wrote: Yes, the narrative. As usual, fetishizing all things military and understanding military issues are very different things, son.

The Soviets did not need to match us bullet for bullet to defend themselves against us. The MAD doctrine obviated a nuclear war. You may pretend the Soviets did not reciprocate in adhering to that doctrine, but your argument would be with actual history - not with me. They certainly never went nuclear. They went gently into that good night.

To beat the Soviets in a prolonged Asian land war, we would need to project many, many times the power with which they resisted - and every ounce of projected power would cost our economy more than every pound of resistance they generated.

I won't bother to explain any of that to you, because it's obvious you prefer fanciful narratives over manly truth - why waste the words? I include it in my response for the men on the board.

As to the rest, tell me again about the peace dividend and how much safer we all are on account of Reagan's profligate spending on the corporatocracy that IKE warned us about. I don't remember ceding civil rights out of fear of Reds, son. But the beardy beardies sure made you girls drop trou.

Here is the bottom line: In 1961, Ike Eisenhower warned us about Reagan. In 2014, you still haven't gotten the memo, and are spewing right wing talking points as contextual, historical reality. I'm not saying your gay...

But you clearly are sending some signals, son.

Please seat yourself.



I like the very things you hate.

deezer shoove » 18 Feb 2014 9:21 am » wrote:Just as you are sending signals. Well, one signal: You HAVE to be right.
You can blather on about your talking points regarding "ounce of projected vs pound of resistance" all day long. What I have stated above is what happened.
Part of what you read in history misses the obvious (just like the more recent revisionist WMD crap). In fact Bill Clinton, your hero, used this ploy which I will use on you:
What did we know at the time?
I remembered the stuff I posted as I said. That's what was in peoples' minds at the time. The fact that the Soviets were a complete paper tiger and caved was not commonly known but heavily suspected. Their actions based on desperation could have been something wholly different than what people THOUGHT might happen. They have a military/industrial/political complex too (the term IKE wanted to actually use).

Acting like you would have known something decades ago isn't manly at all. Use that **** on the queers.

Your mama raised a gay, too. Was it you or your trollop brother?

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 8:03 am » wrote:
BTW, great job at ignoring every single source I cited, and the facts, logic and analysis they contained.

While insisting that your psychotic opinion be accepted.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 2:04 pm » wrote: Oh, tuck in your vadge lips, clemtard - they're flapping.

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 7:18 am » wrote: This "debate" isn't debatable. It's factually established.

It's written into the history books.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 2:36 pm » wrote: You see how gigantic your references to "authority" are, clemtard? IT'S FACTUALLY ESTABLISHED - doesn't say by whom, or demonstrate any rigor in the matter. Just parrots a claim from "facts" not in evidence. IT'S WRITTEN INTO THE HISTORY BOOKS. So would the "War of Northern Aggression" have been, had the south prevailed, you retarded harrumpher.

That's deference to authority, you crybaby.

it's because you're a fringe lunatic.

danobivins » 17 Feb 2014 5:11 pm » wrote:Wasn't the unemployment rate over 10% under reagan?
Nothing to brag abt.

Endoscopy » 18 Feb 2014 3:11 pm » wrote:
I notice you progressives/libs ignore the reality of the graph I keep posting. It is the % of people employed and is from the St. Louis branch of the FED.


It starts with the end of Carter and ends in 2013. Regan grew jobs according to this graph. Obama is killing jobs using the same method Carter used. The progressive tax and spend mentality that sucke the money out of the economy and kills jobs because businesses can't get short term loans.

PROGRESSIVE/LIBERAL IDIOCY AT WORK

CAN'T REFUTE IS SO THEY IGNORE IT

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 2:53 pm » wrote:
Even Reagan's enemies in the MSM admitted he succeeded.

Even most liberal historians long ago did the same.

Endoscopy » 18 Feb 2014 3:11 pm » wrote:
I notice you progressives/libs ignore the reality of the graph I keep posting. It is the % of people employed and is from the St. Louis branch of the FED.


It starts with the end of Carter and ends in 2013. Regan grew jobs according to this graph. Obama is killing jobs using the same method Carter used. The progressive tax and spend mentality that sucke the money out of the economy and kills jobs because businesses can't get short term loans.

PROGRESSIVE/LIBERAL IDIOCY AT WORK

CAN'T REFUTE IS SO THEY IGNORE IT

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 3:19 pm » wrote: These so called enemies in the conservative MSM repeatedly referred to Reagan as, "The Gipper," and as, "The Great Communicator." That is not enmity - it's chumminess.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 3:20 pm » wrote:Thank you for showing Reaganomics at work. You eat your own leg, you dine well for a while. But the chickens DO come home to roost, son.