[Jetmech Jr.]

That fact is already well established, Raa. But then again...

[jdjtcagle]

That Bush, he such an arse...

Hey, why didn't Osama sleep with his wife??
Uhh DUH!!... He found Bush...


please stop this topic

[Janos]

Edit: For ionia23:

[ionia23]

I am so not even going to ask wtf the point of the above picture is.  That thing disturbs the hell out of me.

I grew up during the Reagan years and currently live in his legacy.  You don't hear a lot of people talking smack because a. it's unnecessarily malicious, b. overzealous patriotism.  Some people were crazy about the guy, they can have all the time they want as far as I'm concerned.

I don't mourn his passing, i celebrate it.  Why?  Because it was a freakin' mercy for him and his family, politics aside.  Alzheimer's is as cruel as it gets.  If any of you feel he brought some stupid karmic thing on himself, he paid it in full with interest.

[Kosh]

Reagan was a murderer and a liar. He allowed the AIDS epidemic get out of control, which makes him personally responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people. He also financed BRUTAL groups like Unita, so that makes him an accomplice to their murdering of tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

In addition to all that, he was also responsible for the Soviets Afghanistan occupation lasting 2 years longer than it needed to. Which also makes him personally responsible for the deaths of another thousand or so people.

Given all of that, anyone who can call this murderer a "Gentleman" and/or a "great president" might as well call Stalin a saint. Free your mind.

[Liberator]

Okay, let's get a few things straight here.  Under Reagan, AIDS related spending doubled every year till round about 1990.  You heard me D-O-U-B-L-E-D, 2x, 200% increase, ect.  The Critics use this because they believe he should have spent more.  

As far as what groups were financed, the adage is "The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend".  In the 1980's, Reagan lead the forces of Freedom against the Evil Empire of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  His funding of less than savory groups in the Near East and other places was calculated to prevent the advance of Communism and restrict it to Easter Europe and parts of Asia.  Of course he couldn't see at the time that with the fall of the USSR, Western Europe would take up the Socialist cause that was the basis of the Soviet Union.

The Soviets never occupied Afganistan, they undertook an invasion which was turned back after a period of time thanks primarily to US funding and other activites in country.

Kosh, I don't what moss covered rock you dug your mushrooms out from under but I wouldn't take any more of them.  Also, get your facts straight before you run off at the mouth, kid.  How old are you anyway?  Definitely too young to have any first hand knowledge of what you type.  Don't rely on whatever propaganda site you dug that ---- up on as fact.


*edit*
Now lookit, you done made me go and cuss.

[SadisticSid]

Another thing, all this 'personal responsibility' crap is meaningless for a head of state as a result of legal policy decisions. If you wanted to apply it then every trivial policy decision which might benefit millions but disadvantage a few would be avoided and nothing would ever get done.

Calling Raegan a murderer is childish, not to mention wrong.

[vyper]

Morality has no place on the world stage.

Ach I can't fault him for defending his country's interests but let's not pretend it was done nicely. Just like today, we (western world) rape the natural resources and people of less fortunate countries for our own benefit.

It just so happens America has done most of it recently being the hyperpower n' all.

[Gank]

Originally posted by SadisticSid
Another thing, all this 'personal responsibility' crap is meaningless for a head of state as a result of legal policy decisions. If you wanted to apply it then every trivial policy decision which might benefit millions but disadvantage a few would be avoided and nothing would ever get done.

Calling Raegan a murderer is childish, not to mention wrong.

Reagan recognised the Khmer Rouge as the official government of Cambodia even after they were ousted and the mass killing that went on there came to light. Reagan funded and trained right wing government death sqauds in Honduras, El Salvador and other latin american countrys. Reagan supported and backed Indonesia while they commited genocide in East Timor. Reagan sold arms to Irans Khomeni to fund right wing terrorists in Nicaragua. Reagan backed Saddam Hussein and sold him chemical weapons which he used to gas the Iranians and Kurds. Reagan backed Pinochet, Marcos, Duavalier and onced asked how people could turn their back on apartheid south africa.

None of these are legal policy decisions, nor are they trivial, nor did they benefit millions and disadvantage a few. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people died at the hands of Reagans allies, all because he considered communism or anything that even resembled it to be "evil".  The man wasnt great, he was a uncaring bastard at the very least.

Liberator, personally I think anyone who thinks of somebody with opposing political views as themselves as evil but somebody who tortures and murders people, who builds monuments out of human skulls or who gasses a whole town of innocent people as part of the "forces of freedom" is a ****ed up little c*nt, but its pretty obvious we dont share the same sort of feelings on these matters.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Gank

Liberator, personally I think anyone who thinks of somebody with opposing political views as themselves as evil but somebody who tortures and murders people, who builds monuments out of human skulls or who gasses a whole town of innocent people as part of the "forces of freedom" is a ****ed up little c*nt, but its pretty obvious we dont share the same sort of feelings on these matters.

Curiosity:  Is there any political leader who meets with your approval 100%?  Any?

[Gank]

Do you approve of any politician 100%? Kindof a high rating to give anyone, politicians in particular. Aung San Suu Kyi would probably rank the highest I could think of offhand but theres probably a few others equally good if not better.  Wei Jingsheng, José Ramos-Horta, Xanana Gusmao spring to mind though I doubt I'd agree with everything they had to say.

[Kosh]

Calling Raegan a murderer is childish, not to mention wrong.

No, it's not. It's an accurate view based on undisputed facts.

Kosh, I don't what moss covered rock you dug your mushrooms out from under but I wouldn't take any more of them. Also, get your facts straight before you run off at the mouth, kid. How old are you anyway? Definitely too young to have any first hand knowledge of what you type. Don't rely on whatever propaganda site you dug that ---- up on as fact.

Why don't you grow up? I have a great deal more knowledge, first hand or otherwise than most people. Turn off Rush Limbaugh for a few minutes and listen to the truth. The so called "propaganda site" of mine are numerous reliable and ACCURATE sources.

And I didn't make you cuss, you did that all by yourself.

[Grey Wolf]

Just let him live in his fantasy world, Kosh.

[Kosh]

You are, but the fact that he would get so worked up over my opinion is pathetic, childish and wrong.

[Liberator]

Okay, if Reagan was so bad, how did he carry 49 of 50 states in the 1984 election?  Only Minnesota went for the other guy, and then only by ~2500 votes.

Just because they are numerous and possibly reliable doesn't make them accurate.  Your "facts" just aren't lining up with history.  

You are coming off as a petulant child who just wants to stir up trouble and make a name for himself by starting an argument.  That, IMO, makes you a twit to be ignored.

[Rictor]

Liberator: how about you refute his facts? You sa they don't "line up with history", whatever that means, but they are history. None of what Gank said is disputed, it is accepted by everyone, the US government past and present included, as fact.

The fact is, Reagan is responsible for the murder of a great many people. "Stopping communism" is not a valid excuse to off thousands of people.

I would like to see you defend even a single of these crimes. I don't mean that rhetorically at all. Just pick an accusation and try to explain why the benefit was greater than the cost. The interesting thing is, Reagan, as President of the US, had no right at all to sacrifice even a single foreign life to further America's ambitions. You can kill your own citizens all you like, but at no point was he given the authority to intervene in the governance of sovereign nations.

So, just pick one and get started. That goes for any other Reaganite on here.

[Kosh]

Thank you Rictor. And would somebody please tell "Liberator" to stop calling me names. I do not believe it is appropriate or neccisary.


If I really wanted to make trouble I could easily raise all kinds of hell about almost anything. I posted an opinion, that does NOT give anyone the right to start personally attacking me.

[Bobboau]

well lets see here, I do credit him with stoping the USSR, thats a very good thing, gives him lots of point, but he did a lot of rather not to good stuf to get there, some of wich probly didn't need to be done, and there he looses a lot of points, ending a 50 year long nuclear standoff capable of anialateing all civilisation in five minutes is something that you'd realy have to work at to offset... I consider Regan a passable presedent.

[Rictor]

can you deny that it was gorbachev, and not reagan, that truly ended the cold war? Reagan was President at the time, given, but he didn't really do anythng more to end the Cold War than any of the preceding presidents. Gorbachev saw that Communism was done for, especially in the form of the USSR, and he essentially gave up.

There is a difference between "winning" and "the other team threw in the towel"...

[Bobboau]

"can you deny..."
right there I can tell you are underestemateing me.