Pot calling the kettle black

[marist89]

From that article:

George W. Bush said he was unsure whether he had met John W. Hinckley.

Let me guess, this is another flip-flop by your definition, right?

[gandolf989]

Originally posted by marist89
if you call raising taxes sky high, then yes, he did a great job. He had his share of scandals both personal and public.

George HW Bush raised taxes in 1993 after he said he wouldn't. Clinton has been accused of gutting the millitary, because he didn't expand it as much as some republicans wanted, even though GWHWB went on record talking about the peace dividend.

Clinton lead the gorvenment over an 8 year period where we spent less then we took in. That is a record I would like to hang my hat on. Clinton successfully confronted the republicans when they wanted to shut down the government. Clinton had a plan, he followed it, and everyone was better off.

Originally posted by marist89
Are you serious? How about bringing an end to the Cold War? Reagan/Bush I's economic policies were one of the contributing factors to one of the greatest bull markets of our generation. [/B]

Yes, Reagan brought record breaking deficits, the creation of the term "plausible deniability" to keep Reagan from having to answer charges that he supported the sale of drugs in Los Angeles, secret wars, secret financing of guirillas. What am I leaving out. At the time the we were spending the most, Russia was already broke.

I don't believe that anyone has proven Reagan policies effective. perhaps you have some proof? The gap between the haves and have nots has been increasing over the last 20 years, is that another legacy of Reagan that you would like to boast about?

[gandolf989]

Originally posted by marist89
From that article:

Let me guess, this is another flip-flop by your definition, right?

On that I would give him a pass.
I'm sure he met a lot of people over the years.

[Alchemy]

Were you thinking of John Hinkley shooting Reagan?

Yes, Hinkley is it, thanks for the correction. I've had trouble for 20+ years separating the two. Chapman took his angst out on Lennon because he couldn't get with Jodie Foster (If I'm correct on this one).

[slimdave]

Originally posted by marist89

if you call raising taxes sky high, then yes, he did a great job. [/B]

You see, in economics there are these things called "deficits", which happen when Republican presidents define "small government" as being low taxation regardless of how much they overspend. Then a Democrat is elected so that the republicans can blame them for raising taxes (and shout "big government!") when in fact the money is going towards paying the bills of the fool previously in office.

This enables republicans to fool illiterate NASCAR fans into electing them again so that they can start the cycle once more.

Feel free to point out any errors in the above!

[Alchemy]

"Feel free to point out any errors in the above"

Provide documented proof for the following statement: "illiterate NASCAR fans".

[gandolf989]

Originally posted by Alchemy
"Feel free to point out any errors in the above"

Provide documented proof for the following statement: "illiterate NASCAR fans".

I did a quick google on "literacy rates nascar fans" and couldn't find anything useful. Probably because literacy rate among Nascar fans are similar to the rest of the population as a whole. I only did the google search out of curiosity. I would assume that Dave's intention was being sarcastic rather than insulting.

But having said that, most voters do not look into a story much beyond the headline. If the headline says that Kerry flip-flops and is weak on defense they are unlikey to realize that the record republicans have to run on is much worse. If you look back into time and ask yourself who sold weapons of mass destruction to Iran, you would have to look at the report from the Iran-Contra hearings to realize that it was Former Defense Secretary Caspar W., Bush Sr. Pardoned me, Weinberger and Oliver, I took the 5th, North.

Iran Contra report
...When the Iran initiative was exposed on November 3, 1986, the President convened a series of meetings with his top national security advisers and permitted the creation of a false account of the Iran arms sales to be disseminated to members of Congress and the American people.4 These false accounts denied the President's knowledge and authorization of the initial sales from Israeli stocks of U.S.-made TOW and HAWK missiles to Iran in August, September and November of 1985. Attorney General Edwin Meese III and others were concerned that those sales violated the Arms Export Control Act and the National Security Act of 1947.5 Previously withheld notes by participants in the November 12 and November 24, 1986, meetings constituted evidence of an effort to cover up the true facts of the President's authorization of the 1985 Iran arms sales. But the discovery of the notes by Independent Counsel came too late to investigate effectively and to prosecute the false statements involved.6 The passage of time, claims of dimmed recollections and the running of the statute of limitations protected the underlying acts.

As with the Iran initiative, President Reagan was apparently unconcerned as to the details of how his policy objectives for contra support were being carried out by subordinates who were operating virtually free from oversight or accountability. President Reagan made it clear to his national security advisers Robert C. McFarlane and Poindexter that he wanted to keep the contra resistance alive ``body and soul.'' He said he told them to stay within the law, including the Boland Amendment restrictions on U.S. aid to the contras. In doing so, he confronted his staff with two virtually incompatible objectives.

From the congressional cut off of contra military aid until October 1986, when Congress again appropriated funds for contra assistance, there were three sources of funding developed by NSC officials to carry out President Reagan's generalized admonition to keep the contras together ``body and soul'': third-country grants; donations from so-called ``private benefactors''; and proceeds diverted from the Iran arms sales. Of the three, third-country funding, particularly from the Saudis, was by far the biggest source, amounting to $32 million. The Taiwanese government contributed $2 million. Other governments, at the request of the Administration, made available weapons, documentation to disguise the origin of weapon shipments, and facilities to accommodate contra camps and provide logistical support. Some $1.7 million in private contributions flowed through the tax-exempt National Endowment for the Preservation of Liberty (NEPL) to accounts controlled by North, and approximately $4 million from the Iran arms proceeds diversion, also controlled by North.9

There is a lot more there, but don't take my word, look at the site.

Iran Contra Report

[marist89]

[gandolf989]

Jeff, so its all about 9-11, even though the U.S. has sold more weapons to terrorists than Iraq under Sadam Houssein? You didn't answer my basic point, we sold TOW and HAWK missiles to Iran under Reagans watch. Who is soft on the terrorists? At the same time we were selling weapons to Iran we were also selling weapons to Sadam Houssein. Supporting him around the time he was gassing Iranians. Now do you understand why they hate us?

[cruser3]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff, so its all about 9-11, even though the U.S. has sold more weapons to terrorists than Iraq under Sadam Houssein? You didn't answer my basic point, we sold TOW and HAWK missiles to Iran under Reagans watch. Who is soft on the terrorists? At the same time we were selling weapons to Iran we were also selling weapons to Sadam Houssein. Supporting him around the time he was gassing Iranians. Now do you understand why they hate us?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
..And we abandoned Afghanistan, and sorted of neglected the Israel-Palestine issue.

Now,
had we taken out Saddam in 1991 when the Saudis and the Kuwaitis footed the bill(where Fahrnht. 911 has been banned incidentally!)for the war, probably the equation would have been different and gone after Bin Laden after the attacks on the embassies in Africa...and set up the machinery to monitor the homeland... there would probably have been no 9/11...!!