Regan-isms

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
70
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Seething anger and hatred - that is all what comes out of you. :mad:

Look who's fuckin' talking? Still think everyone who has AIDS is irresponsible? I'll make sure to let one of my friends who contracted the virus through rape that it's her fault. Asshole.

Do you feel like a big tough man for calling me names - ohhhhh big boy you are so scary.

You deserve more than just some name calling right now.

Come on sweety give me ugly

Your avatar is plenty.

call me all those names and make yourself feel better. Give it to me - unleash you boiling cauldron of rage and hate.

Don't beg. You look desperate.

You do know that this much anger messes with your brain chemistry and actually shuts down the higher level brain functions such as logic and reasoning. :frown1:

Don't worry about me, toots. I can still call you a c****, post facts about Reagan, AIDS and Cancer research, and then return to calling you a bitch with no worries of ever losing focus.

That is probably why you cannot deal with FACTS and refuse to engage in a contractive dialog.

With your very first post, the only thing you've done is insinuate that I can't think straight even when I was trying to be civil. Even without the slanderous words, all you've done is try to insult people. Please don't think nobody didn't notice.

I find it amusing after I destroyed your talking points the best you can do is unleash in a childish verbal attack.

This is coming from someone who called me, and I quote, a "sick, arrogant son of a bitch?" Coming from the minds of an empty vessel who thinks that I give gay men a bad name because I don't agree with your assessment of a president? Hypocrite. :rolleyes:

Cognitive dissonance it's a bitch.

And you're a bigger one.

"Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory idea simultaneously." Such as the idea of Ronald Reagan not making AIDS a priority but knowing the fact that he spent more on the disease then any other world leader at the time and more on it than cancer, that was killing legions of more Americans.

And dementia is a non-specific illness syndrome (set of signs and symptoms) in which affected areas of cognition may be memory, attention, language, and problem solving. Because somehow, you've yet to notice that I did take into consideration what our nation gave towards AIDS research under Reagan. I even gave the numbers and illustrated the growth! Perhaps if you used your brain for something besides issuing self-imposed psychiatric advice, you would have seen that.

You would have ALSO noticed that my gripe, as well as many other people's gripe about Reagan on the subject matter, is his slow response to the issue considering the epidemic broke in 1981, no substantial amounts of monetary help for research & awareness was offered till 1985, and he didn't even have the balls to verbally address the situation till 1987. You translated this into people wanting "magic wands and flowery speeches". Fuckin' moron.

PS Are you like this 5' 1" gay guy that weighs 90 lbs and gets beaten up by girls all the time - just wondering because you act like one!

Was that the kind of boy you let bang your box last night? Just wondering because you act like you haven't had anyone twiddle your bean properly in a loooooooooooong time! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
70
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
VB

Has no response to FACTS


Whatever sweetie

FACTS are the truth you have none.

That's because you haven't read a single link I provided that further backs my claims. I wouldn't be patting myself on the back, nor fingering myself over this latest misconstrued analysis. :rolleyes:

At this point, I'm wondering if you got through High School by means of fucking your teachers, because if you ever written a term paper you KNOW that you have to provide a bibliography. And what is that, you ask? Sources that verify and also back your analysis. So again, because I know a bitch like you talks more shit than Limbaugh with a bowel problem, all of my current statements and claims on the subject matter are backed by the following sources:

History and science of HIV and AIDS
NOW. Science & Health. Global Health: America's Response. HIV/AIDS Statistics | PBS
HIV/AIDS: Complications - MayoClinic.com
A to Z List of Cancers - National Cancer Institute
Cancer Causes, Risk Factors, Statistics, Facts and Information on MedicineNet.com
ACS :: The History of Cancer

BTW... the keyword is "current". I have PLENTY of more cards to play.

For your homework assignment, make sure you can at least come up with sensible sources that challenge the findings on these sites. But let me give you a few hints...

1. None of them are "politically motivated" by the liberal media despite your bigotry or paranoia.
2. They collectively give the same credit that you do for Reagan (without the exaggerations), but still criticize him for his lack of response on the situation. As I do.
3. They go beyond the distorted rhetoric and tell a real story about the AIDS crisis in America. Unlike your bigoted summary that suggests only irresponsible gay men who suck dick without protection get AIDS.


And I'll give you a penny's worth of credit. You proved that you could copy/paste a link if only to launch a feeble character attack on me, not knowing that I've fully embraced the concept of being hated by the mass majority of blind conservatives and fake-ass "independents" like you on this board who like to shove their ideologies in my face in an attempt to look intelligent. Now, prove that something of substance can come out of your holes.

But before that, get laid first. Damn... all this dick on the board and you're intertwined in a fight with a gay man? That doesn't look sexy to the straights, mama... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

3664shaken

Sexy Member
Joined
May 17, 2007
Posts
601
Media
0
Likes
32
Points
173
Location
Teenie Weenie Hell
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
Little Boy,

You still haven’t figured this out – we aren’t fighting, hell we aren’t even debating.

You would have to ENGAGE my arguments first. YOU REFUSE. However you want me to read ADVERT (moron). It's come painfully obvious that you are googling links as we go, trying to educate your feeble anger enraged mammalian brain.

The FACTS (not your stupid opinion or rage which you misconstrue for facts) are crystal CLEAR.

If you ever want to engage them here they are and I will keep repeating them until you do silly boy.

You CLAIM Reagan didn’t do enough

FACT: Reagan did more than any other world leader at the time
FACT: America was on the cutting edge in research and still is due to the money Reagan authorized
FACT: Surgeon General Koop under Reagan, was the first national leader to claim that moral judgments should be made.
FACT: ah shit I could keep going on but it won’t change your mind

You have ZERO facts to dispute the obvious only anger and stupid rhetoric and you think that counts little boy. God what a stupid male you are.



Since I destroyed your talking points about Reagan you are now changing your tune

BTW... the keyword is "current". I have PLENTY of more cards to play.

Your protestations about this is ALL about Reagan have been swept under the rug now it’s all about current. God little boy you are like a sheet twisting in the wind.


America. Unlike your bigoted summary that suggests only irresponsible gay men who suck dick without protection get AIDS.

Hmmmmmm

FUNNY Thing about the Internet we can all see it was YOU who said it was more important to be able to SUCK DICK without getting AIDS than a innocent woman or man who gets breast cancer.

That was YOUR comment you sick son of bitch at least OWN it. Be proud of your own depravity and your callous attitude towards other humans. YOU SAID IT. Now you are trying to run away from that comment like you are trying to run away from the FACTS.

So far you have tried to recant almost everything you have said, this is getting hilarious. Keep going silly boy, not only is cognitive dissonance a bitch but so is being beholden to a false ideology.


Ideologue:
“The most common variants of Ideologue are conservative and liberal. Smug and self satisfied in their certitudes, Ideologues opinions are merely a loose collection of intellectual conceits, and e is genuinely astonished, bewildered and and indignant that his views are not universally embraced as the Truth. He regards the opposing point of view as a form of cognitive dissonance whose only cure is relentless propagandizing and browbeating.”

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ideologue.htm


Silly little ideologue boy.

XOXOXOXO
 

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
I work with a gentleman who is from Chile and lived there under Allende's rule when inflation hit 300% a year and lands were taken away from the farmers. Many people were killed under him but you never hear of them. When Pinochet assumed power in 1973 most of Chile supported him.

I don't have time right now to respond to the rest of your post, but I LOL'd at this.

Did they support Pinochet before or after he started locking people up in football stadiums and tortured them to death?

Seriously, if you had read anything about Chile under Allende, rather than relying on your coworker, you might realize your mistake.

Also I love the fact that every time I post something about how pro-apartheid or anti-civil rights Reagan was, it mysteriously gets lost in the quotation process.
 

3664shaken

Sexy Member
Joined
May 17, 2007
Posts
601
Media
0
Likes
32
Points
173
Location
Teenie Weenie Hell
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
Also, inflation never hit 300 percent under Allende, that is wrong. It did under Pinochet, though.

So using your logic you must agree that this current high unemployment in America is all Obama's fault because he is the president right now.

Seriously :confused:

A modicum of intellectual honesty is all I ask for, why is it so difficult to give?
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,255
Media
213
Likes
32,255
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]1987[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]41,027 persons are dead and
71,176 persons diagnosed with AIDS in the US.
After years of negligent silence, President Ronald Reagan finally uses the word "AIDS" in public. He sided with his Education Secretary William Bennett and other conservatives who said the Government should not provide sex education information.
[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular] Although AIDS was first reported in the medical and popular press in 1981, it was only in October of 1987 that President Reagan publicly spoke about the epidemic. By the end of that year 59,572 AIDS cases had been reported and 27,909 of those women and men had died. How could this happen, they ask? Didn't he see that this was an ever-expanding epidemic? How could he not say anything? Do anything?
[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Most importantly, AIDS research was chronically under-funded. When doctors at the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health asked for more funding for their work on AIDS, they were routinely denied it. Between June 1981 and May 1982 the CDC spent less than $1 million on AIDS and $9 million on Legionnaire's Disease. At that point more than 1,000 of the 2,000 reported AIDS cases resulted in death; there were fewer than 50 deaths from Legionnaire's Disease. This drastic lack of funding would continue through the Reagan years.
[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]When Rock Hudson, a friend and colleague of the Reagans, was diagnosed with AIDS and died in 1985 (one of the 20,740 cases reported that year), Reagan still did not speak out as president. When family friend William F. Buckley, in a March 18, 1986, New York Times opinion article, called for mandatory testing for HIV and said that HIV-positive gay men should have this information forcibly tattooed on their buttocks (and IV-drug users on their arms) Reagan said nothing. In 1986 (after five years of complete silence), when Surgeon General C. Everett Koop released a report calling for AIDS education in schools, Bennett and Bauer did everything possible to undercut and prevent funding for Koop's too-little-too-late initiative. Reagan, again, said and did nothing. By the end of 1986, 37,061 AIDS cases had been reported; 16,301 people had died.
[/FONT]
 

BF2K

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Posts
221
Media
3
Likes
68
Points
273
Location
SE of Paris - won't say how far.
Verification
View
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Do you eat uncooked chicken? Probably not, as it could kill you. I was in NYC in 1983 and didn't have unprotected sex with other men for the same reason - we all have a choice and there is nothing written ANYWHERE that says all gay men have a RIGHT to have unprotected sex with other men without the consequences. Same holds for heterosexual sex BTW. Sorry to be such a hard ass but people must accept the consequences of their behavior!!!
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
70
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
3664shaken said:
we aren’t fighting, hell we aren’t even debating. You would have to ENGAGE my arguments first.

What makes you think anyone has to approach you first? This isn’t a bar and nobody is here trying to fuck you. You posted your beliefs and I posted mine. If you want ANY credibility on this subject matter, you need to strengthen your argument while finding fault with mine, and you haven’t done that despite your declarations. That’s how a debate works and much to your catty chagrin you’re soaking in it.

It's come painfully obvious that you are googling links as we go, trying to educate your feeble anger enraged mammalian brain.

Not only do you continue to foolishly assume I can’t form a coherent thought because I said I had a right to be angry about the way a politician handled the AIDS crisis in the 80s, you continually act as if I wasn’t alive during that decade and all of this is new to me. I am a thirty-six year old, gay man, little girl. Do the math.

Just like a lawyer putting together a case or a scientist putting together a hypothesis for testing, a person creating an argument provides reference material to prove the statements they’re making are factual. If you didn’t believe a word that I said, I provided additional links to verify. You obviously don’t believe me, so I told you to look it up and I gave you variable sources. You didn’t do that either and resorted to underhanded personal attacks even after I told you not to. You also didn’t heed any of my warnings when you were crossing the line. So now, I’m reading you for the bitch you really are. Congrats on becoming my next victim.

HALF-TRUTH: Reagan did more than any other world leader at the time
HALF-TRUTH: America was on the cutting edge in research and still is due to the money Reagan authorized

FACT: The crisis was already at a pandemic level in 1980, when it was discovered the HIV virus was present in 5 continents infecting 100K-300K people.

FACT: The CDC discovered a rare form of pneumonia in 1981 but did not link it right away to the virus. That same year, the first AIDS case was found in the UK.

FACT: By 1982, the virus now labeled as GRID (or “gay cancer” by ill-informed people), manifested to over 400 cases in America, with Uguanda and Haiti documenting their first. Scientists renamed the virus from GRID (gay-related immune deficiency) to AIDS. The first signs of commercially available preventive info and awareness were provided by voluntary organizations such as the San Francisco AIDS Foundation (SFAF), the Gay Men's health Crisis (GMHC) and The Terrence Higgins Trust in the UK. They did it on their own with no political leader, not even Reagan, saying a word about it or providing any funding.

FACT: In 1983, AIDS cases in America reach over 3000, a third of them now dead. Doctors in France isolated a new virus that is speculated to be the cause of AIDS. Similar AIDS cases emerged in other countries including Germany, Denmark and various parts of Africa. More research was done in Belgium to show the virus was not exclusive to just gay men, IV drug users, heroin addicts or people who received blood transfusions. The first of two global AIDS meetings, including the first European World Health Organization were conducted. It was discovered that AIDS was present in America, Canada, Australia, Japan, fifteen European countries, Haiti and Zaire as well as in seven Latin American countries.

FACT: ALL THIS TRANSPIRED BEFORE OUR GOVERNMENT REACTED WITH ANY KIND OF MANDATORY OR DISCRETIONARY FUNDING ON AIDS RESEARCH. The amount of money offered the first year was trivial at best, as represented by numbers provided by the Kaiser Family Foundation. By that time, much damage was already done and Reagan STILL didn’t mutter a word about it to the public while people were going into a state of fear.

HALF-TRUTH: Surgeon General Koop under Reagan, was the first national leader to claim that moral judgments should be made.

What year did that happened? 1986.
SIX YEARS of silence from our nation’s leader about AIDS as it manifested to a global problem years previous. After more than 31,000 AIDS cases were reported in our country, the highest of them all that year. More than Africa, Haiti, Asia and Europe COMBINED. And to add insult to injury, even Koop referenced our nation’s long silence on the AIDS epidemic. You can read it on his bio.

You have ZERO facts to dispute

That’s because you can’t dispute them.
Beyond cliff-noted political talking points, you don’t know how to rewrite this kind of history to favor your distorted rhetoric.

the obvious only anger and stupid rhetoric and you think that counts little boy. God what a stupid male you are.

My frustration generates from your manic obsession to put words in my mouth, to distort my comments into exaggerated bouts of pseudo-moralistic banter that make no sense, and to dream up phony excuses as to why you think I’m not mentally capable of having an honest debate. I guess that’s what stupid bitches do when they have an argument with no substance? :rolleyes:

Your protestations about this is ALL about Reagan have been swept under the rug now it’s all about current. God little boy you are like a sheet twisting in the wind.

You are officially the dumbest bitch on the forum.
“Current” referred to the arguments I had presented to you over my last few posts up to that point in this thread. I then relisted my backing sources and finished my statement with the line you quoted. If you think that was an attempt to take the focus off of Reagan and bring the argument surrounding AIDS research to 2010, then you have proven that you can’t fuckin’ read. Congrats!

FUNNY Thing about the Internet we can all see it was YOU who said it was more important to be able to SUCK DICK without getting AIDS than a innocent woman or man who gets breast cancer.

Even more proof of your unparalleled illiteracy.
Here is my actual comment: The spending is justified, considering that it's much easier to become infected with HIV than it is to contract cancer. That is, unless you think you're gonna catch Breast Cancer by sucking the dick of someone whose affected

Congrats for failing to see the sarcasm in that statement, moron! Nobody in their right mind would ever think you could contract cancer from sucking a dick, nor was I expressing any preference in doing so. However, anyone could contract the HIV virus from sexual activity, which is exactly what the statement referenced. If you failed to see that connection, be an adult and admit it. Instead, you posted this:

----------
“WOW I can’t believe you just said that – so you admit it. The reason HIV is mostly spread is out of someone’s CHOICE. Yet other people through no FAULT of their own should suffer and die so that you can act irresponsibly. Sorry your reckless choices don’t outweigh innocent peoples bad luck. You are one selfish sick arrogant son of a bitch to think so. Try some personal responsibility once in a while, people like you with this extreme victim mentality make me want to defund AIDS and give the money to researching diseases of innocent victims. You sir and your mind-set are what gives gays a bad name. Anybody who thinks it more important that you get your jollies sucking a unprotected dick vs finding a cure for a 12 year old with leukemia or a 40 year old mother of three that dies of breast cancer is repulsive. You ought to think about your pompous attitude, it really leave a bad taste in one's mouth and makes a horrifically bad statement for the rest of the homosexual community.”
----------

First off, where the hell did that homophobic rage come from, toots? Your last boyfriend decided to bat for the other team? Found him in your bed on the DL, getting topped by that 5’1”, 90lb. boy you talked about earlier?

Not once did I say that contracting HIV was out of someone’s choice. Not once did I suggest that people who contracted any disease out of innocence should suffer. Not once did I suggest that anyone who contracted a disease was irresponsible. YOU DID. And as we can see, you’re the one talking about people getting their jollies sucking an “unprotected dick”. This is your wording, coming out of your dented cranium. And now, you’re trying to spin your bigotry to make it appear as I typed it? Not on my watch, toots… Fuck off.

That was YOUR comment you sick son of bitch at least OWN it. Be proud of your own depravity and your callous attitude towards other humans. YOU SAID IT. Now you are trying to run away from that comment like you are trying to run away from the FACTS.

Last time I checked, that bigoted comment originated next to an avatar picturing a bitch with a blurred out face, designer imposter sunglasses and fake hair. Above that avatar, YOUR USERNAME APPEARS. Just turn to the final post on page five for verification.

So far you have tried to recant almost everything you have said, this is getting hilarious.

FACT - I stated Reagan stayed silent on the issue for a long time before acting on it, throwing money at the problem with no definitive plan. Proven true.

FACT - I stated Reagan should have acted earlier when the warning signs were apparent and every AIDS organization agrees with that assessment. Even the Surgeon General alludes to it in his bio.

FACT - I provided clarity to your distortions, and you simply cannot take it.

FACT - You can’t read for shit, have the comprehension skills of a used condom, and harbor deeply rooted homophobic feelings.

You’re officially the second coming of Trinity. May your ignorance and hatred echo throughout this board in infamy, further dragging you into exile. Now get the fuck out my face, little girl.
 
Last edited:

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
I don't mean to sound rude or condescending but maybe that is the type of people you hang out with. I grew up on the wrong side of the tracks, single mom, very low income and sometimes on state assistance. Lived in many areas where I was the minority and was never once taught to think that way.

As far as it's being a common thing, maybe to racist but to 90% of Americans I don't think so.

No, I'm sorry, you're very wrong here. I'm actually pretty flabbergasted that you haven't heard of the concept, since you claim to be so informed.

Here are two mainstream articles on the subject, I'm sure I can find many more.

Again, the only time I have ever heard is used in a racial context is when Democrats/Liberals say that it is a code-word.

It may have been 50 years ago to a select group of southerners, but I live in the present not the past.

I gave you a very specific example, connecting all the dots for you, which you chose to edit out of your reply, rather than replying directly.

If you think that racism is in the past, I suggest you talk to a black person.

This doesn't even make sense if the majority of social services are handed out to white people what racism is involved? Anti-white racism?

I'm not telling you that it makes sense statistically, but that the racism exists.

Do you deny that racism exists in politics?

Nice try :tongue:

You were the one who brought this up with a blanket statement and didn't specify. It's your argument, give an example where you think you are correct.

No, I asked very specifically for an example. Here, let me quote myself:

[Url=http://www.lpsg.org/165106-regan-isms-4.html#post2542889 said:
Sinwin[/url]]
I can't think of a single case where this is true, so I'm going to need some examples.

While you do that, consider this:

So yeah, go ahead.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

HUH - I gave you a very detailed book to read that uses copious sources all footnoted and the such. Although it goes through technical information it's not very hard to believe.

Is reading a book just problematic for you and btw, you didn't ask for it on-line you asked me to point you in the direction of some data. This is the best source I know of - enjoy.

I could respond to every post you make with a link to a book on Amazon, but it doesn't make for a very compelling argument.

Rather than have others try to make your argument for you, please do the legwork and try to support your argument. It shouldn't be hard, since you said it was a lot of data, are you just unwilling to spend the time to research yourself?

No, don't read much fiction. We have many the unclassified documents available to us and there have been many history BOOKS written about this subject, including many of the high-ranking military members of the soviets stating this very premise. Gorbachev also writes about in his book, sorry no links but I can point you to some really good books.

Again, you fail to source your work other than showing an ability to link to Amazon. You do realize, there's a lot of info available on the net right?

Not at all, that's the left's smear, if you read the history you would know why, I've already alluded to it.

I stated several examples of the US being more agressive to Russia than it ever has been to us.

:rolleyes:
The problem with many ideologues is that they know the truth without ever doing any research, like reading history books, and reading first hand accounts. While you think what I paint is a fantastic scenario because it doesn't fit the talking points and your beliefs it is a highly accurate portrayal of known facts and history.

I will always take facts, data and history over some picture painted to conform to dogmas.
This is terribly ironic, given some of your other arguments, and your repeated resort to ad homs implying that the other person hasn't read or researched at all.


I live in reality not fantasy land, it doesn't matter how you slice it or dice it a Prison cook is still a prison cook, that job does not warrant $ 100,000 a year. You may wish to sit on a mighty perch of judgment but deep down inside you know this is true.

I love how you keep on giving more and more fantastic examples. The job keeps getting less intense, and the pay keeps going up. How about you stick to the actual example given? Air traffic controllers.


I teach part-time do you want to go here.

People who work in the public sector still need to be held accountable and yes guess what, when you pick a certain profession you know ahead of time what the average salaries are going to be. YOU have made that choice so when I sacrifice my time for less pay and teach on the side that is my choice and I do it willingly because I feel I have something to offer.

Does that make me a better person????

I don't know I'll let you decide.

Unfortunately, I feel that people those who offer a valuable service to society should be adequately compensated for their work.

Does that make me a better person????

I'll let you decide.

Many of those jobs were moved offshore before Reagan (gasp it's true) and the groups that suffered the most have usually been strong union jobs. The strength of the union is never at issue if a company is going to pack up and leave.

Really? You're going to make me explain this one to you? That's embarrassing.

Congress, it makes laws. Unions represent workers. Unions can fight laws that make it easy for companies to exploit cheap labor in undeveloped countries.

Germany, of example, has strong unions and a strong export business. I assure you, this is not just a coincidence.

I view this slightly differently it was PATCO that was playing hardball, they declared a strike that was illegal, wanted much higher pay, and a 32 hour work week. They felt they were essential and could not be replaced and as many of the members later stated their demands were outrageous.

Reagan ordered them back to work and to negotiate while working, THEY refused (that was hardball) so Reagan gave them 48 hours and they still refused (some did come back to work) Regan simply followed the law and fired them. Remember they WERE the ones breaking the law.

Nobody believed that the government would actually fire them, otherwise why would they strike? He knew they wouldn't accept his offer to negotiate while back at work. The whole reason a strike happens is negotiations during normal business have broken down. I do not think that their demands were outrageous at all, given the stress of that job. No to mention, a 32 hour work week isn't crazy, it exists in many developed countries...and a 40 hour work weak was considered "crazy" at one time as well, but it exists now because of unions.

Do not doubt, the fact that Reagan would fire even the most essential workers sent a strong message to labor.
 

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
So if you know the details explain to me why Israel is not allowed to act as a sovereign nation, they sold arms to Iran - RIGHT!?

LOL, yes, they were just acting on their own.

True, but that is hindsight. In the early 1980's, according to our best intelligence, we did not think they were any where near the dire circumstances that they were.

What is true is that when Reagan started building up our military and proposed SDI the soviets respond in kind. This hastened their impending collapse.

Liberals refuse to acknowledge this point while conservatives refuse to acknowledge that the USSR, unless it changed how it was doing business was heading for a collapse. That is one of the reasons the military was pushing for a winnable (in their eyes) nuclear exchange.

Again, you're not supported by history here. Russian spending as a % of GDP peaked before Reagan even came into office. Star Wars had little to no effect on this, but Gorbachev's reforms had a huge affect of throwing into the spotlight how bankrupt and disorganized the whole system was.

I work with a gentleman who is from Chile and lived there under Allende's rule when inflation hit 300% a year and lands were taken away from the farmers. Many people were killed under him but you never hear of them. When Pinochet assumed power in 1973 most of Chile supported him.

This is one of those cases I asked you about earlier you choice here is to support Pinochet or the FPMR, a much more brutal organization that was trying to seize control

You have the choice of BAD and really fucking BAD, what do you choose?

It's very easy to say I wouldn't have supported Pinochet but by doing that you are giving de facto support to the FPMR.

Of all the regimes I thought you'd try to defend, I couldn't believe you went with fucking Pinochet.

Allende was a well-loved, democratically elected developmentalist that gave Chile some of the best times it had since it became a nation. Under him, there was widespread employment, with only 3% unemployment. He was hated by former colonial governments and big business because of his socialist/developmentalist policies. He did have inflation issues, but they paled in comparison to Pinochet, and on the whole, people did OK.

Pinochet, with the backing of big business interests, including those in the US, and the CIA, took over the government with the full military behind him. There was no armed resistance, other than less than 50 people in the presidential palace, whom had chosen to stick with Allende after he asked all other to leave for their own safety. Despite that slight resistance, Pinochet bombed the shit out of the palace with jets, and rolled tanks through Santiago. This is known as the the first 9/11 in Chile, as it occurred on September 11, 1973.

A senate report in June 1973 found that several American multinationals, headed by ITT, had worked with members of the government to sabotage Chile's economy, weakening it prior to the coup.

In the days after the coup, the CIA estimates that about 13,500 people were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured, and many killed. Chile Stadium and National Stadium were turned into prison camps, with the locker rooms and skyboxes turned into torture chambers. He also sent one of his generals, Sergio Stark, to roam the countryside in helicopter, executing subversives at at will. It was known as the Caravan of Death.

The final result of Pinochet's coup was 3200 people dead or "disappeared", at least 80,000 in prison, and 200,000 people fleeing the country.

The only way you could possibly think Pinochet was better than Allende, was if you knew absolutely nothing about him.
 

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
So using your logic you must agree that this current high unemployment in America is all Obama's fault because he is the president right now.

Seriously :confused:

A modicum of intellectual honesty is all I ask for, why is it so difficult to give?

It's pretty funny that you keep using the "confused" emote, but quite appropriate.

You could make the argument that Obama isn't at fault for the current high unemployment in the US, because he hasn't really broken with any of the previous administrations policies. For all intents and purposes, he is the third term of the Bush administration. I'd say that it should at least be turning around, and it hasn't for that exact reason, so I do hold him partially responsible.

Unfortunately, you can't make this argument about Pinochet's regime in Chile, since the main thrust of his coup was to recreate the nation as an extremely privatized free-market paradise. How laissez faire was he? Milton Friedman visited him personally, though the old codger didn't feel he had gone quite far enough.

Pinochet's regime had a handbook of new economic policies prepared for them when they took power, by the CIA and University of Chicago graduates. It was called "The Brick" due to it's size. Immediately upon seizing power, he removed price controls, government aid to schools and poor people, and privatized much of the government, often selling assets for a fraction of their worth. Quickly, inflation shot up to 375%, twice as high as it ever got under Allende, and unemployment went from 3% under the previous regime, to 20% under Pinochet, all within 18mos. By the 80's, half of the nation was under the poverty line, and the only thing keeping the government afloat was the copper mine that Allende had nationalized, which generated something like 3/4 of it's total revenue.
 

socaldude28

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Posts
47
Media
23
Likes
4,585
Points
328
Location
southern california
Verification
View
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
hmmm well Reagan remains one of our most popular presidents - apparently a lot of people think he did something right. . . i'm hearing a lot of sour grapes on here but it's cool - I'll just try my best to mimic Reagan by shrugging the bitching off with a smile! It always drove his critics nuts and brought on the irrational rants!! :)

"Don't worry about the deficit. . . it's big enough to take care of itself!"
"How was my meeting with Tutu?. . . . so-so"

hope this link works for anyone interested in Reagan and Cold War history (it's from CNN/BBC - not exactly the RNC - actually every episode is pretty awesome). . .

Ep. 22 of Cold War: Star Wars (1981-1988)

his foreign policy was a lot more nuanced then his critics care to acknowledge. he helped get the Soviet Union in deep financial trouble by doubling our defense budget, SDI, making deals with Saudi Arabia to get the price of oil down (USSR's main source of money) . . . applying every possible type of pressure on Soviet interests everywhere, all at the same time. Gorby blinked
 

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
hmmm well Reagan remains one of our most popular presidents - apparently a lot of people think he did something right. . . i'm hearing a lot of sour grapes on here but it's cool - I'll just try my best to mimic Reagan by shrugging the bitching off with a smile! It always drove his critics nuts and brought on the irrational rants!! :)

"Don't worry about the deficit. . . it's big enough to take care of itself!"
"How was my meeting with Tutu?. . . . so-so"

He was an actor, of course he was congenial. Glad to see you're more concerned about style than substance.

hope this link works for anyone interested in Reagan and Cold War history (it's from CNN/BBC - not exactly the RNC - actually every episode is pretty awesome). . .

Ep. 22 of Cold War: Star Wars (1981-1988)

his foreign policy was a lot more nuanced then his critics care to acknowledge. he helped get the Soviet Union in deep financial trouble by doubling our defense budget, SDI, making deals with Saudi Arabia to get the price of oil down (USSR's main source of money) . . . applying every possible type of pressure on Soviet interests everywhere, all at the same time. Gorby blinked

Gorby blinked? That's what you got?

I assume you're going to thank Reagan for Perestroika and Glasnost?

Yes, the soviet union was not at all financially unstable before the gipper got in there....
 

socaldude28

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Posts
47
Media
23
Likes
4,585
Points
328
Location
southern california
Verification
View
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
He was an actor, of course he was congenial. Glad to see you're more concerned about style than substance.



Gorby blinked? That's what you got?

I assume you're going to thank Reagan for Perestroika and Glasnost?

Yes, the soviet union was not at all financially unstable before the gipper got in there....

Style matters sinwin. . . . it's what got all the substance through a democratic-controlled house while we watch Obama's agenda implode as we speak despite huge majorities.

Reagan responded to being shot by saying "Honey, I forgot to duck" and telling the doctors trying to save his life "I hope you're republicans". . . those two lines probably got him the extra public support he needed to pressure enough democrats to pass his huge tax cut plan in '81.

Actually I'll do you one better simwin. . . Gorby wouldn't have been selected by the Politburu in the first place in 1985 if not for the soviets desperately needing to respond to vigorous new american leadership (aka Reagan). . . Gorby was a hail mary pass, a desperate attempt to show dynamism and youth and regain the initiative on the world stage that Reagan took back. Perestroika and Glasnost were a clear response to a renewed dynamism and leadership in America that was apparent to the 49 states that reelected him in 1984. It was also apparent to the leaders in Eastern Europe (Poland, Czechoslavakia. . . etc) who give Reagan enormous credit for the crumbling of the Soviet Unions eastern empire in 1989, two years before the USSR itself disintegrated onto the "ash heap of history". Reagan's role in helping bring down the Soviet Union was also apparent to Soviet generals and Gorby himself (if u watch that documentary I linked to)

speaking of "renewed dynamism" brought on by Reagan. . . . where o where have i heard that before. . . oh that's right. . . President Obama!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFLuOBsNMZA

You're refusal to concede any ground on substance makes your arguments less than persuasive. Face it, the guy is popular, and if your bottom line is that his popularity is a result of mass delusion rather than successful policies (foreign and domestic) then more power to ya. He did have the benefit of a good setup-man tho. . . it wasn't hard to show improvement over Jimmy Carter.
 

midlifebear

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Posts
5,789
Media
0
Likes
179
Points
133
Location
Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
hehe.

put the bottle down, sinwin.

Star, you poor thing. Once again you're misquoting and getting it wrong.

Reagan frequently reamarked: "He, he, he . . . there you go again."

Notice there are three "he's"? And this was his main defense when confronted with facts he could not remember or cared not to debate. Sort of like you. Maybe more naps would help? :smile::smile::smile: