St. Ronnie's Boondoggle Lives!

I see no source cited for your earlier figures. Mr. Reagan would be proud.

And here's a further word from President Carter:

http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/i_got_what_america_needs_right

 

And here's an assessment of Ronnie's stewardship, not from an old literary Greek, but from his first budget director.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/279.html

 

Dubya insured the end of that.

 

Fenian - you saying that Carter was better for the economy than Reagan says it all about your viewpoint versus mine and I doubt any amount of argument on either side will change that.

If I recall correctly Thuycidides had trouble hitting a curveball and was no Agganis on the basepaths.

 

And to draw that conclusion, you would have to be a fucking idiot.

http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/Death_Rates.pdf

American military hostile/terrorist attack deaths in 1980: One

People, including non-combat soldiers, are living longer. Technology has improved, so accidents are less frequent. Homicides among military personnel are down substantially.

Sentient humans should not need to have this explained to them.

When one finds a history book that says Carter sent Americans into two countries without ample armor and no semblance of a plan to keep the peace -- and in one of those countries years after he claimed that "major combat operations" had ended there -- let me know.

And, just for kicks, an oldie but goodie:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030707-461781,00.html

Yeah, if I were a soldier under these guys, I'd feel safe.

 

Why can't they both have been bad for the economy?

 

It all began so innocently. Recall that glorious day in Philadelphia, Miss., when Saint Ron staked his position for "states rights" and boldly set about on the path toward becoming president. He was a man of simple ideas and a re-write team that could breathe fire into those old Goldwater speeches. Jelly beans were all he needed, but there was government cheese to go around for the unemployed. The good old days!

 

Joe are you really trying to argue that Carter had more military deaths because people weren't living as long back then? Really?

Thanks for giving me the heads up about the futility of having a rational discussion with you.

Buh bye.

 

First of all, I won't take lectures in rationality from someone who calls Jimmy Carter "history's greatest monster."

Pointing to total active military deaths, regardless of cause, is a rock-solid argument -- if you reason like a 6-year-old child. I, and most others, don't, so yes, any attempt at discussion is probably going to be a frustrating experience for you.

Did you even read the link? If you did, you'd find that active military deaths in 1988 numbered 1,819. In 2000, they were 758.

So, using your logic, you must conclude that Clinton was better for the military than Reagan. Thanks for seeing the light on that.

Again, when you find something on the two wars that Carter lost, let us know.

 

The economy was bad under both of them.
'Twas my original point.
Carter took a slumping economy and failed to arrest the slide.
Reagan took a slumping economy, ran up the national credit card, and ran it into a ditch.
Actually, my original point was the Ronnie's missile-defense space dream was a waste of money at the time and looks even worse in retrospect, but that was a long time ago,

 

$1 trillion of your tax dollars - still at work!

 

Well, you said it. If you think you're never wrong, you can dismiss everyone as idiots.
And if you're never wrong, maybe you should run for office and save us from ourselves.