St. Ronnie's Boondoggle Lives!

[jgmacg]

Rather than pin the blame on preceding presidents, the junior communicator wants to blame this on the one US president to graduate the Naval Academy. The state of our armed forces in the late 70s was an inheritance from Mr. Nixon (and before that, Mr. Johnson) and our corrosive policies in Vietnam.

So was that crappy economy.

Google "Whip Inflation Now" for more.

The world as you see it didn't begin the day we inaugurated Carter.

By your logic the economy should have not improved under Reagan nor should the conditions in the military have improved because that's the way they had been for years.

The world didn't begin the day Carter took office but it got a hell of a lot better the day he left it.

I notice that not even on this ultra-liberal board does anyone want to praise Carter for his handling of the economy.

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

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

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

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

We'll be paying for that senile old idiot's bull**** for the next 50 years. Next 100, in some ways. ****ing doddering moron.

Well, in your opinion. Two landslides in 1980 and 1984 would seem to indicate the vast majority of voters in this country disagreed with you.
Sorry if they inconveninced [sic] you.

The national debt skyrocketed under his watch, and we will be paying the bills for decades to come. That is not a matter of opinion, despite the fact that you feel his winning two elections makes it so.

So, yes, those voters did inconvenience the country.

I'm always amazed how people who bash Reagan for the deficit always like to pretend that Jimmy Carter didn't exist. The alternative to Reagan in 1980 was history's greatest monster and spiraling stagflation - Jimmy Carter would have turned us into Canada with better weather.

Reagan righted the ship on the economy and kicked off the boom years we've been having for the past 28 years.

Dubya insured the end of that.

 

[Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L)]

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.

 

[D-Backs Hack]

I think the point is that it's safer to be a soldier under Bush 43 than it was under Jimmy Carter. But I could be wrong...

And to draw that conclusion, you would have to be a ****ing 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

Meeting last month at a sweltering U.S. base outside Doha, Qatar, with his top Iraq commanders, President Bush skipped quickly past the niceties and went straight to his chief political obsession: Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Turning to his Baghdad proconsul, Paul Bremer, Bush asked, "Are you in charge of finding WMD?" Bremer said no, he was not. Bush then put the same question to his military commander, General Tommy Franks. But Franks said it wasn't his job either. A little exasperated, Bush asked, So who is in charge of finding WMD? After aides conferred for a moment, someone volunteered the name of Stephen Cambone, a little-known deputy to Donald Rumsfeld, back in Washington. Pause. "Who?" Bush asked.

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

 

[jboy]

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

 

[cranberry]

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!

 

[Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L)]

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.

 

[D-Backs Hack]

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.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

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

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,

 

[jgmacg]

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

 

[hondo]

We'll be paying for that senile old idiot's bull**** for the next 50 years. Next 100, in some ways. ****ing doddering moron.

Well, in your opinion. Two landslides in 1980 and 1984 would seem to indicate the vast majority of voters in this country disagreed with you.
Sorry if they inconveninced you.

Who gives a ****? They were wrong and I was right. It's actually not uncommon.

I've voted in, hmmmm, eight presidential elections in my life. I've voted for the winner twice.

People say, "don't you feel silly being wrong that many times?" and I just say, "No, I've never been wrong yet."

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.