PDA

View Full Version : The Mind of an American Liberal Demo(n)crat


Sense-A
11-20-2010, 09:59 AM
This pretty much sums it up:

http://www.newdonkey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/American-Liberal-Mind.jpg

Dokuro
11-20-2010, 02:50 PM
you say demon like its a bad thing i hope you burn in hell while chocking on a Donkey-dick


however thats about right for democrats
but republicans ain't much better

Dokuro
11-20-2010, 02:58 PM
it's mostly full of
bullshit. addspace and Christan values

Visionz
11-20-2010, 06:13 PM
champion of the modern republican movement
http://trueslant.com/matthewfleischer/files/2009/12/ronald-reagan.jpg
Our occupation is stop the inauguration of satan some claim that it was............


peanut-brained assholes that see the world as black and white are only kidding themselves. Both sides of the isle will fuck you but they'll use different dildos to do it.

Dokuro
11-20-2010, 06:52 PM
champion of the modern republican movement
http://trueslant.com/matthewfleischer/files/2009/12/ronald-reagan.jpg
Our occupation is stop the inauguration of satan some claim that it was............


peanut-brained assholes that see the world as black and white are only kidding themselves. Both sides of the isle will fuck you but they'll use different dildos to do it.

the funniest part about it is Satan is and angel of god

Satan does not equal lady Lucifer

Christians are so passionate about god but don't even know there own book

TheBoarzHeadBoy
11-20-2010, 10:40 PM
I'll be honest. I don't like liberals who have their heads up their asses. I think they're arrogant and often a bit prickly.

But I hate religious conservatives who have their heads up their asses. I like to think I'm a pretty moral if irresponsible guy. I've read through the bible and I get it. I actually like a lot of it. Most of the bible seems pretty reasonable the way I've interpreted it. I've done my thinking and I think its a reasonable guidebook to life. I'm not going to say its perfect. But its good.

What I hate is religious people. Gnostics (People who "Know") particularly. Like Born again and such. I hate people who think they know things. When they talk about Jesus I laugh. I know they may have read the bible, but I know they don't get it. At least not how I get it. As we disagree on what the same book means I think it takes away from their little universe they've built.

I'm not a gnostic atheist. I don't know there isn't a God. I don't even care to be honest. I'm a agnostic atheist. I don't think there's a God/Gods because it seems the less likely of the scenarios. Universe without God? Its crazy but I can take it. Universe with God? Pushing my suspension of disbelief. Then on top of that the level of arrogance, nay, The Hubris to tell me I'm not a real Christian because I think he was just a regular dude with some powerful words to say which I try to follow because they make sense. It boggles my mind. Its like none of these people get it at all. Christianity, religion in general, severely disturbs me. Whoever thought it would be smart to not have the bible in Latin so that the common man could read it was an idiot. There is something scary about allowing idiots to read something profoundly insightful because in their cretinism they manage to completely miss the point and turn it into something it clearly wasn't supposed to be.

What would Jesus do? He'd weep like a little girl at what he's become.

All he wanted was to introduce a societal and cultural reform. He was a guy who said "enough is enough this isn't right" and actually tried to fix things. He gets killed off, validating his point that things aren't working.

Then boom he's God or something and people are killing each other over him. For Christ's sake, stop worshiping him and start following him.

Nick Fury
11-21-2010, 12:53 AM
I remember this guy qouting Sun Tzu and saying its ok to kill indigenous South Americans and rape thier lands of thier resources

what a demon this sense-a

Sense-A
11-21-2010, 06:48 AM
I don't understand Liberals' PURE HATRED of Ronald Reagan. I can probably debunk most of your misconceptions about him. Let's see I can compare him to a Liberal president from the same era such as Jimmy Carter. Do you really want to get into that kind of a debate with me? I'll let you submit the first argument why Reagan was such a satanic and terrible president. Go ahead I dare you.

The old "I hate Christians because they are hypocrites" rant. Good one. I guess I should just confess to be an atheist sinner who believes in nothing and has no virtues to begin with. That way you can't call me a hypocrite because I never strived for perfection in the first place. The usual cop out.

What part of my original post are you so defensive about? Because I snuck an "n" in Democrat? I was being facetious. If you are a Liberal Demoncrat you still are what you are, and should at least feel ashamed. But the "smarter than thou" tumor takes over and of course your "sense of humor" cell is undersized. You've only given me more evidence that this diagram is correct. I think that the "Socialist mind of a Liberal Democrat" diagram hits a little too close to home for most of the types on this forum. Becoming so over-defensive is what gives you away.

Uncle Steezo
11-21-2010, 09:07 AM
smh....this guy caught up in the hype.
in case you NEVER figure it out on your own....
lib/con dem/rep its all the same shit. butter up or butter down toast.
in the meantime you starve.

basically shut the fuck up cause you sound really dumb right now.

Sense-A
11-21-2010, 02:30 PM
The guy that says "its all the same shit" calls me dumb. Why don't you drop the swag for 5 fucking seconds and say something that makes sense for once.

Sense-A
11-21-2010, 02:32 PM
Uneducated people always seem to be the angriest people.

Dokuro
11-21-2010, 04:47 PM
I don't understand Liberals' PURE HATRED of Ronald Reagan. I can probably debunk most of your misconceptions about him. Let's see I can compare him to a Liberal president from the same era such as Jimmy Carter. Do you really want to get into that kind of a debate with me? I'll let you submit the first argument why Reagan was such a satanic and terrible president. Go ahead I dare you.

The old "I hate Christians because they are hypocrites" rant. Good one. I guess I should just confess to be an atheist sinner who believes in nothing and has no virtues to begin with. That way you can't call me a hypocrite because I never strived for perfection in the first place. The usual cop out.

What part of my original post are you so defensive about? Because I snuck an "n" in Democrat? I was being facetious. If you are a Liberal Demoncrat you still are what you are, and should at least feel ashamed. But the "smarter than thou" tumor takes over and of course your "sense of humor" cell is undersized. You've only given me more evidence that this diagram is correct. I think that the "Socialist mind of a Liberal Democrat" diagram hits a little too close to home for most of the types on this forum. Becoming so over-defensive is what gives you away.

i hate Christians because there genocidal ways

i'm from California thats why i hate Reagan

but i also hate jimmy carter

truly your augment is to easy to state the negatives of both
however being a good Gaian
instead i say what i like about them

jimmy carter= he built his own house
hardly justify how much debt were in because of that hamburger

Reagan = hes a good friend to Lucifer,
regardless of him using Christians to get elected he didn't do shit for them the only thing he did was give them the right to pray in school not bad because its volunteer


no if you really want me to say what i hate ill cover a whole page

Visionz
11-21-2010, 06:12 PM
Do you really want to get into that kind of a debate with me? I'll let you submit the first argument why Reagan was such a satanic and terrible president. Go ahead I dare you.
Actually no I don't, and its not that there's not an argument to be made that Reagan's policies were horrible for this country unless of course you like massive deficit spending, crack imported straight in ghettos and manufacturing jobs outsourced left and right. It's just that you're a pretentious prick who chose being a bean counter for a career. Who gives a fuck what you think or what you type? It won't change the fact that corporate dollars run America and that they feed the troughs on both sides.

Sense-A
11-21-2010, 08:42 PM
If you don't like corporate America then don't work for it or buy anything from it. You're probably wearing corporate clothes in a corporate manufactured house with corporate electricity and corporate water supply and corporate food in your kitchen with appliances made from a corporation with a corporate job to work for and a stereo manufactured by a corporation on a corporation's computer hooked up to a corporation's network. You're welcome to leave this labyrinth of corporate economy if you want to. But is your life so oppressive and depressing to blame everything on corporations? What is the great alternative? We all want to know. Try buying stock in these evil corporations that you claim are making so much money off us hard toiling workers. And your on wu CORP. If you hate corporations so much why did you name this site CORP? I rest my case.

Dokuro
11-21-2010, 08:55 PM
If you don't like corporate America then don't work for it or buy anything from it. You're probably wearing corporate clothes in a corporate manufactured house with corporate electricity and corporate water supply and corporate food in your kitchen with appliances made from a corporation with a corporate job to work for and a stereo manufactured by a corporation on a corporation's computer hooked up to a corporation's network. You're welcome to leave this labyrinth of corporate economy if you want to. But is your life so oppressive and depressing to blame everything on corporations? What is the great alternative? We all want to know. Try buying stock in these evil corporations that you claim are making so much money off us hard toiling workers. And your on wu CORP. If you hate corporations so much why did you name this site CORP? I rest my case.

i actually agree with this Christan slave
then again i a'm corporate america

still using the word demon to mean something negative is highly not PC

its also vary inaccurate we were your guardians once so come on quit being a duche


Demon its a good thing
http://www.onmarkproductions.com/assets/images/autogen/a_shitenno-montage-horyuji-nara-W400-comprehensive-dictionary.jpg

http://c2.api.ning.com/files/apWA7Hchybb9WV9weN7wAY4HOGkHZuTZIxOGtfPNNqGC2Od4WN RANMDN95SByBgjjAvRODzOTQolMYncfGeFvhtgMZFLxd-6/CernunnosHerne.jpg

http://www.kongsberg.com/en/KDS/Products/ArmyCommandandControlInformationSystems/~/media/KDS/Images/Products/Army%20Command%20and%20Control%20Information%20Sys tems/Odin.ashx?w=300&h=351&as=1

and of course the mightiest of Kishin
http://www.windingdown.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/asuras-wrath-screenshot-2-1024x576.jpg
http://hyboria.xoth.net/img/asura.jpg

theheavens
11-21-2010, 09:30 PM
thread starter: listen to Bill Hicks, faggot

Dokuro
11-21-2010, 09:58 PM
i have to say this

yokai have no original form the spiritual entities so characteristic are hard to describe
Adept (Yokai) a demon with two hearts also known as elementals the have the ability to control and manifest individual elemental property
one of the 8
light/heaven
dark/lake
fire
water
earth
wind
cold/mountain
thunder


so all you Christians that is claiming the title adept should get your heads checked

Sense-A
11-21-2010, 10:10 PM
I thought about what you said. Maybe you're right. Corporations could be running both the GOP and Democratic party. I guess I should look where the money is coming from and what proportion of the tax money directly benefits corporations. But even if public policy was in the favor of corporations, which it shouldn't be, corporations are democratically owned. Any man can buy stock in public corporations for fairly cheap and it is easily accessible. Yeah the board of directors take their cake in millions, but those are hot seats they sit in. as a shareholder I want my company to make profits and have some say in politics. But a limited say.

There was a recent case on whether or not corporate funding of campaigns should be legal. I think it went to the Supreme Court. Check this out:


Today’s Supreme Court ruling (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?hp) is a way bigger deal than the outcome of the Massachusetts election.Sweeping aside a century-old understanding and overruling two important precedents, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.

Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, an author of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, called the ruling “a terrible mistake.”
“Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the Court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns,” said Mr. Feingold, a Democrat.
Giving corporations the right to fund election campaigns is an absurdity. This kind of ruling is what I feared most following Bush’s Supreme Court appointments.

Corporations have been around far longer than our country, and our founding fathers were very wary of extending privileges to economic entities. They were way more concerned with living, breathing human beings. The Bill of Rights was written for the benefit of people, not companies – and there lies the ultimate irony of this ruling.

The driving force behind getting this case to the Supreme Court came from The Right, and they are the faction that, when it comes to appointing Supreme Court Justices, scream for “strict constructionists.” Nowhere in the Constitution are there any rights granted to corporations. Why? Because corporations can amass huge quantities of money and they can live forever. Our founders did not approve of giving such entities a voice in electing representatives of the people, because they knew that corporate contributors would fund campaigns of candidates that, once elected, would satisfy the wants and needs of business, not people.

Goldman Sachs is huge and they reported $13.4 billion in profits today (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/business/22goldman.html?hp). They should not be allowed to fund the campaigns of congressmen because their interests and the interests of your average American are vastly different. As a result of today’s ruling, one huge corporation like Goldman Sachs will be able to blast the grassroots campaigns of reform candidates clean out of the water.

http://www.harikari.com/politics/supreme-court-allows-corporate-funding-of-political-campaigns.html Not a bad argument for your side. But this is biased and the article does not focus on the facts of the case. I think that corporate funding on campaigns is overrated. A quick briefing on how it works and some POLS101 stuff:


Campaign finance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance) in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) is the financing of electoral campaigns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_States) at the federal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States), state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_government), and local levels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government_in_the_United_States).
At the federal level, the primary source of campaign funds is individuals; political action committees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee) are a distant second. Contributions from both are limited, and direct contributions from corporations and labor unions are prohibited. On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) overturned a 20-year-old ruling that had previously prohibited corporations and unions from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States#cite_note-0)
The Federal Election Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Commission) (FEC) is an independent federal agency created in 1975 by amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Campaign_Act) (FECA) to enforce FECA.
Public financing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_financing) is available for qualifying candidates for President during both the primaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_election) and the general election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_election). Eligibility requirements must be fulfilled to qualify for a government subsidy and those that do accept government funding are usually subject to spending limits (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spending_limit&action=edit&redlink=1). The system is designed so that the Democratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29) or Republican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29) candidates for President of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) routinely qualify for funds, while excluding most other party candidates.
Races for non-federal offices are governed by state and local law. Over half the states allow some level of corporate and union contributions. Some states have limits on contributions from individuals that are lower than the national limits, while six states (Illinois, Missouri, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Virginia) have no limits at all.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States#cite_note-1)
\
So at least we have some regulation. Surprisingly FECA wasn't passed until 1971. But campaign financing has been a concern for over a 100 years and we haven't just ignored it.


The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA, Pub.L. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_law_%28United_States%29) 92-225, 86 Stat. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large) 3, enacted February 7, 1972, 2 U.S.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_2_of_the_United_States_Code) § 431 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2/431.html) et seq.) is a United States federal law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_law) which increased disclosure of contributions for federal campaigns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States). It was amended in 1974 to place legal limits on the campaign contributions. The amendment also created the Federal Election Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Commission) (FEC).
It was amended again in 1976, in response to the provisions ruled unconstitutional by Buckley v. Valeo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo) and again in 1979 to allow parties to spend unlimited amounts of hard money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States) on activities like increasing voter turnout and registration. In 1979, the Commission ruled that political parties could spend unregulated or "soft" money for non-federal administrative and party building activities. Later, this money was used for candidate related issue ads, which led to a substantial increase in soft money contributions and expenditures in elections. This in turn created ures leading to passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act) ("BCRA"), banning soft money expenditure by parties. Some of the legal limits on giving of "hard money" were also changed in by BCRA.
FECA also requires campaigns and political committees to report the names, addresses, and occupations of donors of $200 or more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Campaign_ActBack in 1907 Theo Roosevelt was arguing about campaign financing They passed the Tillman Act of 1907

This was a good read: http://www.brookings.edu/gs/cf/sourcebk/chap2.pdf

^ from this i get that Buckley Vs Valeo prohibited collusion amongst big donors and candidates. But it also leaves me wondering what happens to excess campaign funds. Doesn't seem like those were addressed until 1995.

The FEC website itself explains "soft money" vs "hard money" campaign funding. http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/bcra_overview.shtml

Admittingly there is a lot I have to learn about campaign financing.

One last thing. In my state, a nobody ran for Senator and got 27% of the vote by only spending about $11,000 of his own money. Al Green ran for senator in SC and won a large proportion of the popular vote. So if corporate America owns the Democratic party, how does an average schmoe like Green get so close to becoming one of only 100 United States Senators?


But then, the television cameras started rolling on Alvin Greene’s overgrown lawn.
“Yeah, it’s been pretty nonstop for a few days,” said Mr. Greene, 32, in a phone interview Friday.
Because everyone wants to know how Mr. Greene, an unemployed Army veteran who had been completely unknown until Tuesday, inexplicably defeated a heavily favored former legislator and judge to become the state’s Democratic nominee for the Senate — and the state’s latest political circus act.
Mr. Greene had just a few peaceful hours to savor his victory in the tiny, ramshackle home he shares with his elderly father along a quiet highway in Manning, where he has been bunkered since election night. Then, The Associated Press reported that Mr. Greene was arrested in November and is facing a felony obscenity charge; he is accused of showing pornography to a University of South Carolina (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_south_carolina/index.html?inline=nyt-org) student. He had been discharged “involuntarily” from the Army and showed no signs of having waged an actual campaign in recent months — no advertising, no staff, no money.
Mr. Greene, who declined to comment on the obscenity charge, would not say how he came up with the $10,440 to register his candidacy. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/us/politics/12greene.htmlSo here you have a guy who served a couple years in the army, came home lives with his dad, has NO JOB, and is facing FELONY charges yet he comes up with $11k and nearly becomes Senator. Well....he only got 28% of the vote but the guy ran absolutely no campaign and couldn't even hold down a debate or speak about issues. He snagged 59% in the primaries though!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/AlvinGreene1.jpg/200px-AlvinGreene1.jpg

This guy is an example of an average joe being able to get the opportunity and a good shot at a position of power in this county. But I've always thought that you had to be a little crazy to want to run for public office anyways.

Apparently there are still requirements that disable third and fourth parties from getting the same access to all the public finance as Republicans/Democrats but I'm not sure on the specifics of that bias. Probably a vital issue.

Overall I think that corporations are a good thing and that our elections are still fair despite occasional scandals and conmen that would exist in any form of society in any system. There are enough regulations and transparency to keep it in check. the Press is supposed to be our watchdog and I still think there are enough whistleblowers and journalists to ruin a few political careers if scandals and collusion with corporate monies is taking place.

The people volunteering at my local polling station this last November 2nd didn't seem suspicious to me. I think the machine i voted on was a votronic or some similar model name. Guy said they printed from all the machines at night for a paper trail and reported all the votes that night to some central entity. I actually voted for a couple Democrats, believe it or not. I voted for a Libertarian for commissioner of the schoolboard and for a democrat for attorney general and for a democrat for commissioner of agriculture. I didn't just vote party line although the machine did have an option to vote that way, which i disagree with.

So once we get back to whether or not the Republican or Democratic party have any relevancy, which I believe they do, we can do something like talk about what a decent president Ronald Reagan was despite all the undue criticism.

First of all Reagonomics did not seriously decrease federal tax revenue at all.

William A. Niskanen, one of the architects of Reaganomics, summarizes the policy as "Reagan delivered on each of his four major policy objectives, although not to the extent that he and his supporters had hoped", and notes that the most substantial change was in the tax code, where the top marginal individual income tax rate fell from 70% to 28%, and there was a "major reversal in the tax treatment of business income", with effect of "reducing the tax bias among types of investment but increasing the average effective tax rate on new investment."[2][3] The effect was primarily a change in the composition of tax revenue, towards payroll and new investment, and away from higher earners and capital gains on existing investments, with comparatively small effect on overall tax revenue: the changes "reduced the federal revenue share of GDP from 20.2 percent in fiscal 1981 to 19.2 percent in fiscal 1989," a 1% reduction.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

oooh a reduction of 1% That is nothing compared to the destruction Jimmy Carter accomplished in his mere 4 years as president.

And the budget is set by Congress, not the president. Who was in congress for most of Reagan's time as presidency? Oh shoot, the Democrats!

The Demoncrats were running congress for most of Reagan's presidency. Demoncrats owned the house from 1981-1994!!!! And the most senators the Republicans ever had in the Senate during Reagan's presidency was 54. That's not even enough to push a bill through the senate. During Reagan's presidency the national deficit went from 997.85billion to 2602.34billion. that is an increase of 1.6 trillion over 8 years. However, last year alone Obama and the Demoncrat controlled congress added 1.785 trillion to the deficit in ONE FUCKING YEAR! Now of course I did not adjust for inflation so it isn't really a fair comparison. But I'm just saying, your claim that Reagan is responsible for the deficit and national debt balloon during his presidency is exaggerated and probably misguided blame. Liberal bias at work. However, I'll be fair and hear out any rebuttal or proof that you want to back yourself up with.

I got my numbers from http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

I don't know anything about Reagan trafficking drugs. You have a source for that accusation?

And what is this about him being in a satanist cult? Seriously how do you guys make this stuff up?

You can listen to ronald reagan speeches here: http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/ronald-reagan-on-the-air/id302006869

I recommend his first state of the union address. Reagan goes straight into the numbers, the national debt, inflation, etc. No bullshit rhetoric and dodging strict stances on issues like they do today.

Dokuro
11-21-2010, 10:15 PM
i hope that one day i can make enough money to sawed congress to my causes

i can dream can I


so i hope to Mod that they don't change things now

Sense-A
11-21-2010, 10:23 PM
still using the word demon to mean something negative is highly not PC

its also vary inaccurate we were your guardians once so come on quit being a duche


Demon its a good thing


Okay forget I snuck an N in Democrat. I guess even demons don't want to be associated with Liberals. lol. And who cares what is politically correct or not? Who decides what is politically correct and what is not? Who gets to be the ultimate judge of that? Hollywood? NBC? You?

Dokuro
11-21-2010, 10:49 PM
me i get the final word well and the FCC and cultural standers of norms

thank you thats all i wanted i'm not a democrap

Visionz
11-22-2010, 12:27 AM
Congress took issue not so much with the aims of the Reagan administration's foreign policy but with its methods. Concerned over charges of U.S. intervention into Nicaraguan internal affairs and stories of atrocities committed by the contras, in 1982 Congress passed the Boland Amendment, sponsored by Representative Edward P. Boland of Massachusetts, limiting Central Intelligence Agency aid to the contras to $24 million and stipulating that none of the funds be used to overthrow the Sandinistas. Reagan, who shared Nixon and Kissinger's views on executive control of foreign policy, directed his subordinates to circumvent the law. The Pentagon began donating "surplus" equipment to the contras while CIA agents trained the rebels in assassination techniques and coordinated attacks on transportation and port facilities. In 1984, an angry Congress passed an updated version of the Boland Amendment that barred the CIA or any other agency involved in intelligence activities from aiding the contras. Meanwhile, a bloody life-and-death struggle between Iran and Iraq had erupted in 1980. Iraq, ruled by the secular military strongman Saddam Hussein, and Iran, controlled by a group of extreme Islamic clerics headed by the Ayatollah Khomeini, were age-old rivals. This new chapter in their ongoing struggle was the product of an intense competition for regional leadership and control of petroleum resources, refining facilities, and strategic ports. The State Department feared both and attempted to keep either from winning a decisive victory. From 1981 to 1986, the Reagan administration secretly funneled aid to Iran but from 1987 on tilted toward Iraq. The second Boland Amendment only strengthened the White House's determination to aid the "freedom fighters" in Nicaragua. With Reagan's approval, a team of National Security Council and CIA officials began raising money from abroad from anticommunist governments and from wealthy conservatives at home. In 1985 the president approved a scheme whereby the United States would secretly sell large numbers of antitank missiles to Iran with the proceeds going to aid the contras in Nicaragua. Revelations concerning the deal touched off a year of congressional investigations, administration stonewalling, document shredding, and lying. It became clear that Reagan had been fully informed throughout the Iran-Contra deal; Congress settled for indicting several of his lieutenants. That body was unwilling to press the matter further for fear of incurring the public's wrath at its bringing down a second president in a decade.


http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/A-D/Bipartisanship-Neoconservatism-and-the-reagan-years.html

The contents of the actual report were largely ignored by the national media. In the 623rd paragraph, the report described a cable from the CIA's Directorate of Operations dated October 22, 1982, describing a prospective meeting between Contra leaders in Costa Rica for "an exchange in [the United States] of narcotics for arms, which then are shipped to Nicaragua."[11] The two main Contra groups, US arms dealers, and a lieutenant of a drug ring which imported drugs from Latin America to the US west coast were set to attend the Costa Rica meeting. The lieutenant trafficker was also a Contra, and the CIA knew that there was an arms-for-drugs shuttle and did nothing to stop it.[10]
The report stated that the CIA had requested the Justice Department return $36,800 to a member of the Meneses drug ring, which had been seized by DEA agents in the Frogman raid in San Francisco. The CIA's Inspector General said the Agency wanted the money returned "to protect an operational equity, i.e., a Contra support group in which it [CIA] had an operational interest."[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and_Contras_cocaine_trafficking_in_the_US

oss's capture was facilitated by his career-long dealer Oscar Danilo Blandón, who "set up" Ross. Blandón had close ties with the Contras, and had met with Contra leader Enrique Bermúdez on several occasions. Blandón was the link between the CIA and Contras during the Iran-Contra affair. Gary Webb interviewed Ross several times before breaking the story in 1996. Ross claims that the reason he was unfairly tried initially was because of his involvement in the scandal. Blandón received a 24-month sentence for his drug trafficking charges, and following his release, was hired by the Drug Enforcement Agency where he was salaried at US$42,000. Blandón was not a U.S. citizen/national, and is the only known foreigner not to be deported following conviction on drug trafficking charges in U.S. history. The INS was ordered to grant Blandón a green card, despite the criminal convictions, to allow him to work for the DEA. The DEA claims that they no longer employ Blandón, and his whereabouts are unknown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ross_(drug_trafficker)

No one in the CIA (and keep in mind what Bush SR's job was before being VP) is going to come out and say what really happened, but its there to see if you read between the lines.


as for the ballooning deficit under Reagan

The Reagan defense buildup was a hallmark of his presidency, a free-spending crusade that lifted the nation's military industry out of the doldrums after the Vietnam War. He created a war-machine economy in a time of uneasy peace, with defense spending in amounts not seen since the heights of the Korean and Vietnam conflicts and sustained for longer than either of those wars.

Most of the fighter planes and armored vehicles used by today's U.S. military were purchased during the Reagan years.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040609-reagan-military.htm

a vote against defense spending is going to be seen as pro-communist aka anti-american in the 80's, first and foremost every politician is worried about their own self-preservation so no one was voting against those measures.

Visionz
11-22-2010, 02:38 AM
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424
McCain's contributors

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
Obama's contributors


many of those listed show up on both. You can't lose if you pay off both sides, no matter who wins your guy got in. Fundamentally flawed and as it stands we're fundamentally fucked. The only change that matters is what you do with your own life. Expecting something meaningful to come from an outside source is a waste of time.

Frank Sobotka
11-22-2010, 07:41 AM
I hate when people type entire paragraphs to say something which can be said in 1 sentence...

Dokuro
11-22-2010, 11:39 AM
I hate when people type entire paragraphs to say something which can be said in 1 sentence...

then maybe you shouldn't be in the KTL because thats what good ledgers do

Nick Fury
11-22-2010, 04:25 PM
Christians organizations gave Reagan money to kill brown ppl

EAGLE EYE
11-23-2010, 10:23 AM
http://www.truth-out.org/roll-back-reagan-tax-cuts65332

Sense-A
11-29-2010, 11:51 PM
http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/A-D/Bipartisanship-Neoconservatism-and-the-reagan-years.html


Here we go. So what is bad about funding other mercenaries to take out a bunch of leftist communists from enslaving the people of Nicaragua? If Reagan hadn't funded a mere pittance of $19M to guerillas to take out these communist freaks, then the Soviets would have setup a stronghold there. It is debatable whether or not American should be endorsing FREE MARKET DEMOCRACIES in other places of the world, but it certainly seems better than most of the alternatives.

oooooh. 24 million dollars!! The war in Afghanistan costs almost $200Million PER DAY. Reagan spent a drop in the fucking bucket and sacrificed NO American lives to overthrow some Communist freaks who think that Government should OWN AND CONTROL everything and that you shouldn't get to vote for anything. Figures why the left wing liberal media made a big thing out of it since they love communism. In my opinion the thing was brilliant and the president is the Commander in Chief and seems like he was arming freedom fighters with the weaponry they needed to overthrow communist fucks. What is bad about that? Like I said you can argue that America should be a isolationist country but then you just have power hungry dictator Communist fucks taking over shitholes like Nicaragua with ease. The people of Nicaragua wanted to rise up and fight back and we gave them the guns and said "here use these, they work better than throwing sticks at Russian tanks."

That deal also secured the release of American hostages in Iran. So I guess you could say Reagan is a hero too. I bet those American hostages that got released call Reagan a hero even if you don't.

And funding the Contras was a good thing. You do know that the Contras were the good guys, right?! Well...not exactly good guys. Just bad guys who were way better than the other bad guys. They earned a bad reputation for being so ruthless and merciless on the battlefield. Rumors said they'd even take out civilians and anyone suspected of being for the Communist Revoluuuuucioooon!

The term "Contra" comes from the Spanish contra, which means against but in this case is short for la contrarrevolucion, in English "the counter-revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-revolution)". (Many references use the uncapitalized form, "contra", sometimes italicizing it.) Some rebels disliked being called Contras, feeling that it defined their cause only in negative terms, or implied a desire to restore the old order. Rebel fighters usually referred to themselves as comandos ("commandos"); peasant sympathizers also called the rebels los primos ("the cousins"). From the mid-1980s, as the Reagan administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_administration) and the rebels sought to define the movement as the "democratic resistance," members started describing themselves as la resistencia.Contra = against as in AGAINST COMMUNIST FUCKS

So i guess that makes me the contra too.

My friend's popz is from El Salvador and fought in the Contra battles there when leftist fucking commies tried taking over El Salvador too. I remember watching some old documentaries with him in spanish. He appreciates America's assistance to taking the right side in that war to this day and he lives in America now.

Oh yeah and historians attribute Reagan's strong military maneuvers they driving force to ending and WINNING the cold war. You can thank Reagan that you didn't grow up speaking Russian carrying a sickle and hammer to work 7 days a week.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and_Contras_cocaine_trafficking_in_the_US

And yeah, Reagan's administration admitted that some contras were drug trafficking. So what? These weren't American soldiers. These were guerilla freedom fighters fighting for a free democratic way of life in their countries. We gave them arms and guns and a little money. Like I said they weren't necessarily "good" people. Their method of fighting war was ugly and drug trafficking may have helped them keep their resistance funded. Since when are wu corp members anti-drug anyways? It's not like Reagan's administration was directly involved in moving the drugs. If so, where is the proof?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ross_(drug_trafficker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ross_%28drug_trafficker))

No one in the CIA (and keep in mind what Bush SR's job was before being VP) is going to come out and say what really happened, but its there to see if you read between the lines.

Read between the lines? What I'm supposed to believe what this guy says:

http://panachereport.com/channels/hip%20hop%20gallery/images/ricky.jpg

over the sworn testimonies of hundreds of public serving officials, ex marines, the president of the United States and everyone else? Yet you worship this guy for the very thing that you accuse Reagan of? You accuse Reagan of trafficking cocaine with absolutely NO PROOF except mere conspiracies and "reading between the lines" and then you turn around and give street credibility to the hood legend crack dealing Ricky fucking Ross?


as for the ballooning deficit under Reagan


http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040609-reagan-military.htm

a vote against defense spending is going to be seen as pro-communist aka anti-american in the 80's, first and foremost every politician is worried about their own self-preservation so no one was voting against those measures.

Like I said, your argument about Reagan spending is sort of weak considering that Congress was controlled by the Liberal Left Democratic party and they get to write up the BUDGET every year. Well shit, that means if defense spending increased in must be because the Democratically controlled congress arranged it and approved it! All Reagan gets is a fucking veto. In just two years, Obama has increased the deficit more than twice as much as what Reagan was capable of in 8 years!!!! But like I said, its not so much on the presidents as much as its on the democratically controlled congress. Obama had a democratically controlled congress headed by democrats too.

"ballooning deficit" ?? The deficit went from $997Billion to $2,602Billion during Reagan's 8 years. During Obama's 2 years it went from $10 to $14 trillion. Wow, Obama can spend money fast and the economy doesn't improve and unemployment is still over 10% and he didn't even end the cold war, he's trying to start a new one except this time WE are the commies. That's why Americans can't wait to vote the guy out. Is he a good guy who is well spoken? Yes, maybe. He's a bulls/bears/whitesox fan so he can't be that bad. But he's very marxist at heart and that is a very unforgiving characteristic when you want to publicly represent FREE American people. meh I'd rather compare/contrast Reagan to Jimmy Carter but not now.

Article 1 Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#IMPOST) and Excises (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXCISE), to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence (http://www.usconstitution.net/constmiss.html) and general Welfare (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE) of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#IMPOST) and Excises (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXCISE) shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; -Article 1 Section 8 USA ConstitutionCongressional power, not executive let alone presidential. Blame your elected congressman for the absurd spending of public federal tax money.

I'm by no means an expert on the Contra "scandal" but I'm just trying to make the debate and represent the side of the argument that Ronald Reagan does not deserve most of the criticism he receives from the mentally disordered minds of American Liberal Democrats.

pro.Graveface
11-30-2010, 05:21 AM
Asura's Wrath

Uncle Steezo
11-30-2010, 07:17 AM
whats the diff? its all play money in 2011.
the elite pulled their money out.
govs around the world are drained because of it.

ever wonder why? the money just didn't vanish from the world economy.

somebodys comin to dinner....
http://www.wingmakers.co.nz/images/Nibiru-orbit.jpg

John Prewett
11-30-2010, 07:33 AM
Regarding R.Reagan, and whose running America :

http://www.mosquitonet.com/~prewett/holyalliance1of2.html

and

http://www.mosquitonet.com/~prewett/amdempreface.html

"The Reagan administration has been overwhelmingly the most [Roman] Catholic in American history, and its agenda has been essentially the Vatican agenda."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMERICAN DEMOCRACY & THE VATICAN:

POPULATION GROWTH & NATIONAL SECURITY

By Dr. [Phd.] Stephen Mumford

PREFACE

This book deals with the national and global security implications of world population growth and urges that this growth problem be redefined in terms different from the customary approaches. The solutions - modern methods of contraception, abortion, sterilization, expanding opportunities for women, sex education, and the like - are in fact gravely threatening the survival of the Vatican, at least its political dimension.

According to Father Andrew Greeley, the Vatican leaders are concerned not so much with the religious dimensions of the Church as with its vast worldwide political power. The greater the number of their communicants, the greater the power of this hierarchy. These prelates, recognizing their jeopardy, have placed the religious dimension of the Church at risk in order to prevail politically.

The United States National Security Council, on the other hand, in 1979 and 1980, determined that world population growth seriously threatens the security of all nations including our own. Thus the dimensions of the conflict are defined.

The political Catholic Church (the Vatican) is pitted against the national security interests of the United States. Clearly, to ignore the population problem will be to invite severe consequences and, ultimately, a complete loss of our national security.

Thus threatened, the Vatican is resorting to desperate and bold measures in America. Four years ago, it went to great lengths to assist in the election of an American president, using the infrastructure created by the Catholic bishops' 1975 Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities (often referred to as the Pastoral Plan of Action; see, appendix two), purportedly created to combat legalized abortion.

The Reagan administration has been overwhelmingly the most [Roman] Catholic in American history, and its agenda has been essentially the Vatican agenda.

About 4 percent of the U.S. population is Irish Roman Catholic. Mr. Reagan's father, like the leadership of the [Roman] Catholic Church in America, was an Irish Roman Catholic, and his brother is a devout [Roman] Catholic. No one doubts the president's close ties to the [Roman] Catholic Church.

In any administration, the appointments most relevant to the population growth-security issue are national security advisor, secretary of state, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, attorney- general (responsible for illegal immigration control), and secretary of Health and Human Services (who sets the national example for provision of comprehensive family planning services).

Mr. Reagan has appointed three national security advisors - Richard Allen, William Clark, and James McFarland. All are Irish Catholic.

His two secretaries of state have been Alexander Haig, an Irish Catholic, and George Schultz, a Catholic of German extraction.

His CIA director is William Casey, an Irish Roman Catholic, as is his attorney-general, William French Smith.

HHS Secretary Margaret Heckler is also Irish Roman Catholic.

In a nation in which only 4 percent of the population is Irish Catholic, this causes no small concern. Any scientist computing mathematical probabilities will agree that the odds of this arrangement happening by chance are nil. Now that it has become apparent that the agenda of the Reagan administration and the Vatican are essentially the same, concern has turned into alarm.

In his book, American Freedom and Catholic Power, published some thirty-five years ago, the Reverend Paul Blanshard discussed what theoretically could happen to American democracy if the Catholic Church conducted itself as it has in most other countries in recent history, manipulating Governments at will.

-------------- delete for brevity ------------- end quote

LORD NOSE
11-30-2010, 07:37 AM
Dane - you phuckin my head up yo

Frank Sobotka
11-30-2010, 07:44 AM
then maybe you shouldn't be in the KTL because thats what good ledgers do
Good ledgers make sure it's not painful to read

Sense-A
12-03-2010, 06:23 PM
Who gives a fuck if Ronald Reagan was catholic? 78% of the American population is Christian and majority rules. Do you expect someone who ISN'T Christian to get elected? Obama calls himself a Christian and who even knows how true that is. When most of the people in America are Christian, you better have faith pretty quick because that will undoubtedly play a major part towards how they vote.

And all that bullshit about Reagan and the Pope manipulating Eastern Europe is hocus pocus. Eastern Europe has been repeatedly abused in the 20th century. You aren't going to get me to hate Ronald Reagan because he helped them out. They had the Bolsheviks to the right and the fuckin' gastapo to the left to fend off.

Dokuro
12-03-2010, 07:00 PM
Dane - you phuckin my head up yo

i'm sorry what did i do this time