Ronald Reagan was right!

Originally posted by astron1000

Originally posted by manticore
Absolutely! At first, I thought, TELEPROMPTERS. But wait, that was 1964. There were no teleprompters during that speech. I'd like to see anyone today give a speech like that without one. Impossible!!

The teleprompter was invented in the 1950's. (See this link: en.wikipedia.org...) So yes, they existed during Reagan's speech.

Thank you Astron. I stand corrected. Yes, his script memorizing years must have helped considerably with his speeches. However, I believe those who doubted that he could match his acting/eloquence with actions were proved wrong.

Oh, and about the bizarre hero worship... We finally had a president who returned pride to the USA. After the fiasco that came with each administration from LBJ on, we needed it. The world saw true transformation without using a bullet. It was diplomacy, assertiveness and BIG BALLS in the span of 8 years. Sorry you don't agree with me by calling a great president a hero to this nation at a time where hope and pride were scarce.


[edit on 12-11-2008 by manticore]

Originally posted by Doomsday 2029

Originally posted by irishgrl

Originally posted by Doomsday 2029

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
Some of you will scoff, but if you read the many posts here about the NWO and the take over of our country by special interests...maybe you will take the time to listen to this 1964 speech Reagan made on the very problems we here everyday complain about. The names have changed and the numbers have gotten worse, but this one speech actualy predicts our situation today!

video.google.com...

Zindo

Yea he was right... That's why they tried to kill him.

They straightened his act up real quick.

(my very small 2 cents)

Poor Hinkley, he had no idea his love for Jodi Foster was in reality manipulated by dark forces that um....were actually in control???? Reagan actually had the biggest shoe in of any President in recent memory, so Im not sure who you are insinuating wanted him dead besides a mentally ill person (who would have been locked up in a ward had Reagan not opened all their doors 10 years earlier....) oh well, isnt History a cool thing? you can revise it as you wish as long as you control all media outlets....

I really wish you were still logged on ATS so you could read my reply...

Uhhh... who killed Robert Kenedy? Was he mentally ill as well?

Were the the people at JonesTown mentally ill? Or Brainwashed?

It's not that hard to brainwash someone to do your dirty work... But I guess we have no proof.

color me confused.....first of all, its not MY place to make a determination of mental health or illness, thats best left to professionals...secondly, what do the assassinations of Robert Kennedy or the tragedy of Jonestown have to do with the Reagan Assassination attempt?

in a word: NOTHING. If you'd like I could attempt to connect the earth's gravitational pull with the evolutionary demise of the dinosaur and the rise of capitalism as a dominant paradigm. Unfortunately for you, I cant guarantee success, and you cant draw any sort of parallel either. Therefore, I posit there's PLENTY of things in this world we have no proof of.

Get this the Hinckley family was/is close friends with the Bush family
www.tomflocco.com...

(Just like Hitler and the Bin Ladin family, boy those Bushes sure to get around... and boy do they get all the way around.)

Also, I read that Reagan changed and basically was guided by Bush Sr. the rest of his time in office, after he was shot he dramatically changed, as if he had been kept drugged or had been lobotomized.

Do not forget that Reagan was responsible for the Grace Commission Report!

All the war stuff though is total BS, either way! It is all about the neo-Nazism pieces of trash!

Originally posted by manticore

Originally posted by astron1000

Originally posted by manticore
Absolutely! At first, I thought, TELEPROMPTERS. But wait, that was 1964. There were no teleprompters during that speech. I'd like to see anyone today give a speech like that without one. Impossible!!

The teleprompter was invented in the 1950's. (See this link: en.wikipedia.org...) So yes, they existed during Reagan's speech.

Thank you Astron. I stand corrected. Yes, his script memorizing years must have helped considerably with his speeches. However, I believe those who doubted that he could match his acting/eloquence with actions were proved wrong.

Oh, and about the bizarre hero worship... We finally had a president who returned pride to the USA. After the fiasco that came with each administration from LBJ on, we needed it. The world saw true transformation without using a bullet. It was diplomacy, assertiveness and BIG BALLS in the span of 8 years. Sorry you don't agree with me by calling a great president a hero to this nation at a time where hope and pride were scarce.


[edit on 12-11-2008 by manticore]

Oh My GAWD.
Talk about Revisionist history. There was NO Presidency that uplifted the Nation quite as much as the "Camelot" years of Kennedy. Reagan's terms were riddled with unexplained aberrations, such as the IRAN-CONTRA leaks, the apparent CIA plans to have Black intercity neighborhoods destroy each other...and huge corporate welfare grants. Overall, Reagan stifled this country.

Oh, and about the bizarre hero worship... We finally had a president who returned pride to the USA. After the fiasco that came with each administration from LBJ on, we needed it. The world saw true transformation without using a bullet. It was diplomacy, assertiveness and BIG BALLS in the span of 8 years. Sorry you don't agree with me by calling a great president a hero to this nation at a time where hope and pride were scarce.
[edit on 12-11-2008 by manticore]

I DEFY you to give me ONE example of any Big-Balled Move by Reagan. The ONE and ONLY APPARENT (yes APPARENT) victory he had was while Carter was still President and the rescue attempt failed. At the news that Reagan had won the popular vote, the militants who held the political prisoners hostage, agreed to release them. No thanks to REAGAN who had no ( I repeat NO) prior history or military clout. REAGAN always was a fraud.

In sum: Reagan devotees are nothing more than revisionist droolers.

Originally posted by manticore
Talk about Revisionist history. There was NO Presidency that uplifted the Nation quite as much as the "Camelot" years of Kennedy.

Note how I purposely said "from LBJ" on. Yes, "the Camelot years" brought hope too. But what happens with a president the NWO doesn't want? I'm sure you know your history by now.


[edit on 12-11-2008 by manticore]

reply to post by irishgrl


Reagan was fairly firm with the former USSR. I don't know that his tactics were exactly necessary, if anything they probably helped stoke the flames, but I would venture to say he was big-balled in that respect - though possibly naive in some of his tactics (see the Star Wars program).

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by irishgrl

 

Reagan was fairly firm with the former USSR. I don't know that his tactics were exactly necessary, if anything they probably helped stoke the flames, but I would venture to say he was big-balled in that respect - though possibly naive in some of his tactics (see the Star Wars program).

Smoke and mirrors anyone????

He gambled and won. for that he gets adulation? Not in MY book baybeh.

Originally posted by bkcrt
Conservatives are good with the economy but bad with relations, both at home and abroad.

Liberals are good with domestic and foreign relations but suck when it comes to economics issues.
[edit on 12-11-2008 by bkcrt]

I hate to burst your bubble here man, especially since you do not belong to the dark side, but, conservative economic theory is a sham. Theories like Trickle Down, Supply Side, and Reaganomics DO NOT work. You will never hear a real economist tout Trickle Down in a peer reviewed article. This is because a second year economics student could prove it to be wrong. Simple supply and demand analysis shows that Trickle Down economics does not work, has never worked, and never will work in the real world...PERIOD. Given that Trickle Down is the cornerstone of conservative economics, your statement that "conservatives are good with the economy" is for the most part, inaccurate.

All that being said, I will agree with you that conservative fiscal policy (maintaining a balanced budget) is absolutely correct. I use the term "conservative fiscal policy" loosely as, if you recall, Clinton was the only president in recent memory to actually balance the budget.

If anyone doubts that Trickle Down is a sham, let me know and I will give you a few real world examples to illustrate my point.

Though you many think that from my denouncement of Reaganomics I am not a fan of Reagan, this would be false. Personally, I liked Reagan. I think his foreign policy, especially with regards to the cold war, was excellent. However, the day we no longer have the Republicans tinkering with our economy will be the day that we progress unimpeded into the future.

Originally posted by manticore

Originally posted by astron1000

Originally posted by manticore
Absolutely! At first, I thought, TELEPROMPTERS. But wait, that was 1964. There were no teleprompters during that speech. I'd like to see anyone today give a speech like that without one. Impossible!!

The teleprompter was invented in the 1950's. (See this link: en.wikipedia.org...) So yes, they existed during Reagan's speech.

Thank you Astron. I stand corrected. Yes, his script memorizing years must have helped considerably with his speeches. However, I believe those who doubted that he could match his acting/eloquence with actions were proved wrong.

Oh, and about the bizarre hero worship... We finally had a president who returned pride to the USA. After the fiasco that came with each administration from LBJ on, we needed it. The world saw true transformation without using a bullet. It was diplomacy, assertiveness and BIG BALLS in the span of 8 years. Sorry you don't agree with me by calling a great president a hero to this nation at a time where hope and pride were scarce.
[edit on 12-11-2008 by manticore]

Reagan may have "returned pride to the USA" but it was a pride that was shallow and based on an ideal that saw the US as an (and perhaps the ONLY) autonomous actor on the world stage. We are no longer alone in this world. America is no longer pre-eminent, no matter what we would like to think about ourselves. Yes, we still have a major voice in the planet's affairs - maybe even the primary voice. But that does not mean we still have the BIG BALLS (as you so colorfully claim) to direct the future of the world.

Humanity is evolving. And we had better listen to the wonderful diversity of differing voices from every corner of this world in order to survive. We are in this together. And, given the United States' goal to be a leader in world affairs, it behooves us to become an active participant in the dialogue among the peoples of the world, rather than being the "policeman" or the "arbiter" that we so often believe we are, which so often results in a feeling of superiority to the rest of the planet.

We would do well to be civil toward one another in every instance...

[edit on 13-11-2008 by astron1000]

Brilliant find - starred and flagged (Had we only listened. We've been warned more than a few times and now our despondency will we reap) God Bless you all brothers and sisters. Stay focussed and do not relent for they won't.

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary

Originally posted by bkcrt
Conservatives are good with the economy but bad with relations, both at home and abroad.

Liberals are good with domestic and foreign relations but suck when it comes to economics issues.
[edit on 12-11-2008 by bkcrt]

I hate to burst your bubble here man, especially since you do not belong to the dark side, but, conservative economic theory is a sham. Theories like Trickle Down, Supply Side, and Reaganomics DO NOT work. You will never hear a real economist tout Trickle Down in a peer reviewed article. This is because a second year economics student could prove it to be wrong. Simple supply and demand analysis shows that Trickle Down economics does not work, has never worked, and never will work in the real world...PERIOD. Given that Trickle Down is the cornerstone of conservative economics, your statement that "conservatives are good with the economy" is for the most part, inaccurate.

All that being said, I will agree with you that conservative fiscal policy (maintaining a balanced budget) is absolutely correct. I use the term "conservative fiscal policy" loosely as, if you recall, Clinton was the only president in recent memory to actually balance the budget.

If anyone doubts that Trickle Down is a sham, let me know and I will give you a few real world examples to illustrate my point.

Though you many think that from my denouncement of Reaganomics I am not a fan of Reagan, this would be false. Personally, I liked Reagan. I think his foreign policy, especially with regards to the cold war, was excellent. However, the day we no longer have the Republicans tinkering with our economy will be the day that we progress unimpeded into the future.

I disagree.

Trickle down economics does work and most of the population of this country is an example of it. When my company does well, I do well. It's that simple.

Oh and have plenty of economics classes under my belt.

Oh, and Clinton did NOT balance the budget. It was corrected BEFORE he went into office (by the previous REPUBLICAN president who need not be named) and he rode the wave. A common misconception.

[edit on 13-11-2008 by bkcrt]

reply to post by bkcrt


That's exactly the kind of flawed model everyone is talking about. The company does BEST when people can afford to buy their product.

Let me ask you a question, and I hope you can respond in all fairness. What way would you expect money to get to the consumers fastest?

1) Give it to the corporations so that they will lower prices or create more jobs?

2) Give it to the consumers who will either invest it or spend it (depending on how much they need it?)

Demand-side economics is more logical since it almost requires for that money to be recycled. The consumers who need it the most are given the most money. Now, because it's given to people WHO NEED IT, they spend that money, because there is no room for saving.

Once the money is spent, that is recycled through excise taxes and income tax. This helps pay the brunt of the tax break.

It's win win. The customers get immediate cash and businesses get an immediate consumer increase.

With supply-side economics, you really have to look at things in "the long-run" to even begin seeing the money supposedly trickle down. For instance, MAYBE the company uses that money to purchase machinery which will eventually lower factors of production. And then, based off of that, depending on the type of market they sell in, they MIGHT lower prices.

So, with all due respect, I disagree.

*Edit to add:

How could Bush HW have balanced Clinton's budget when Clinton did not operate off of the same budget that HW did? That makes absolutely no sense. They spent in different places with different amounts.

[edit on 13-11-2008 by Irish M1ck]

Whether he figured this out on his own or it was channeled from one of those psychic gurus Nancy relied on, seeing this sort of thing eventually happening doesn't take a crystal ball.

SO...does this mean he was right about alien invaders as well?



- Lee

I only have one thing to say. Rex-84.



Yeah, Reagan was a great guy. Keep clinging to that raft..

Oh yes, I almost forgot... Reagan and the Bush's weren't chummy? How about the Bohemian Club. Haha. They ALL belonged to the same secret societies. Did you ever think you were meant to be fooled into thinking he was a great guy? Come now..

Originally posted by bkcrt
I disagree.

Trickle down economics does work and most of the population of this country is an example of it. When my company does well, I do well. It's that simple.

Oh and have plenty of economics classes under my belt.

Oh, and Clinton did NOT balance the budget. It was corrected BEFORE he went into office (by the previous REPUBLICAN president who need not be named) and he rode the wave. A common misconception.

[edit on 13-11-2008 by bkcrt]

You are dead wrong about both of these statements. I will address your last statement first. Clinton did balance the budget. I know that most conservatives like to minimize the economic accomplishments of Clinton because of the abysmal economic failures of their last three presidents, however this is not fair. He may have gotten a BJ in the oval office but he understood the economy like nobody's business. Being a Rhodes scholar and receiving a degree from the London School of Economics is rather beneficial, isn't it.

Clinton inherited what was then a record deficit from Bush Sr. Through tireless efforts and drastic cuts to our military's inefficiencies Clinton was able to give us a surplus, something few presidents have accomplished. I would love to cite some sources for this as there are many, however it is getting late and I do not have the time. However, I am sure a simple google search will yield mountains of information to back me up.

To address your disagreement with me, and 98% of economists by the way, that Trickle Down is a sham, I will have to give you some real world examples and refresh your memory about supply and demand analysis. Here we go.

You stated that "when my company does well, I do well. It is that simple." Well, really, it is not that simple. Nothing in economics ever is, unfortunately. I am sure you would agree that your company doing well usually coincides with an increase in the demand for your product or service. Given that Trickle down deals with tax liability, it has little to do with your statement. This is where people get mixed up. They confuse profit increases due to increased demand with profit increase due to more favorable tax policy. They are in no way, shape, or form, the same thing.

Trickle Down is a theory that states that giving tax breaks to a company will allow said company to expand and hire more workers or possibly pay their workers more money. I am sure you would agree with this. However, this is FALSE.

A company will only hire more workers if the DEMAND for its product increases, PERIOD. Look at it this way, if your company needed 100 workers to produce 1000 widgets last year, and next year you expect demand for your product to again be 1000 widgets, why, even if given a new tax break, would you hire more workers? The 100 workers you had last year produced your 1000 widgets and they will suffice in producing your 1000 widgets next year. Why would you expand your labor force or your facilities in this example? The answer...You would NOT. Lets move on to the other false assertion of Trickle Down that a company would pay its workers more money in the light of an additional tax break.

The price of labor (wages) acts just like the price of any other commodity (oil, bread, computers, etc). The price paid for any commodity is directly related to the supply of and demand for that commodity. When the supply of a particular commodity decreases, the price you pay increases. When the demand for a particular commodity increases, so does its price. The price a company is willing to pay for labor is no different. It will only change if the supply of labor or demand for labor in its labor market changes...PERIOD. Lets look at another example. Say you require college graduates to produce your product or service. If for some reason the supply of college graduates decreased in your labor market, you would then be willing to pay more for those workers. On the flip side, if the demand for college graduates increased in your labor market, say a competitor moved in who also needs college graduates, then you again would be willing / forced to pay more for those workers. Aside from these two examples, there would be no reason for you to pay your workers more money...PERIOD, no ifs ands or buts about it (aside from artificial increases in minimum wage or cost of living increases). An increase in profits due to a new tax break would have no effect on wages paid for your labor.

Trickle Down theory is the perfect example of demagoguery. A demagogue by the way is a person who preaches things he knows to be false to people who he knows do not understand. This is why the conservatives continue to spout this false theory, they know most people do not understand it (and of course it greatly benefits the rich). Trickle down makes sense on the surface and that is all that matters to them because most people are not willing, or able for that matter, to scratch below the surface and discover that this theory dose not work.

No true economist will ever tout Trickle Down because, as I stated in my previous post, they know a second year economics student could disprove it. You will however, see many people tout this theory in books written by conservatives to sell to still other conservatives. However, proof is not delivered in commercial books, it is delivered in peer reviewed economic papers written ,or published, and up to scrutiny by other economists. You will also see many Republican politicians tout Trickle Down because it advocates lining the pockets of the entities and individuals that finance their campaigns.

Your statement that "when my company does well, I do well" is correct in a way. However, you would agree that your company doing well usually coincides with an increase in the demand for your product or service, not a decrease in your tax liability.

I hope this clears things up for you. Believe me, I do not blame you for your confusion. As I stated, Trickle Down makes sense on the surface and in simple terms, however it collapses like a house of cards when a little scrutiny is applied.

THAT was an awesome video.
gads, those old guys were sure eloquent. very dynamic. he had so much data and spoke it with such conviction. he was a good orator.

As far as social issues Regan talked a big game but what did he actually do? Did he fix immigration? Did he ban the evil gay marriage? Did he find a way to overturn Roe v Wade? Did he find a way to lower divorces? Premarital sex?

reply to post by mybigunit


Hi Unit,

Of course not! Reagan faced a super liberal Senate and Congress his entire 2 terms. He couldn't make the LAW. All he could do was veto their silly liberal legislation as it came to his desk!

Originally posted by irishgrl
Poor Hinkley, he had no idea his love for Jodi Foster was in reality manipulated by dark forces that um....were actually in control????

The real question is not only if you can call that love but if it was in control of much of what he did. There are some great work on this topic and i would recommend David Mcgowan amongst them:

www.amazon.com...=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Reagan actually had the biggest shoe in of any President in recent memory,

What do you mean by that? Isn't that like saying that your new world order/TBTB sponsors will allow you to do mostly what they wanted and let you get away with some added social spending here and fewer tax breaks for the rich? I think Reagan got the message loud and clear.....

so Im not sure who you are insinuating wanted him dead besides a mentally ill person (who would have been locked up in a ward had Reagan not opened all their doors 10 years earlier....)

Well who are you going to blame your assassination plots on if not the formerly supposedly insane? What better way to create a police state than to lock up drug users ( and a few of the dumbest/unconnected dealers) and to keep the insane and murderous types on the street? I mean it's not like the need much incentive when you can create artificial panic by means of media manipulation but it helps to have a few honest to god crazies around to occasional indulge in serial killing sprees to obscure the fact that the first victim were the one you really wanted assassinated.

oh well, isnt History a cool thing? you can revise it as you wish as long as you control all media outlets....

Absolutely. In fact it helps if you control the schools and if you can largely get the 'right' types to write the history for you.

Stellar

[edit on 13-11-2008 by StellarX]

reply to post by ZindoDoone


After listening to Reagan's speech more closely, I have found that there are many things he states that I agree with fundamentally but, in practice, have been proven false by the Bush administration. They have been proven false by the very Republicans who invoke his name to support today's "conservative" agenda. Also, there are somethings that he states as being bad or wrong that the Republicans today embrace fully.

1. Reagan denounces Senator Fulbright (a then conservative democrat by the way) for his statement that "the constitution is out of modded, he referred to the president as our moral teacher and states that he is hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document."

Isn't this exactly what the conservative movement of today would have you believe. That the president is a moral teacher and that the constitution is outdated and an impediment to the president. Bush has said this himself many times. Reagan denounced this type of thinking correctly. The president takes one oath, it is to protect the constitution of the USA. He does this because it is the constitution that protects the rest of us. However, we have seen how Bush has time and time again broken the oath he took back in early 2001.

2. "They also knew, those founding fathers, outside of its legitimate functions government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy."

I would agree with Reagan here. The government sees its pocketbook as limitless and rarely has a need for efficiency. However, I doubt in Reagan's time there was such a thing as a cost plus contract. The Bush administration awarded this type of contract to Halliburton and many other contractors time and time again only to see them abuse this trust and bilk the American people out of literally 100s of billions of dollars.

Personally, I believe that were Reagan alive today and a member of the Republican party, he would once again switch parties and become a Democrat. Though he would try his best to keep government small and to fight appeasement, he would switch because the Republican party of his day, in no way resembles the Republican party of today. If Republicans once again wish to have power in Washington, they need to take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask themselves if they are willing to uphold the constitution and no longer bow down to the almighty dollar.