cancel2 2022
Canceled
That says more about the American public and their paranoia about the world in the early 80s than it ever says about Reagan. Another rerun of the million flies can't be wrong argument.
Ronald Reagan: A Simple Man Who So Nearly Destroyed Us
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
That says more about the American public and their paranoia about the world in the early 80s than it ever says about Reagan. Another rerun of the million flies can't be wrong argument.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
The above says all that needs to be said about the idiocy of the left. The American public did not elect Reagan in a landslide because they were paranoid about the rest of the world.
Keep making up ridiculous assertions... they are actually rather amusing.
I don't think paranoia had much to do w/ it, but I also don't think popular opinion at any given time, about anything, is validation for anything other than "this is what most people thought at the time."
cancel2 2022
Canceled
So the Iran hostage crisis and Russia had no bearing on the 1980 election then? How old were you in 1980 anyway, ten or 11 maybe?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
That only highlighted a portion of Jiminy Carter's incompetence.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Was Carter flying one of the helicopters?
Wow, and this highlights your incompetence.
Was Bush in Iraq? That must mean that the decision to go there had nothing to do with Bush...
Wow, and this highlights your incompetence.
Was Bush in Iraq? That must mean that the decision to go there had nothing to do with Bush...
Did you just compare the decision to invade Iraq w/ the decision to try to rescue the hostages?
No. I pointed out that decisions that leaders make are not absolved by their absence in the action that flows from the decision.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Wow, and this highlights your incompetence.
Was Bush in Iraq? That must mean that the decision to go there had nothing to do with Bush...
He was once, trying to carve a plastic turkey! The decision to go to Iraq by Bush was because there was a Bush in Iraq before him
and Cheney, Wolfie, Rummy and Dummy didn't like the end results of the first Bush Iraq attack, so they wanted to go in and rescue the oil!
I know when I think of the wiretapping, the criminal investigations and all the, oh, wait, that was with Clinton, my bad! Carry on...
Honestly, it doesn't matter why the decision was made, the results of the decision speak to the competence of the leader even if they didn't pilot one of the helicopters.He was once, trying to carve a plastic turkey! The decision to go to Iraq by Bush was because there was a Bush in Iraq before him
Bush certainly didn't participate in the invasion by driving a tank or flying a helicopter. If we use Prendergrasp's logic that means he can't be shown to be responsible for the outcome.
I would argue that not foreseeing a helicopter crash is quite different from not foreseeing a protracted conflict that would spread our military ludicrously thin, lower our standing in the world, drain our resources, increase the threat of terrorism and possibly open up the region to Iranian control, among other consequences....
Again.
Saying, "Was he in a helicopter?" in order to absolve the leader from the decision is truly stupid.
Bush was never driving a tank that got blown up, so that means he is not responsible for the decision to go there?
That's just stupid. It is equally stupid to say, "Carter didn't fly the helicopter" in order to absolve him from the decision that he made.
You are arguing what you wanted me to have said, rather than the point that was made.
Isn't the discussion "competency of leadership?"
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
You libtards are constantly whining about the money spent on military preparedness, but when your president calls for a military mission that is poorly prepared you fail to see the root cause of the resultant disaster.
The right loves politicians who aren't all with us, when you look at Reagan and Bush, they were like lost in reverie...it always looked like they were tuned into other channels, if you know what I mean.
Yes. And the point I was making, repeated because you want to continue to argue what you wanted to hear rather than what was said, is the fact that not participating in the action that lead from your decisions do not absolve you from the result of the action.
I could pick any number of decisions, but I chose one that I know Tom and I agreed on, for different reasons but there is agreement. The idea that Jimmy was not responsible for the outcome because he wasn't a participant is just silliness.