What the hell is everybody crying and whining about anyway

Those of you talking bout Reagan running up the national deficit as a bad thing dont understand economics. At the time in question unemployment was at a level unseen since the depression. By increasing the governments spending in military technology it had a ripple effect on the economy as a whole. That money went to military contractors who spent it on R&D whic spread the money out to the educated. Tehy also outsourced a lt of work to smaller firms which spread the money out even further, also huge amounts were spread among skilled (but non univerity educted) tradesmen, I.E. machinists, ironworkers etc. thse compnies then had more money with which to spend on employing more people, those people had more money to spend on goods and services which in turn created more jobs in retail and manufactured goods. The enabling technolgies that those projects generated created new industries and gave a grwoth impetus to emerging industries, and created many of the technologies we take for granted today. I.E. Darpanet (the fore runner to the internet) Optics and lasers, which led to flexible contact lenses, laser surgery, and laser jet printers, Computers which in its infancy in the early 80s now emplys millions worldwide, Not to mention materials research, nd host of other technologies. Aside from the scientific value the economic value was massive, jobs were created, and as a result the economy thrived. Basic economic theroy states that it takes 5-10 years for a new economic policy to be fully integrated into the economy as a whole which is why clinton enjoyed unheard of economic prosperityduring his administation. The fact is for every dollar that the government spent in the 80s during reagens tenure 10 dollars or more were created within 10 years. If not for reagan there would have been no internet, no laser surgey, no massive computer industry, and barley any economy in America today. Dont take my word for it though, Study economic theroy, read, books, articles and papers by economists look at the facts and make an informed desicision. But dont talk out of your a*s it makes you look ignorant.

Originally posted by Colonel
Ok, we'll just forget that he got his boys to rape and terrorize American Christian nuns. Apparently, that's not important. He also stood for state's rights which is a throwthrow back to Jim Crow which automatically puts him on the evil list.

Outside of the raping of the nuns of course, but that really doesn't matter does it?

State's right is a what? You are having a problem with the whole constitutional concept, aren't you? What you are saying is that the world is too stupid to be governed by anything but a central government, which is ludicrous on its face value. But, leave it to you to connect the concept of state's rights to a racial topic.

You are again suggesting that Reagan got "his boys" to rape nuns, which is nothing less than a pure lie, and an attempt to demonize everything but the root of the problem which was the spread of communism at the end of a sword. Never mind what would happen to people who didn't "vote" properly. Rape was nothing. Your false allegations and twisted asserttions make you much more evil than Reagan, who told no soldier to rape anyone.

Why not knock off your twisted rhetoric and defamatory garbage and just try discussing a topic in the manner a reasonable, logical man would?

Look, if you just want to keep your head in the sand then fine with me but state's rights is code for Jim Crow!

This is what he did:

Take the first place Reagan first announced his candidacy for the 1980 Presidential run. He didn't announce it in Iowa, nor in New Hampshire. He didn't even announce it in California, the place he came to prominence.

He announced it in Philadelphia, Mississippi.

The only event of historical note to ever happen in Philadelphia, Mississippi, up until that point, was the murder of three civil rights workers (Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, and James Cheney) in 1964. Other candidates, including those from the Democratic side of the aisle, made it to Philadelphia, Mississippi, as well. Southern voters are a powerful bloc. But in Ronald Reagan's case, when he appeared before the citizens of Philadelphia, he spoke of one thing � his support for states' rights. And no matter the argument I've seen printed that Reagan meant the phrase in the context of the "Sagebrush Rebellion," that focused on wresting control of western grazing lands from the federal government, we all know what "states' rights" means in the South....

Reagan believed that the leaders of organizations like the NAACP were "race merchants" whose only livelihood was generated by focusing on a mythical racism that didn't exist. As a result his door was never open to them. Instead, he supported an attempt to generate an alternative black leadership network � one rooted firmly in support for neoconservative principles. The Fairmont Conference, as it came to be called, was sponsored by Thomas Sowell and included a pantheon of black conservatives who have gone on to become major figures. Among the many attendees was one Clarence Thomas. Though black conservatives (who should be differentiated from conservative blacks) have never had a strong constituency within African American communities, they thrived in Reagan's administration and were often called upon to make statements on behalf of a constituency that in some crucial ways they never truly represented.

Remember the Reagan Democrats? Those disaffected working class white voters who were most responsible for Reagan's re-election in 1984? A group of democratic operatives interviewed a number of white working class men and women outside of Detroit, in order to see what made Reagan Democrats vote for Reagan. Every social ill America faced, every problem of the Democratic Party was blamed on one group of people: African Americans. Why did America lose its moral standing? Black laziness. Why were Americans jobless? Black racial preferences. (I'm not quite sure how black people could both steal jobs from real Americans, and be too lazy to get jobs in the first place at the same time, but that's another story.) So even though these Reagan supporters detested Reagan's actual policy preferences, they gladly supported Reagan because they felt he stood up for them against the various ills they explicitly associated with black people.

www.africana.com...

Maybe you should do some actual reading rather than going on these holier than thou diatribes to know why I hate Reagan.

So states rights equals rascism in the south, meaning that all southern legislators and votes are predjudiced?
Colonel I'm assuming your black when I say this
YOU are the guy who makes black people look bad

Yes, I am black and the idea of state's rights has a long history as a code word. That's why Trent Lott got nailed. Maybe you should look t up before you judge me, son.

I'm glad you told me I'm a bigot ( im a voter from the south) as I wouldnt have known otherwise. BTW the current fight between california and the federal government about marijuana is also a battle of the states rights over the federal government Does tht men that those fighting for californias State right to determine what is and is not a contrlled or criminalised substance are also bigots?

The fact that some concepts were misused by peple as a "code word" does not mean that everyone who believes in that concept is misusing it.

Case in point, confession was a code word used by the inquisition to describe someone giving in to torture, does that mean when a preist says confession is good for the soul hes advocating torturing his flock?

Peple like you are the reason the black community has the problems it does, not politicians. You spend so much time "educating"people about why they cant succeed, about how the chips are so stacked against them that they believe it. People like you have brainwashed the black community into believing they cant succeed so they dont even try.
Hmmm maybe you should join the KKK after all guys like you have had more success at opressing the black community than they ever did.

First of all, I never called you a bigot. I don't know you as well as I know other members to make that assertion. Secondly, no matter how much you deny it, State's Rights will ALWAYS be code for Jim Crow amongst the black population---that's it. Deny it if you want but that's how it will remain.
Next, I am "not" the problem. If I point out the issues and facts, does that make me a problem? Am I causing trouble? Am I upsetting the status quo? You tell me.

So then awnser my question, is the medical marijuana controversy in california which is an issue of states rights about jim crow laws?

No, that's about medical marijuan and the federal government. State's RTights is about Jim Crow and, to enlighten you, that's the way black people see it. If not, Trent Lott wouldn't have had his ass handed to him a while back for supporting Strom's Thurmond's State's Rights.

It seems to me that if, as you say, states rights is viewed by the Black community as a code word for jim crow laws then they have a serious problem. because the prblem of the rights of the states versus the federal government has been a serious isssue since before the constitution was written and will be as long as america is around. The fact is that99.99999999999999999999% of the time that a legislator is talking about states rights what hes saying has nothing to do with jim crow laws.

Oh and BTW the fact is tht there is MORE racial tolerance in the south than in the north. Those stereotypes might hve worked in the 1960s but they are hardly valid tday.

Sure there is. Tell me anything when I see a big fight over the Confederate flag. Tell me anything. Listen, I've been to the South---visiting. Ain't going back unless I fly over it to Orlando.

Colonel no one can tell you anything, you know it all.
Ive never man a man as dumb as you are who thinks hes as smart as your are.
Its like listening to rush limbaugh clim hes einstein.
one question though How do you not fall down more?

Originally posted by mwm1331
So states rights equals rascism in the south, meaning that all southern legislators and votes are predjudiced?

well, it is common knowledge that the southern and mid-western states are a favourite breeding ground for klansmen and neo-nazis.
and many of them do take shelter within the republican party to avoid speculation.
they have chapters in almost every community.
and worst of all, they have been on the rise for some time now.

Originally posted by mwm1331
Oh and BTW the fact is tht there is MORE racial tolerance in the south than in the north. Those stereotypes might hve worked in the 1960s but they are hardly valid tday.

quite frankly, i haven't seen enough evidence to validate your statement.
but rather, the opposite.
how you can deny this is beyond me.

Echelon, its because he's a real racist, a deep one at that. Look at what he said here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Colonel
Sure there is. Tell me anything when I see a big fight over the Confederate flag. Tell me anything. Listen, I've been to the South---visiting. Ain't going back unless I fly over it to Orlando.

Nice job of admitting you have little personal experience with the south, and then totally side stepping the previous facts that states rights does not equal jim crow laws 1000Percent of the time.

You nticed that too agent47? I'm amazed at how people here prove thier point.


Facts are anything you can convince somebody else to believe

Originally posted by Agent47
Nice job of admitting you have little personal experience with the south, and then totally side stepping the previous facts that states rights does not equal jim crow laws 1000Percent of the time.

I swear, you're such a stalker, 47. Ahh, what'd I say? I said I've been to the South: Kentucky, Georgia, upper Florida, Southern VA, etc. Ain't no way I'm heading back. I'll fly over it. Thank you very much. Again, youcan deny it but State's RIghts equals Jim Crow& those KKK boys in the black population. You don' thave to like it. You don't have to agree with it. But, that is the reality.

Originally posted by Colonel
Echelon, its because he's a real racist, a deep one at that. Look at what he said here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

truly sickening...
the racial programs that the white nationalists promote down there aren't very different from what he calls 'cracker day.'

Originally posted by echelon
truly sickening...
the racial programs that the white nationalists promote down there aren't very different from what he calls 'cracker day.'

Somebody bring a mop so I can clean up this sappiness.

If either of you two understood the meaning of cracker day then you wouldnt be like "racial programs blah blah" "look at me Im important"

"States rights equals jim crow laws"

Wait that reminds me of how badly you understand U.S history Colonel.

States rights was one of the pivotal early struggles of our nation. The articles of confederation came first because they left power in the hands of the states. Then came Marberry V Madison and the idea of Judicial review. Then today you have the battle over assisted suicide and marijuana. States rights came before Jim Crow and its come after. Wise up and admit your wrong, or at least you have no inkling of US history.