Topic: We were right about Reagan all along.
Anonymous A started this discussion 6 years ago #89,626
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later[^] [v] #1,022,597
Who is “we”?
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,022,598
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 6 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,022,605
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,022,611
@OP
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/31/ronald-reagan-racist-conversation-richard-nixon/1876134001/
> Looks like your ad blocker is on, turn it off...
> Subscribe...
No. Fuck you.
Also, who gives a fuck about what is perceived as racist 40 years ago as seen through shit-stained millennial lenses?
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/31/ronald-reagan-racist-conversation-richard-nixon/1876134001/
> Looks like your ad blocker is on, turn it off...
> Subscribe...
No. Fuck you.
Also, who gives a fuck about what is perceived as racist 40 years ago as seen through shit-stained millennial lenses?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 8 minutes later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,022,622
The guy who supported the apartheid government in South Africa and Pol Pot's government in Cambodia was a bad guy and a racist? Absolutely shocking.
(Edited 12 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 50 seconds later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,022,625
Anonymous D replied with this 6 years ago, 35 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,022,655
@previous (A)
Cecil John Rhodes is now also perceived (again, through a modern lens) as the biggest racist who ever lived, and yet when you look at pictures of his funeral you see throngs of Ndebeles, vastly outnumbering the whites, HONOURING him with a salute that is normally only offered to kings. If he really had been a massive racist and not treated them with respect, do you really think they would have respected him that much in return?
The concept of racism is just another communist lie. Don't be fooled by it.
Cecil John Rhodes is now also perceived (again, through a modern lens) as the biggest racist who ever lived, and yet when you look at pictures of his funeral you see throngs of Ndebeles, vastly outnumbering the whites, HONOURING him with a salute that is normally only offered to kings. If he really had been a massive racist and not treated them with respect, do you really think they would have respected him that much in return?
The concept of racism is just another communist lie. Don't be fooled by it.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,022,656
Oh Good God
If it wernt for Republican Presidents the USA would be in twice bad of condition as Mexico by now.
If it wernt for Republican Presidents the USA would be in twice bad of condition as Mexico by now.
Anonymous D replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,022,658
@1,022,622 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> supported the apartheid government in South Africa
Really?
"America—and that means all of us—opposes apartheid, a malevolent and archaic system totally alien to our ideals. The debate was not whether or not to oppose apartheid but, instead, how best to oppose it and how best to bring freedom to that troubled country"
He said this in reference to a new comprehensive anti-apartheid act (1986) - he had tried to veto the bill because he had correctly perceived that it was so punitive it would (and did) only punish the people even more, rather than fix the corrupt government. He lost the vote however, and all anybody ever remembers is that he tried to go against the will of congress to "support apartheid" - bullshit.
> supported the apartheid government in South Africa
Really?
"America—and that means all of us—opposes apartheid, a malevolent and archaic system totally alien to our ideals. The debate was not whether or not to oppose apartheid but, instead, how best to oppose it and how best to bring freedom to that troubled country"
He said this in reference to a new comprehensive anti-apartheid act (1986) - he had tried to veto the bill because he had correctly perceived that it was so punitive it would (and did) only punish the people even more, rather than fix the corrupt government. He lost the vote however, and all anybody ever remembers is that he tried to go against the will of congress to "support apartheid" - bullshit.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,022,660
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,022,662
@1,022,658 (D)
He was literally supporting the apartheid government until Congress cut off aid. His theory that there were moderates in a country where black people were legally second class citizens was absurd on its face and Congress recognized that. There was no ethical way to do business with a government as rotten as SA's. Dragging the farcical "reform" process out was a waste of everyone's time.
He was literally supporting the apartheid government until Congress cut off aid. His theory that there were moderates in a country where black people were legally second class citizens was absurd on its face and Congress recognized that. There was no ethical way to do business with a government as rotten as SA's. Dragging the farcical "reform" process out was a waste of everyone's time.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU double-posted this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,022,663
@1,022,656 (F)
Have you ever heard an idea so stupid you didn't believe it? Because this surely should be one of them.
Have you ever heard an idea so stupid you didn't believe it? Because this surely should be one of them.
Anonymous D replied with this 6 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,022,667
@1,022,662 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> He was literally supporting the apartheid government until Congress cut off aid.
Sorry, but you're just wrong about that. Nobody in the world was supporting apartheid, least of all the U.S.. I don't know what else to say. I'll give it to you that he preferred a softer touch (than say Bush) because he understood that the people who suffer the most from harsh sanctions are the very people who need the most protection from tyranny.
> He was literally supporting the apartheid government until Congress cut off aid.
Sorry, but you're just wrong about that. Nobody in the world was supporting apartheid, least of all the U.S.. I don't know what else to say. I'll give it to you that he preferred a softer touch (than say Bush) because he understood that the people who suffer the most from harsh sanctions are the very people who need the most protection from tyranny.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,022,668
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 22 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,022,688
terri !RwordOooFE joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 19 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,022,700
@1,022,662 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
a lot of my family were killed in his stupid fuckin samosa backing proxy war until he flip flopped and propped up that piece of shit ortega
a lot of my family were killed in his stupid fuckin samosa backing proxy war until he flip flopped and propped up that piece of shit ortega
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,022,702
He didn't say they were shoeless he said they were "uncomfortable wearing shoes". If you are wearing shoes you cannot, by definition, be "shoeless". How stupid to you have to be to think "wearing shoes makes someone uncomfortable" means "that person does not own or wear shoes"?
And you liberals claim to be all about fact checking and accuracy in reporting ???
And you liberals claim to be all about fact checking and accuracy in reporting ???
Anonymous D replied with this 6 years ago, 34 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,022,703
@1,022,700 (terri !RwordOooFE)
I don't know much about this, but wasn't Ortega hard left? And didn't Reagan fund his opposition?
I don't know much about this, but wasn't Ortega hard left? And didn't Reagan fund his opposition?
Anonymous D double-posted this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,022,704
@1,022,668 (A)
I doubt very much he would have said something as undiplomatic as that, but as I don't know anything about this yet I'll assume you're correct until I get to the bottom of it.
I doubt very much he would have said something as undiplomatic as that, but as I don't know anything about this yet I'll assume you're correct until I get to the bottom of it.
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 46 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,022,723
@1,022,667 (D)
> > He was literally supporting the apartheid government until Congress cut off aid.
> Sorry, but you're just wrong about that. Nobody in the world was supporting apartheid, least of all the U.S.. I don't know what else to say. I'll give it to you that he preferred a softer touch (than say Bush) because he understood that the people who suffer the most from harsh sanctions are the very people who need the most protection from tyranny.
misleading you are being
> > He was literally supporting the apartheid government until Congress cut off aid.
> Sorry, but you're just wrong about that. Nobody in the world was supporting apartheid, least of all the U.S.. I don't know what else to say. I'll give it to you that he preferred a softer touch (than say Bush) because he understood that the people who suffer the most from harsh sanctions are the very people who need the most protection from tyranny.
misleading you are being
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,022,725
@1,022,667 (D)
> Nobody in the world was supporting apartheid
The government in South Africa certainly was, and they had support from Reagan who routinely blocked both US and UN sanctions against South Africa. Incidentally, Reagan was not shoeless either. He regularly appeared wearing shoes even though he often looked uncomfortable wearing them.
> Nobody in the world was supporting apartheid
The government in South Africa certainly was, and they had support from Reagan who routinely blocked both US and UN sanctions against South Africa. Incidentally, Reagan was not shoeless either. He regularly appeared wearing shoes even though he often looked uncomfortable wearing them.
terri !RwordOooFE replied with this 6 years ago, 4 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,022,802
@1,022,703 (D)
> I don't know much about this, but wasn't Ortega hard left? And didn't Reagan fund his opposition?
it's confusing. ortega was part of the fsln/sandinistas who for decades tried to overthrow the us-backed somoza regime. after their success the us under reagan funded a nasty counter revolutionary force that fucked shit up for another decade until everybody got along for a minute but then Ortega turned into as big an asshole as Somoza and now we're stuck with that guy until it happens all over again
> I don't know much about this, but wasn't Ortega hard left? And didn't Reagan fund his opposition?
it's confusing. ortega was part of the fsln/sandinistas who for decades tried to overthrow the us-backed somoza regime. after their success the us under reagan funded a nasty counter revolutionary force that fucked shit up for another decade until everybody got along for a minute but then Ortega turned into as big an asshole as Somoza and now we're stuck with that guy until it happens all over again
Anonymous D replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,022,823
@1,022,725 (K)
> > Nobody in the world was supporting apartheid
> The government in South Africa certainly was
Well, obviously they supported themselves. I felt it would have been long-winded and unnecessary to say "except South Africa".
> and they had support from Reagan who routinely blocked both US and UN sanctions against South Africa.
He didn't, and try telling that to South Africans who actually lived through it. Even the entertainment industry was barricaded. You could get far better American & British TV shows in neighboring Zimbabwe. What he did do is try and soften the blow so that the ordinary people (not the politicians) didn't suffer as a result. The may have had his support, but not the National Party. And what's so wrong with that?
When Queen visited South Africa in 1984, they were heavily criticized for even daring to set foot there. Brian May's response was along the lines of "I don't know anything about politics, I just want to play music and entertain people."
> > Nobody in the world was supporting apartheid
> The government in South Africa certainly was
Well, obviously they supported themselves. I felt it would have been long-winded and unnecessary to say "except South Africa".
> and they had support from Reagan who routinely blocked both US and UN sanctions against South Africa.
He didn't, and try telling that to South Africans who actually lived through it. Even the entertainment industry was barricaded. You could get far better American & British TV shows in neighboring Zimbabwe. What he did do is try and soften the blow so that the ordinary people (not the politicians) didn't suffer as a result. The may have had his support, but not the National Party. And what's so wrong with that?
When Queen visited South Africa in 1984, they were heavily criticized for even daring to set foot there. Brian May's response was along the lines of "I don't know anything about politics, I just want to play music and entertain people."
vocalon joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 22 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,022,825
B (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 14 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,022,828
Anonymous K replied with this 6 years ago, 46 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,022,841
@1,022,823 (D)
> He didn't, and try telling that to South Africans who actually lived through it.
He did. And I will. I'll be sure to bring up that time Congress united in a bipartisan action to pass the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act over Reagan's veto.
> What he did do is try and soften the blow so that the ordinary people (not the politicians) didn't suffer as a result.
LOL Wouldn't the wealth just "trickle down" to the ordinary people? You can attribute whatever motive you like to his actions, that doesn't change the facts. I would guess he was more afraid of a communist-sympathetic revolution taking hold in the country. Reagan had enough trouble pretending to care about the ordinary people in his own country. Whether you're propping up an apartheid government because you're a friend to the common people or because you're afraid of communist takeover, you're still propping up an apartheid government.
> He didn't, and try telling that to South Africans who actually lived through it.
He did. And I will. I'll be sure to bring up that time Congress united in a bipartisan action to pass the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act over Reagan's veto.
> What he did do is try and soften the blow so that the ordinary people (not the politicians) didn't suffer as a result.
LOL Wouldn't the wealth just "trickle down" to the ordinary people? You can attribute whatever motive you like to his actions, that doesn't change the facts. I would guess he was more afraid of a communist-sympathetic revolution taking hold in the country. Reagan had enough trouble pretending to care about the ordinary people in his own country. Whether you're propping up an apartheid government because you're a friend to the common people or because you're afraid of communist takeover, you're still propping up an apartheid government.
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 6 years ago, 9 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,022,846
@1,022,828 (B)
Then how could they be uncomfortable wearing shoes if they were shoeless? I don't care either way but just, like, make up your mind as to whether they were shoeless or not.
Then how could they be uncomfortable wearing shoes if they were shoeless? I don't care either way but just, like, make up your mind as to whether they were shoeless or not.
Anonymous D replied with this 6 years ago, 10 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,022,901
@1,022,841 (K)
> He did. And I will. I'll be sure to bring up that time Congress united in a bipartisan action to pass the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act over Reagan's veto.
OK, so you know more about a country, its people and its history than people with first hand experience of it? What's your source exactly? The New York Times?
> LOL Wouldn't the wealth just "trickle down" to the ordinary people?
Are you really that one-dimensional in your thinking? Reaganomics cannot possibly be applied to South Africa because it had (has) a completely different economic structure to the U.S. and is nowhere near as wealthy. Come on, this is elementary.
> I would guess he was more afraid of a communist-sympathetic revolution taking hold in the country.
Only sensible thing you've said - yes, the communist ANC party was bad news, and history has proven its critics correct.
> Whether you're propping up an apartheid government because you're a friend to the common people or because you're afraid of communist takeover, you're still propping up an apartheid government.
Yeah but he didn't prop up the apartheid government though. Carry on thinking that if you insist, however. There's none so blind as those who won't see.
> He did. And I will. I'll be sure to bring up that time Congress united in a bipartisan action to pass the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act over Reagan's veto.
OK, so you know more about a country, its people and its history than people with first hand experience of it? What's your source exactly? The New York Times?
> LOL Wouldn't the wealth just "trickle down" to the ordinary people?
Are you really that one-dimensional in your thinking? Reaganomics cannot possibly be applied to South Africa because it had (has) a completely different economic structure to the U.S. and is nowhere near as wealthy. Come on, this is elementary.
> I would guess he was more afraid of a communist-sympathetic revolution taking hold in the country.
Only sensible thing you've said - yes, the communist ANC party was bad news, and history has proven its critics correct.
> Whether you're propping up an apartheid government because you're a friend to the common people or because you're afraid of communist takeover, you're still propping up an apartheid government.
Yeah but he didn't prop up the apartheid government though. Carry on thinking that if you insist, however. There's none so blind as those who won't see.
Anonymous F replied with this 6 years ago, 32 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,022,908
Without Bosses there are no employees. Subjugate the owner of businesses and the common people with suffer. Science.
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 6 years ago, 2 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,023,018
Anonymous K replied with this 6 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,023,105
@1,022,901 (D)
> OK, so you know more about a country, its people and its history than people with first hand experience of it?
This would be a great argument if you were talking about events in South Africa. My comment had to do with what Reagan did in the US though. Try and keep up.
> Yeah but he didn't prop up the apartheid government though.
You say he didn't block sanctions and then you admit he did. But I guess it doesn't count in your world because... special pleading?
> OK, so you know more about a country, its people and its history than people with first hand experience of it?
This would be a great argument if you were talking about events in South Africa. My comment had to do with what Reagan did in the US though. Try and keep up.
> Yeah but he didn't prop up the apartheid government though.
You say he didn't block sanctions and then you admit he did. But I guess it doesn't count in your world because... special pleading?
Anonymous D replied with this 6 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,023,158
@previous (K)
> This would be a great argument if you were talking about events in South Africa. My comment had to do with what Reagan did in the US though.
The actions of Reagan and congress affected the events in South Africa. You said congress passed the act over Reagan's veto. Reagan was against the punitive nature of the act, not the act to oppose apartheid itself. I already quoted him saying the following yesterday, but, again for your benefit since you obviously didn't read it the first time:
"America - and that means all of us - opposes apartheid, a malevolent and archaic system totally alien to our ideals. The debate was not whether or not to oppose apartheid but, instead, how best to oppose it and how best to bring freedom to that troubled country"
If you did note it but all you can take away from it is "Reagan supported apartheid", then I pity your reading, comprehension and logical deduction skills.
> Try and keep up.
lol, you are the one who is several posts behind.
> You say he didn't block sanctions and then you admit he did.
Sigh. He didn't block SANCTIONS, he tried to block an outrageously punitive bill which would and did spell more suffering for the common people but did little to punish the apartheid government - i.e. he tried to block a flawed action by a congress who, like you, could not understand that just because the Nazis are in charge it doesn't automatically mean that ALL Germans are evil. Can you really and truly not see the difference or are you just trolling?
> This would be a great argument if you were talking about events in South Africa. My comment had to do with what Reagan did in the US though.
The actions of Reagan and congress affected the events in South Africa. You said congress passed the act over Reagan's veto. Reagan was against the punitive nature of the act, not the act to oppose apartheid itself. I already quoted him saying the following yesterday, but, again for your benefit since you obviously didn't read it the first time:
"America - and that means all of us - opposes apartheid, a malevolent and archaic system totally alien to our ideals. The debate was not whether or not to oppose apartheid but, instead, how best to oppose it and how best to bring freedom to that troubled country"
If you did note it but all you can take away from it is "Reagan supported apartheid", then I pity your reading, comprehension and logical deduction skills.
> Try and keep up.
lol, you are the one who is several posts behind.
> You say he didn't block sanctions and then you admit he did.
Sigh. He didn't block SANCTIONS, he tried to block an outrageously punitive bill which would and did spell more suffering for the common people but did little to punish the apartheid government - i.e. he tried to block a flawed action by a congress who, like you, could not understand that just because the Nazis are in charge it doesn't automatically mean that ALL Germans are evil. Can you really and truly not see the difference or are you just trolling?
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous K replied with this 6 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,023,240
@previous (D)
> "America - and that means all of us - opposes apartheid, a malevolent and archaic system totally alien to our ideals. The debate was not whether or not to oppose apartheid but, instead, how best to oppose it and how best to bring freedom to that troubled country"
We can all see that Reagan said that. It's a little hard to take it seriously when he's throwing his support behind the government that is doing it, but okay, I'd really like to believe he was personally against apartheid too.
> If you did note it but all you can take away from it is "Reagan supported apartheid", then I pity your reading, comprehension and logical deduction skills.
So far, people in this thread have been criticizing him for supporting the people who are doing it. It's you who are really trying to blur the line between supporting the government enforcing the policy and supporting the policy itself.
> Sigh. He didn't block SANCTIONS
He literally called them "punitive sanctions" in the very statement you pulled that quote from. For fuck's sake, stop making shit up.
> "America - and that means all of us - opposes apartheid, a malevolent and archaic system totally alien to our ideals. The debate was not whether or not to oppose apartheid but, instead, how best to oppose it and how best to bring freedom to that troubled country"
We can all see that Reagan said that. It's a little hard to take it seriously when he's throwing his support behind the government that is doing it, but okay, I'd really like to believe he was personally against apartheid too.
> If you did note it but all you can take away from it is "Reagan supported apartheid", then I pity your reading, comprehension and logical deduction skills.
So far, people in this thread have been criticizing him for supporting the people who are doing it. It's you who are really trying to blur the line between supporting the government enforcing the policy and supporting the policy itself.
> Sigh. He didn't block SANCTIONS
He literally called them "punitive sanctions" in the very statement you pulled that quote from. For fuck's sake, stop making shit up.
Anonymous D replied with this 6 years ago, 8 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,023,290
@previous (K)
> He literally called them "punitive sanctions"
Yes, the key word is "punitive". He fully supported sanctions intended to harm the government but not punish the people. How is this so difficult to comprehend?
> He literally called them "punitive sanctions"
Yes, the key word is "punitive". He fully supported sanctions intended to harm the government but not punish the people. How is this so difficult to comprehend?
q. joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,023,347
q. double-posted this 6 years ago, 25 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,023,349
WIN ONE FOR THE GIPPER FGTS
q. triple-posted this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,023,352
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,023,377
so I heard the audio, and he comes off as kind of racist