Up yours USMC!

Here is more of that "90% play on words". The Reagan story began in Israel when Reagan was telling the president of that country that he had saved footage of the concentration camps because he thought that one day it would need to be shown because after everyone forgot about it that they would begin to disbelieve that it ever happened. This was overheard by a Hebrew speaking aid who did not have a complete command of English. He reported that Reagan said that he "shot" the video while he was in Germany. Later he corrected the story that Reagan never said that he was in Germany or shot any film. You know the left though, never let the truth get in the way of try to discredit a republican. Even to using the Holocaust to do it. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Like I said I don't know what he said but one thing is sure Reagan good, bad or indifferent, he made people think he was something he was not.

How about the story he told about the letter wrote in braille. Anyone ever get to the bottom of that one?

The rest of your post does not make any sense. I am not the one worried about a salute from Reagan, Bush or Obama. Originally Posted by slingblade

Really? Not worried about a salute? Then why did you get into a food fight over military protocol and fault Reagan for starting the whole thing? Go back and read your previous posts starting with #2.

...As in you can only comprehend things from your own narrowed perspective.... Originally Posted by slingblade

You mean like viewing a former actor as a “pretend” President and a former community organizer as a real one? You mean like saying Reagan's saluting was just serving a political agenda - as if Obama doesn't have one? I have a very balanced perspective. You don't even address my point that EVERY Commander-in-Chief (conservative or liberal, Repub or Dem) has a duty to uplift and inspire the troops.

So my opinion on this is open to be revisited... Originally Posted by slingblade

+1

First (and probably last) time I've seen anyone say that on here.

Really? Not worried about a salute? Then why did you get into a food fight over military protocol and fault Reagan for starting the whole thing? Go back and read your previous posts starting with #2.

I did not start the food fight. I defended the POTUS because of the BS thread that was started. Reagan and Bush were used as examples of the double standard here.

You mean like viewing a former actor as a “pretend” President and a former community organizer as a real one? You mean like saying Reagan's saluting was just serving a political agenda - as if Obama doesn't have one? I have a very balanced perspective. You don't even address my point that EVERY Commander-in-Chief (conservative or liberal, Repub or Dem) has a duty to uplift and inspire the troops.

I did not say he was a pretend President I said a pretend soldier. As for addressing that the POTUS should uplift and inspire the troops makes no sense. Your team tries to undermine any and everything they can with the troops and the civilians.

+1

First (and probably last) time I've seen anyone say that on here. Originally Posted by lustylad

Now you see why I don't call names. It does not serve you well to insult someone that you want to listen to you.

I did not say he was a pretend President I said a pretend soldier. Originally Posted by slingblade

Hey blade, there you go playing on words again. Are you having fun fucking with us? Here is exactly what you said:

"Reagan was hired actor from day one. He made a living as a pretend soldier and nothing changed when he was the POTUS."

What are the words "nothing changed when he was the POTUS" supposed to mean? They mean he continued to act and pretend as President, which is another way of calling him a pretend President. Look, if you want to have any credibility here and not be called names like weasel, you need to learn how to stop denying or walking back what you just posted.

Now stop calling me a liar, fagboy. If you can unearth a first-hand account of Reagan lying about his service record (rather than reminiscing about his wartime movie roles), I will concede the point. If you can't, then man up and admit it's just another libtard attempt to slander one of our most successful 20th-century Presidents.

. Originally Posted by lustylad

On Feb. 15, famed Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal met with Reagan in the White House and heard a similar story. Wiesenthal told Washington Post reporter Joanne Omang that he and Reagan had held "a very nice meeting," during which the president related "some of his personal remarks from the end of the war."
Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, also was present. He told Omang that Reagan said he was "a member of the Signal Corps taking pictures of the camps" and that he had saved a copy of the film and shown it a year later to a person who thought the reports were exaggerated.

http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/05/20/...thers-imagine/

Here is the biggest lie of all
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488
The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.

Nice try, fagboy. After doing my own research, I think I am going with the late William F. Buckley Jr.'s contemporaneous account of what REALLY happened:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...pg=2314,618901


"SO, WHAT HAPPENED?

At the meeting in question, there were several people present. They included Secretary of State George Schultz, White House advisor Marshall Breger, and Rabbi Marvin Hier, who is the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles.

The next day, Joanne Omang of the Washington Post telephoned Marshall Breger and asked whether Reagan had represented himself as a Signal Corps photographer who had taken pictures of the concentration camps. No, Breger said. The President had said he had seen such films, taken by the unit to which he was attached, and that the films had made a lasting impression on him.

Schultz confirmed that this was what he had heard. Marty Mendelsohn, counsel for the Simon Wiesenthal Center, contacted Hier in Los Angeles, who confirmed that this was what he had heard. The confusion was attributed to the insecure English of Wiesenthal."


As Mark Twain noted - "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on."

.

I don't see this double standard you're talking about.....except on the left. Remember Code Pink is giving Obama a pass just because of his race.

Hey blade, there you go playing on words again. Are you having fun fucking with us? Here is exactly what you said:

"Reagan was hired actor from day one. He made a living as a pretend soldier and nothing changed when he was the POTUS."

What are the words "nothing changed when he was the POTUS" supposed to mean? They mean he continued to act and pretend as President, which is another way of calling him a pretend President. Look, if you want to have any credibility here and not be called names like weasel, you need to learn how to stop denying or walking back what you just posted. Originally Posted by lustylad

No I am not! He was a pretend soldier before during and after his presidency in my opinion. This conversation is just your way of diverting the fact that if he did not flat out say he saw action he certainly implied it. "nothing changed when he was the POTUS" has no bearing on his term as POTUS, only that he has still a pretend soldier. This crap right here is why I have so much disdain for the far right. You guys are obnoxious and belligerent at everything you do. Give it up dude.

Nice try, fagboy. After doing my own research, I think I am going with the late William F. Buckley Jr.'s contemporaneous account of what REALLY happened:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...pg=2314,618901


"SO, WHAT HAPPENED?

At the meeting in question, there were several people present. They included Secretary of State George Schultz, White House advisor Marshall Breger, and Rabbi Marvin Hier, who is the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles.

The next day, Joanne Omang of the Washington Post telephoned Marshall Breger and asked whether Reagan had represented himself as a Signal Corps photographer who had taken pictures of the concentration camps. No, Breger said. The President had said he had seen such films, taken by the unit to which he was attached, and that the films had made a lasting impression on him.

Schultz confirmed that this was what he had heard. Marty Mendelsohn, counsel for the Simon Wiesenthal Center, contacted Hier in Los Angeles, who confirmed that this was what he had heard. The confusion was attributed to the insecure English of Wiesenthal."


As Mark Twain noted - "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on."

. Originally Posted by lustylad

So on two occasion Reagan was misquoted , that seems rather strange. Sounds like your lying cover up for Reagan is the one with the head start.
On Feb. 15, famed Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal met with Reagan in the White House and heard a similar story.......

.....When Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir visited the White House last November 29, he was impressed by a previously undisclosed remembrance of President Reagan about the Nazi extermination of Jews during World War II. Repeating it to his Israeli Cabinet five days later, Shamir said Reagan had told him that he had served as a photographer in a U.S. Army unit assigned to film Nazi death camps.


.Shamir said Reagan also informed him that he had saved a copy of the film because he believed that, in time, people would question what had happened….
Shamir's account appeared December 6 in the Israeli newspaper Maariv. It was confirmed last week to Edward Walsh, the Washington Post correspondent in Jerusalem, by Israeli Cabinet secretary Dan Meridor.


Even W. Buckley reported that Reagan said that

''he has seen such films taken by the unit to which he was attached and the films had made a lasting impression on him.''

So Reagan may not have been lying when he said the first time , The unit I was attached to in WWII took actual footage of the concentration camps and it has left a lasting impression on me, is. Is it like Clinton and depend on the meaning of what the word is, is ? . But after being called out he continues to distort. Things that make you go Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm:b ye1:





.

Y'all are fucking idiots arguing about this shit.
Think back a little, if you are old enough or mature enough, to when Reagan took office.
America was in decline. Remember the Charlie Daniels' song "In America"?
Stagflation was the buzz word. We had just botched an attempt to free the Iranian hostages, our military personnel getting spit on as they returned from Vietnam was still fresh in our minds and Carter had just taken us to a low point on the global weakness scale.
We needed Patriotism and I think Reagan's saluting was a way that the President could instill a little bit of that and give the troops some pride. Was it political? Yeah as much as anything a President does is political.
When Reagan consulted the Commandant of the Marine Corps he was told he could salute any one he wanted.
I think where Reagan went wrong was in advising GHWB to do the same thing. If it had ended with Reagan it wouldn't be an issue. Now it has become an unnecessary obligation that both GWB and Obama probably would have better off ignoring rather than doing it half heartedly.

Y'all are fucking idiots arguing about this shit.
Think back a little, if you are old enough or mature enough, to when Reagan took office.
America was in decline. Remember the Charlie Daniels' song "In America"?
Stagflation was the buzz word. We had just botched an attempt to free the Iranian hostages, our military personnel getting spit on as they returned from Vietnam was still fresh in our minds and Carter had just taken us to a low point on the global weakness scale.
We needed Patriotism and I think Reagan's saluting was a way that the President could instill a little bit of that and give the troops some pride. Was it political? Yeah as much as anything a President does is political.
When Reagan consulted the Commandant of the Marine Corps he was told he could salute any one he wanted.
I think where Reagan went wrong was in advising GHWB to do the same thing. If it had ended with Reagan it wouldn't be an issue. Now it has become an unnecessary obligation that both GWB and Obama probably would have better off ignoring rather than doing it half heartedly. Originally Posted by boardman

We needed Patriotism? Saluting the troops was considered patriotic at the time? I consider not selling arms to Iran more patriotic during his administration but that is just me. I do not worship Reagan. He had just gotten a shit load of Marines killed in Beirut and then cut and run, maybe that had something to do with it.

We Came In Peace

"The Multinational Peacekeeping Force presence in Lebanon in 1982-83 undoubtedly contributed to the stability of the government of Lebanon and saved lives. Our successes, albeit limited, were obviously worrisome enough to the primary powerbrokers in Tehran and Damascus to compel them to launch the suicide truck bombing operations against us. The timing, locations, and targets of the bombings were no more coincidental than were the sophisticated planning, magnitude, and execution of the attacks.

"The choice of 23 October was significant because National Reconciliation Talks among all key factions within the government of Lebanon were scheduled to be held in Geneva, beginning on the 31st. Preliminary talks were set to begin on the 24th at Beirut International Airport, where the U.S. Multi-National Peacekeeping Force had been located for more than a year."

Colonel Timothy Geraghty, USMC (Retired)

http://www.usni.org/magazines/procee...-we-came-peace

.

Democrats said today that they would push for a resolution reducing the time limit for the marines to remain in Lebanon to three months.

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/10/29/wo...l?pagewanted=2

WASHINGTON, Jan. 26— Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. (D) predicted today that the House of Representatives would approve a resolution urging the withdrawal of United States marines from Lebanon. His statement came as Senate Democrats reaffirmed their opposition to the 18-month deployment of the marines in Beirut.
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/01/27/wo...n-pullout.html

WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 - House Democratic leaders agreed tonight on a Congressional resolution that would urge President Reagan to begin ''the prompt and orderly withdrawal'' of the Marine contingent in Lebanon.
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/02/01/wo...t-pullout.html

We needed Patriotism? Saluting the troops was considered patriotic at the time? I consider not selling arms to Iran more patriotic during his administration but that is just me. I do not worship Reagan. He had just gotten a shit load of Marines killed in Beirut and then cut and run, maybe that had something to do with it.



Originally Posted by WTF

Yes, we needed patriotism. If you disagree with that then your rememberer is broken.
I'm not saying it was right, I'm saying Reagan felt it was needed at the time even in direct conflict with some of his closest advisors. To a point it worked for him. The big mistake was advising Bush Sr. to carry on.

Sounds like your lying cover up for Reagan is the one with the head start. Originally Posted by WTF

This is VINTAGE FAGBOY. When you lose an argument, paint yourself into a corner, and look truly stupid and desperate, what do you do?

YOU DOUBLE DOWN, OF COURSE!

First he called me a liar. Now he is calling all these people liars too:

1. George Schultz, Secretary of State
2. Marshall Breger, White House advisor
3. Joanne Omang, Washington Post reporter
4. Marvin Hier, Rabbi and Dean of Simon Wiesenthal Center
5. Marty Mendelsohn, counsel for Simon Wiesenthal Center
6. William F. Buckley, Jr., author, commentator and founder of National Review

Looks like I am in pretty good company here. Fagboy wasn't even in the room, yet he insists everyone else is lying, not him. 30 years later, he is the one who knows what Reagan really said, not the people who were there. How desperate and pathetic. You got nothing, fagboy. Actually, you got less than nothing, because you just showed - once again - you aren't even man enough to admit when you got nothing.

.

"nothing changed when he was the POTUS" has no bearing on his term as POTUS, only that he has still a pretend soldier. This crap right here is why I have so much disdain for the far right. Originally Posted by slingblade

Incredible. You won't even own up to your own posts. You parse and garble your own words. Did you take lessons from Bill Clinton? “That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.” You are the one spewing out crap. You complain about name-calling? Being a weasel is far worse. I am not the “far right”. I don't care whether you are left or right - if you don't have any intellectual integrity you are wasting everyone's time here.