Radio Host Mike Papantonio Condemns Reagan for Deaths 'Almost' Caused by Firing of Air Traffic Controllers
Liberals rarely hesitate to express their disdain for Ronald Reagan, except when it's convenient to compare him to Barack Obama.
Now comes a novel criticism of Reagan from radio host and environmental lawyer Mike Papantonio -- the Great Communicator as Almost A Mass Killer.
Here's Papantonio explaining this while guest hosting on Ed Schultz's radio show yesterday, to a caller skeptical of demands for nationwide strikes in support of public-sector unions (audio) --
CALLER: You have all these people talking about unemployment, wondering where the jobs are. I say if 300,000 people want to walk, go out on strike because of collective bargaining rights and all this other stuff, fine. We just created 300,000 jobs.
PAPANTONIO: Well, not really. Let me ask you, no, this is interesting, Brad. Do you think, you think you're going to replace those teachers with National Guard armory? You think you're going to bring in the National Guard to teach physics and biology? It was like, it's like the PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization) strike. Do you realize how many deaths there almost were because of the PATCO strike because you had an old senile man who was owned by corporate America wanting to prove that he was the toughest guy on the block, wanting to bust strikers?
Do tell, how many, Mike? Not surprisingly, Papantonio doesn't say.
In fairness to Papantonio, his claim would be true except for that inconvenient absence of casualties. As a New York Post headline proclaimed after Clinton was acquitted by the Senate -- Close But No Cigar.
While we're on the subject, think of all those people who "almost" drowned while young Reagan was a lifeguard in Dixon, Ill.
That "old senile man," by the way -- defeated much younger Democratic opponents for president, in 1980 and 1984. Also survived an assassination attempt, the only sitting president who ever has, despite losing half his blood and the bullet lodging within inches of his heart. Who prayed for the soul of the man who shot him. Who lived more than two decades after taking office, despite his alleged decrepitude.
Papantonio's PATCO gem wasn't the only one he coughed up while filling in for Schultz. Here's what he said after a caller praised the "Ring of Fire" radio show that Papantonio cohosts with Robert Kennedy Jr. and Sam Seder (audio) --
I appreciate that a lot, but you know where we learned everything we know? From Ed Schultz. I'd like, that's just truth. I was listening to Ed Schultz before I ever said the first word on a radio and I understood, Bobby Kennedy understood, Sam Seder understood, that you don't go to a knifefight with a gun.
Also known, in the enlightened era before an "old senile man" took office, as the Carter Doctrine.
(Correction -- for me to describe Reagan as "the only sitting president" who ever survived an assassination attempt is inaccurate. Several others, including Andrew Jackson, Harry Truman and Gerald Ford, also survived attempts to kill them. More accurately, Reagan was the only sitting president who was struck by a bullet and survived.)
- Jack Coleman's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
How do I put this delicately....
Submitted by nonncom on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 5:55pm.
This guy is full of shit.....LOL.....I worked in the industry then, as a contractor.....I was actually at Ft. Lauderdale Executive Airport the day Reagan hauled 'em all off to jail.....never saw where anybody was in any danger.....the managers and controllers who refused to strike did just fine keeping us all safe....Reagan did the right thing.....Walker will be well within his rights if he docks the Dems who refused to do their jobs their paychecks for the period they were missing in action....The Left is unsurpassed at lying and obfuscating. As another
Submitted by Rush Fan on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 6:06pm.
example, my Los Angeles-area newspaper disingenuously used the phrase "almost certain fact" when attempting to claim the existance of "Climate Change."
Next the Libtards will use the phrase "almost pregnant" when discussing abortion rights.
Er, last time I checked, it was the guy sitting in the left seat
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 6:09pm.
...the pilot, who was ultimately responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft.
That's why they teach the concept of See and Avoid, which means you look where the Hell it is you are going, and you avoid things that might interfere with the safe operation of your aircraft.
-Things like other aircraft, buildings, vehicles, trees, and lawyers.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Hell, Not only that look at all
Submitted by dirtydan64 on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 3:53am.
the Dummies that have had to take over the controls because the Pilot dies on the Job and a passenger landed the jets, planes safe & sound without so much as a hour of flying time under his/her belt Wooooooot !!!!! The Ideology that these teachers have today where they truly believe there's no one that can replace them needs to be beaten out of them if they want to maintain there jobs. Us Parent for the most part do a pretty good job as raising our young which makes it that much eaiser for Teachers to do their part, yet they want to make us feel as if we should be indebted to them because there teachers, Really...... !! If there jobs are so dam tough why haven't most of them walked off the job years ago already and forgo their pensions we pay dearly for I might add !!!Ed The Tutor?
Submitted by Boil It Down on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 6:42pm.
It's nice that Mike Papantonio acknowledges Ed Schultz' expert tutelage in ad hominem mischaracterizations and name calling. Also the uncalled for and biased dig at one of the best, albeit Republican, Presidents in order to advance the unions. He's no Ed, but then who is? Ed must be just bustin' with pride. How low must you be to look up to Ed Schultz?no matter who you think you are:
Submitted by JIMMY1660 on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 6:07pm.
when POTUS tells you to go back to work-and do it now"GO BACK TO WORK" tax payers are the makers/bakers-the local State unions are the cookie eaters. the cookie jar is empty-you eat so many cookies we can not make enough-no sugar/no flour No Cookies-understand that go back to work-eat three squares maybe we can bake cookies when things get better. Or go find another job-quicklyWe have other ways to honor President Reagan
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 6:18pm.
For one, we should thank Reagan for his $165 billion bailout for social security, so our elders can retire in comfort. Next I would like to thank Mr Reagan for his Amnesty, er, Immigration Reform Act of 1986 which led to, what I believe, a much more diverse America, one of which our forefathers would be proud. Finally I'd say his work with the militarizing the Afghans and creating a leader in Osama bin Laden served well in ending the Cold War, and ultimately bringing peace and liberty (finally!) to the middle east. President Reagan, I stand here humbled and honored to have survived your administration.its not about Reagan-
Submitted by JIMMY1660 on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 6:25pm.
since Teddy R. they have all been progressives. liars and thieves its about doing whats right. best for Americas survivalAre you seriously suggesting
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 3:09pm.
Are you seriously suggesting that Calvin Coolidge was a Progressive ?/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Three distortions for the
Submitted by Free Stinker on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 6:26pm.
Three distortions for the price of one/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
I'll bet
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 6:44pm.
If you try really, really hard you can defend any one of the 3.→ Pickle puffer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 6:47pm.
What on Earth are you talking about?✌ Pickle Puffer
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 6:53pm.
You funny.Defend ? You're the one who
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 3:08pm.
Defend ? You're the one who needs to defend your own propaganda.
Have you ever thought about thinking for yourself? You should try it sometime.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
He already admitted he lied about the militarization part.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 3:26pm.
See below. Still waiting for the admitted liar to own up to his other lies.. . . and it will probably be
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 6:58pm.
. . . and it will probably be a long wait . . ./// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Thinking Is A Skill That Has To Be Practiced
Submitted by Avitar on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 3:05am.
I get lonely thinking myself here in Connecticut where it is not popular. That Newt Gingrich as Speaker delivered four of the years with balanced Federal budgets in the twentieth century and that Tip O'Neil as Speaker delivered none should be living memory but isn't.
With regard to the Afghans citizens don't even have to read or think, they can see the movie. They made the movie "Charlie Wilson's War." That Charlie was a Texas Democrat I do not hold against him and wish that we had other Democrats that measure up to him today, after all he was a Congressman filling in as President before Carter left. Reagan had so many other things to do that he could not go back and correct Charlie's mistakes if Charllie made really made mistakes.
I am not sure that this is not the best outcome possible of what was a very bad situation after Carter finished. I can do better than Clinton did and skid row has people who can do better than Obama does but I do not see how to do better than Reagan, He played the greatest odds for greatest success.
What are we going to do?
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 7:37am.
Rhetorical question. The was was over. We packed up and went home. Were we supposed to hold the Afghani hands or something? I am sick to death of liberal's hypocritical whining. They want us out of Iraq at all costs. They don't want a single soldier left there. But guess who will be whining 30 years from now if a bad guy comes out of Iraq after we leave.I'll take on one
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 9:18pm.
So, basically, you hate Reagan for not being a prophet. I'm sorry his crystal ball was not working the day he decided to arm up the Mujahadeen in order to eject the Soviets from Afghanistan. But then, the end of the Cold War brought about a whole host of different problems, many of which were not foreseen by anyone or anticipated.
Maybe Reagan should have said "Mr. Gorbachev, please keep this Wall propped up." But then you would have just bitched about that too.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Who's bitching?
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 9:32pm.
I thanked Mr. Reagan.Vegetables :
Submitted by NL207 on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 9:42pm.
Why did Ronald Reagan have to bail out Social Security? I thought the Trust Fund was solid and secure. What could possibly have caused it to require a bailout?Rhetorical question?
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 9:44pm.
It was the liberals fault, right?I thought that since you
Submitted by NL207 on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 9:50pm.
I thought that since you credited Reagan with this saving of Social Security, you must have an explanation for why it was such a noble deed.
So I will ask you again, why was a Social Security bailout needed?
I know!
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 9:53pm.
Because we didnt have death panels, er health care reform,,,,,,, right? What do I win?Boudin
Submitted by NL207 on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 9:56pm.
you naughty boy. You are spoiling my fun.Why?
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 9:57pm.
Because social security it s pyramid scheme designed to ultimately fail long after those who implemented the program are long past.You don't suppose the
Submitted by NL207 on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 10:05pm.
You don't suppose the creators of Social Security knew it was a pyramid scheme at the outset? It is hard to imagine that people who were clever enough to have themsleves installed as the government of the United States would have lacked the foresight and judgement to recognize an obvious fact like this.
Our forefathers
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 11:09pm.
Were slave owners. I think it's safe to say mistakes have been made by even the geniuses behind our Constitution. Social Security was a great idea at the time, but...well we all know the "but."Being a slave owner was acceptable at the time---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 11:59pm.
that occurred, though slaves obviously wouldn't have agreed. If dealing in the trade slave ranks so high in your pantheon of execrable acts and conditions, get after those who still practice it in this day and age rather than taking shots at our forefathers.I am explaining
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 12:16am.
That our government, no matter how great we think our leaders might be, or how great we think their policies are, have their faults. Some good ideas at one time turn out to be not-so good ideas later on. Social Security might be one of the not-so good.Pickles---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 12:19am.
can't argue with that, though it might not have turned out quite as badly, even for a pyramid scheme, had politicians not engaged in their usual hanky-panky and emptied what was supposedly a locked box.Change the subject ....
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 12:28am.
Lose the debate. Clearly, those who created and then looted Social Security were unconscionable manipulators and cruel tyrants concerned only with the expansion of their own power at the expense of the common man's well being. They were Progressives. Democrats. Liberals, one and all.
Where's Free Stinker when we need him? NL : 1 - PP : 0
Since you'd like to talk about slavery .... Those few handful of our founders who were slave owners were deeply troubled by that institution, and (1) in the Constitution, included provisions which they knew were incompatible with slavery and would in time bring about its end (2) many of whom manumitted their own slaves during their lifetimes or upon their deaths. The British Crown planted the institution of transgenerational slavery upon our shores and our Founders rightly set us down the path to end it. Their only fault in this matter I can see is they were unable to devise a means to do this that did not end in great bloodshed.
Ludicrous
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 12:43am.
That is the wackiest interpretation of history I have EVER heard.
Wow. They weren't comfortable owning slaves, but they did it anyway. But then drafted a constitution which still didn't allow for the freedom of human beings, just non-African human beings.
I have to hand it to you. You tried. But you failed. Owning slaves but feeling uncomfortable about it doesn't justify owning slaves, no matter how you twist it.
Yooo Peck! Slavery was legal in 1770's
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 4:15pm.
Still is
The entire time you have been posting here... all your dreck operates on FEELINGS and 20-20 hindsight.
When the age of oil, is destroyed, slavery will make a dramatic come back..... 1 gallon of gasoline equals 500 man hours of labor.
You Didn't Build That.
If only you studied history
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 9:46pm.
Time to study some history.
You MAY want to read some document called The Constitution. In it, there is a provision which ends the slave trade in 1808.
By this time slavery was dead or dying up north, and would be kept in place by the invention of the cotton gin (which made cotton king in the South).
To me, this represents the Founders kicking the can down the road for someone else to solve. And future generations solved the problem, all right. At the cost of about 500,000 people.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
What a poor debater P&P is
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 9:46pm.
If only you were as committed to debate as much as you are to being a complete smartass.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Debate? Seriously?
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 9:53pm.
So far all I've seen are smarmy comments lacking substance. No, not from you, not that I recall. It is not a fallacy to say Reagan was the figure of most importance in ending the Cold War, but missteps had occurred, some unbeknownst at the time, that led to the rise of bin Laden as a militant leader. Now that's a serious answer, unlike the first response to my post. Shall we continue?Again...
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 10:33pm.
Again, you are blaming Reagan for not being a prophet. I am sorry his crystal ball was foggy that day. I don't think Kaiser Wilhelm II was purposely laying down the groundwork for a war which would lead to the deaths of about 50 million people and the shattering of nations and empires that would be unrecoverable, but that is in fact exactly what he did.
Bringing down the Wall brought about a great deal of consequences, many of which could not have been foreseen. Should we have demanded that Gorbachev prop up the Wall instead so that we would not have to see bin Laden (and much more importantly, et al) rise to prominence?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
A prophet? No.
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 12:33am.
But mistakes were made along the way. It is believed Gorbachev had planned to withdraw if the US would agree to stop funneling billions in military aid to the Islamist Afghan militants who were pretty much embarrassing the Soviet Union. This led to bin Laden's ascent. But once the Soviets left Afghanistan our government pretty much stopped paying attention to the region, and as the Taliban rose, well you know the story."It's believed"?
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 3:30pm.
Would that be "it's believed" by "some people"? Is that what you're trying to say, in your smarmy way?Huh?
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 9:50pm.
Your point?
You hinge way too much on bin Laden in any case.
Mistakes are CONSTANTLY made. CONSTANTLY. Such is life. I guess you favored propping up the Wall then. Instead of freeing 500 million people...screw 'em.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Pickle Snot LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 7:42am.
Pickle Snot: ...the US would agree to stop funneling billions in military aid to the Islamist Afghan militants who were pretty much embarrassing the Soviet Union. This led to bin Laden's ascent.
Prove it Liar. Prove that Bin Laden gained a following by complaining the U.S cut off funding to the Afghanis. Prove it.
YOU LIED AGAIN.
Pickle Puffer LIES.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 1:38am.
Pickle Puffer: Finally I'd say his work with the militarizing the Afghans...
The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, leading to a resistance and militarizing of the Afghans. Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, taking office in January of 1981.
So the Afghans were already militarized when President Reagan took office. What his administration, and Congress (Looks like Pickle Puffer missed Charlie Wilson's War) was amp up sending effective weapons to an already militarized Afghan resistance.
YOU LIE PICKLE PUFFER. Now who was banned 5 weeks ago?
U.S Covert Operations in the Afghanistan War
With the 1979 invasion of Soviet troops into Afghanistan, the war between anti-communist rebel forces and the Soviet-backed Afghan government was well underway. The number of Soviet troops in Afghanistan reached 100,000 by early 1980. Anti-communist guerrilla forces, jointly called the mujahidin (Islamic warriors), actively fought both the Soviet troops and the pro-Soviet Afghan government led by President Babrak Karmal.
From the Soviet invasion onward, the United States sought ways to back the anti-Soviet forces. By 1983, the CIA was purchasing assault rifles, grenade launchers, mines, and SA-7 light antiaircraft weapons, totaling 10,000 tons, mainly from China. The Reagan administration had them shipped to Pakistan, a country that at the time was working closely with Washington.
Then, in a move that marked a turning point in the relentless war, in 1985, President Ronald Reagan made a secret decision to escalate covert support to the mujahidin. Soon after, the CIA began to supply an extensive array of intelligence, military expertise and advanced weapons to the Muslim rebel forces. They included satellite reconnaissance data of Soviet targets in Afghanistan; Soviet plans for military operations based on satellite intelligence and intercepts of Soviet communications; covert communication technology for the rebels; detonating devices for tons of C-4 explosives for urban targets; long-range sniper rifles; a targeting system linked to a U.S. Navy satellite; and wire-guided anti-tank missiles.1 Furthermore, amidst intensifying debate within the CIA over the extent of U.S. involvement in the war, Reagan made the decision to equip the mujahidin with sophisticated U.S.-made Stinger antiaircraft missiles. American-trained Pakistani officers were sent to Afghanistan to set up a secret mujahidin Stinger training facility, which was complete with a U.S.-made electronic simulator. By 1987, the CIA was sending a steady supply of 65,000 tons of arms to the mujahidin.
You may not like the facts
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 11:50am.
But them's them. Here's a more complete story for your perusal.
As I said previously I don't expect Reagan could have known the devastation the Taliban would eventually be responsible for, but even your link tells the same story as I:
By the time the world recognized the oppressive nature of the Taliban, both the United States and the United Nations had long ceased taking interest in Afghanistan
Did not click on your link.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 12:17pm.
You have been told time and time again. Telling people to go read a 6 page article to fish out the one sentence that backs up up is NOT how you treat people on the internet.
You bring forward the quote. You link to the quote if people want to read more. That is how you respect people on the internet.
Now pack sand troll. YOU LIED. LIVE WITH IT.
Point out the lie, please
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 12:21pm.
From my link: At a Politburo meeting of Nov. 13, 1986, Gorbachev laid his position on the table: The war wasn't working; it had to be stopped: People ask: "What are we doing there?" Will we be there endlessly? Or should we end this war? ... The strategic objective is to finish the war in one, maximum two years, and withdraw the troops. We have set a clear goal: Help speed up the process, so we have a friendly neutral country, and get out of there. In early December, Gorbachev summoned President Najibullah, the puppet leader of Afghanistan, to give him the news: The Soviet troops would be leaving within 18 months; after that, he was on his own. Two months later, on Feb. 23, 1987, Gorbachev assured the Politburo that the troops wouldn't leave right away. He first had to foster a stable environment for the reigning government and to maintain a credible image with India, the Soviet Union's main ally in the region. The exit strategy, he said, would be a negotiated deal with Washington: The Soviets pull out troops; the Americans stop their arms shipments to the rebels. However, within days, Gorbachev learned to his surprise that Reagan had no interest in such a deal. In a conversation on Feb. 27 with Italy's foreign minister, Giulio Andreotti, Gorbachev said, "We have information from very reliable sources … that the United States has set itself the goal of obstructing a settlement by any means," in order "to present the Soviet Union in a bad light." If this information is true, Gorbachev continued, the matter of a withdrawal "takes on a different light." Without U.S. cooperation, Gorbachev couldn't proceed with his plans to withdraw. Instead, he allowed his military commanders to escalate the conflict. In April, Soviet troops, supported by bombers and helicopters, attacked a new compound of Islamic fighters along the mountain passes of Jaji, near the Pakistani border. The leader of those fighters, many of them Arab volunteers, was Osama Bin Laden. In his magisterial book, Ghost Wars (possibly the best diplomatic history written in the past decade), Steve Coll recounts the fateful consequences: The battle lasted for about a week. Bin Laden and 50 Arab volunteers faced 200 Russian troops. … The Arab volunteers took casualties but held out under intense fire for several days. More than a dozen of bin Laden's comrades were killed, and bin Laden himself apparently suffered a foot wound. … Chronicled daily at the time by several Arab journalists … the battle of Jaji marked the birth of Osama bin Laden's public reputation as a warrior among Arab jihadists. … After Jaji he began a media campaign designed to publicize the brave fight waged by Arab volunteers who stood their ground against a superpower. In interviews and speeches … bin Laden sought to recruit new fighters to his cause and to chronicle his own role as a military leader. He also began to expound on expansive new goals for the jihad. Had Gorbachev thought that Reagan was willing to strike a deal, the battle of Jaji would not have taken place—and the legend of Bin Laden might never have taken off.cold war
Submitted by Agnostic on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 12:29pm.
Without quibbling over details and making assumptions of honesty on both sides this situation does nothing but explain what was a well know problem during the Cold War - there was not enough trust to accomplish even common goals. Resources of all types were being wasted by both sides chasing our tails and rarely getting any where. Personally I support the US because the end game, at least at the time, was freedom for the people which we supported however the Eastern Bloc proved that not to be true for the Bear.Your LIE stands.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 12:45pm.
Pickle Puffer ...I'd say his work with the militarizing the Afghans...
You said President Reagan militarized the Afghans. The Soviets invaded in 1979 more than 14 months before President Reagan took office. THEY WERE ALREADY MILITARIZED against the Soviets. YOU LIE.
2 billion dollars
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 1:24pm.
In military aid was pumped into the mujahidin by Reagan, which was the overwhelming factor in the Afghan's success, but you are right on the point that Carter sent aid to the mujahidin as well, just not nearly as much as Reagan sent.And? What does that have to do with your LIE?
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 1:28pm.
You claimed President Reagan MILITARIZED the Afghans. Prove it. Now. Not interested in anything else you have to say until YOU BACK IT UP.
Crazy - your bus is coming
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 1:38pm.
Yes, the short one. With the locking straps so you can't get out of your seat. I'll concede, you're right. Militarizing was the wrong word to use, though if you would read my previous posts, something you and I both know you have yet to do, would clearly comprehend it was an error in terminology. In fact, if you had read the link I provided, which you previously admitted you had no interest in, you would have also learned it is no secret that the mujahidin were militarized before Reagan took office. But if you're hung still hung up on my big huge lie, one I never tried to cover up, and proved otherwise with my own links, then you should just hop on the bus and strap yourself in. It's going to be a bumpy ride.Troll admits to a lie.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 3:26pm.
Pickle Puffer: ...I'd say his work with the militarizing the Afghans...
Pickle Puffer: ...you're right. Militarizing was the wrong word to use...
Now. Kindly refrain from coming here TO LIE in the future. And pack, oh my lordy lord in the heavens above, pack pack pack, oh hezmana yes, PACK SAND YOU LYING SNIT OF A TROLL.
I don't discuss JACK SQUAT with admitted LYING TROLLS.
Pack that sand tight.
I have no idea what this sand reference means
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 4:38pm.
And I will do no such thing, kindly, when dealing with you in the future.Whatever lying troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 4:46pm.
You want respect. Don't LIE.
P & P - & Vet. On Afganistan - Carter - Reagan - Bush - Clinton
Submitted by Gary Hall on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 12:35pm.
Unfortunately, I don't have much time for this today - or is it fortunate. Just a few points on this unfortunate saga.
1st - let's set the record dead straight. The Soviet Empire was the Imperialist conquering bad boy here. Afghanistan was already on it's way, with a Western-leaning King.. who was for "hope and change." The USSR screwed all of that up.
2nd. Zbigniew Brzezinski argues that perhaps there was some wish on the part of the Carter Administration to entice them into Afghanistan, so that they might experience their own Vietnam - wrecking their economy - true cold war politics. The US started providing covert support prior to the Soviet invasion - perhaps luring the invasion.
3rd. Sure, once Reagan came in with the war raging (The USSR wasn't in Afghanistan to free them - or to save them) he not only continued the covert support that Charlie Wilson and Carter began, but upped it as the situation worsened. Thank goodness for that.
4th. When the Soviets pulled out - nobody would listen to the bold ones who were calling for aid in the horrific void of war ravaged Afghanistan; not the White House - not the Democratic controlled congress. And more importantly - not the hapless United Nations or the world community. Here is the only place that I see a lack of leadership from Reagan and the 1st Bush - Still, the Congress wanted nothing to do with it either.
5th. The next - and more pertinent miss - was during the middle of the Clinton administration - when all of the above; the WH, the congress, the UN, and world bodies, stood by and did nothing while the Taliban raped the country and it fell into their hands.
6th. And in the void that followed - even amidst the horrors of the genocidal behavior of the Taliban - the same parties did nothing.
7th. Enter Al Qaeda. From their new Afghanistan home, the first and second holy jihad's against the US and the West were announced to the world by Bin Laden.
8th. The attacks on US interests began from this void - during the late 90's and 2000.
9th. We only swat a few flies, and that planning culminated in the 9/11 attacks.
10th. That's what Bush inherited., along with the fallout from the dot.com bubble and the recession, and the housing bubble.
History, my way.. 101.
(;~/ gary
I'd like to hit on your 4th point
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 1:18pm.
What about intelligence? Were they asleep? The Taliban grew throughout the end of the Reagan administration and gave rise to al qaeda, who as you recall were responsible for the first WTC bombing, one month into Clinton's first term. Wouldn't you say both Reagan and Bush 1 were guilty of just a lack of leadership?4th point - pointless
Submitted by Gary Hall on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 1:48pm.
First of all, I offered up that Reagan and Bush dropped the ball there - as did everyone else in the world. This is why John Bolton should have been the best thing that ever happened to the UN.
This site is about media bias. As always, even during the widespread coverage, in the MSM, about the movie "Charlie Wilson's War," not a soul would mention Jimmy Carter's role. Many to most would mention Reagan as the sole source of US covert aid. A few used the whole thing to blame Reagan (the usual knee-jerk reaction). And, I don't recall any using the useful history lessons here, to introduce an intellectual conversation as to what Mr. Clinton did or didn't do (he's off limits.. you see, he's the "World's President.)
The Taliban gave rise to Al Qaeda? I think you need to do some homework.
"Were they asleep," is an insulting comment to the conversation.
We always have weaknesses in our intelligence.
Besides, focusing on the larger picture along the way, instead of looking to cherry pick. As an aside (directed to a completely biased/closed minded person), that can help to enlighten them.
Here's an interesting example. You do recall that the first WTC bombing involved a FBI sting gone bad, do you not?
And here's a better one (which I did not really need in my 10 points):
(;~/ gary
I stand corrected
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 2:12pm.
But wouldn't you agree that Taliban rule led to the success of al-qaeda? And yes, I do recall the first WTC bombing and most everything about it - I was living in midtown at the time.P & P Taliban/al-Qaeda
Submitted by Gary Hall on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 2:21pm.
Well, color me pickled.. Well, they certainly gave them property from which to operate. Why would I not agree with that, in that context? In the history of the decade of the Clinton administration, that's why we sit befuddled over why our national media gave Clinton a break.. for: 1). Doing nothing after it realized what the Taliban was all about (I covered the precursor to that), 2.) Swatting flies after al-Qaeda made it crystal clear what was going to be going on in the future, and 3.) making the wall between justice and intelligence stronger, rather than tearing it down. If you understand the intelligence failures of the 1993 bombing - and combine that with the late 90's declared holy jihad against the US - it become obvious that we don't need Eric Holder sort of thinking protecting our country. (;~. garyYou're pretty smart, Gary
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 2:26pm.
Can't say I disagree with you anymore. : )Hit away
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 9:53pm.
The Taliban didn't take control of Afghanistan until about 1996 or so. And NO ONE was looking in that direction. NO ONE."CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Pickle Puffer LIES.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 1:53am.
Pickle Puffer: ...Reagan for his $165 billion bailout for social security...
President Reagan signed onto a bipartisan REFORM of Social Security. Social Security was in the same kind of dire straights in the 80's as today. A very real possiblility of going bust. President Reagain and a Democrat controlled House of Representatives gave Social Security 25 more years of breathing room.
President Reagan ultimately endorsed the recommendation of the bipartistian Commission lead by current Federal Reserve Chairman. This led to reforms which 'saved' Social Security through a combination of tax increases and rising the retirement age. The notion of voluntary personal accounts was reviewed by the Commission, but was never considered as possible solution since it was impossible to garner enough political support. Due to the difficult challenges for politicians on both sides of aisle in getting these reforms through Congress then—Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill dubbed Social Security 'the third rail' of politics: touch it and you die.
Once Again
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 11:52am.
This is nothing I have denied, so now do we debate the rights and wrongs of social security? I believe I laid my position out quite clearly in previous entries.Whatever Pickle Puffer.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 12:16pm.
I brought forward the quote from you that claimed it was a simple bailout from ONE person.
I proved YOU LIED. Live with it.
Implication
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 12:25pm.
What you derived from my comments does not necessarily hold the truth. Reagan signed the bill. Reagan could have vetoed the bill, but instead a BIPARTISAN coalition of congressmen and women pumped enough money back into social security to last a few more decades. Now here we are in the same situation. Should congress pump it back up again?I am not here to have a conversation with YOU Dead Zippers.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 12:48pm.
I am here to prove you lied.
And you back up my point by saying he simply pumped in money. THEY, Congress and the President raised the retirement age. I cannot get Social Security until I am 67 because of the REFORM. LIAR. It used to be 65.
You've proven nothing
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 1:08pm.
Aside from the fact that, well, you're mental.Whatever.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 1:22pm.
Act like people can't come here and follow the thread. No skin off my back. Lying snit. You came here with your partisan lies dripping with smarm and sarcasm. Knocked it down right quick. And just like you have done every single time, Dead Zippers, you go into itchy diaper mode after your lies get outed. You lied. Live with it. And get your damn hand out of that diaper. Where is the hot sauce mumzietroll?You live in a weird world
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 1:28pm.
Where truth and fiction merge into one. Good luck with that. The facts are history, and Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush all dropped the ball. But continue to worship your heroes, and I guess thank Reagan for making you work until 67. But make sure to curse the next administration who pumps money back into a broken system.And you live in a world...
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 1:40pm.
...where you get all talky and lip flappy to cover for your LIES.
Pickle Puffer: ...Reagan for his $165 billion bailout for social security...
Waiting for you prove President Reagan simply pumped in $165 billion instead of reforming and putting Social Security in the black for 25 years.
You can mouth off all you want. You LIED. Now, BACK IT UP.
...Bush, Clinton and Bush all dropped the ball... --- What in the name of hezmana does this have to do with your claim President Reagan simply pumped in money to fix Socia Security? LIAR.
But make sure to curse the next administration who pumps money back into a broken system. ---- What in the name of hezmana does this have to do with your claim President Reagan simply pumped in money to fix Socia Security? LIAR
Genius
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 1:42pm.
"Bailing out" and "reforming for another 25 years" is the EXACT SAME THING.Then why did not say that the first time?
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 1:51pm.
It is because IT IS NOT THE SAME. And you threw in a MONEY FIGURE that you now omit in your same same same bull. When that REFORM from Congress and the President included raising the retirement age. NOT A MONEY FIGURE BUT REFORM.
LYING SNIT TROLL.
You should have SHUT UP when you had the chance.
Here
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 1:54pm.
In 1983, on the recommendation of his Spcial Security Commission— chaired by the man he later made Fed chairman, Alan Green-span—Reagan called for, and received, Social Security tax increases of $165 billion over seven years. A year later came Reagan's Deficit Reduction Act to raise $50 billion.
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488
Missed the word "bailout" in your quote.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 2:37pm.
Let me read it again. Nope. Still no bailout word. Let me read it again. Yep, I am missing the bailout word.
What is this about 7 years? Social Security taxes have not budged since 1990. The Social Security taxes slowly moved up to 12.4% from 1983 until 1990. So any "bailout"as you claim would still be going on. Where is the bailout? Rates went up on all earners in the 25 years since 1983. Looks like WAGE EARNERS bailed out Social Security LYING SNIT TROLL.
The rates President Reagan and Congress instituted have been in place since 1990. WHY JUST SEVEN YEARS YOU LYING SNIT?
THE SO CALLED BAILOUT CONTINUES TO THIS VERY FRELLING DAY YOU LYING SNIT.
The FICA tax rates President Reagan signed off on continue to THE VERY FRELLING DAY.
Why are you stopping at 1990 you LYING SNIT TROLL? Because you brought a PARTISAN LIE here. You can't even come up with your own lies.
I can only imagine
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 4:40pm.
At this point you are jumping up and down smashing your keyboard with reckless abandon...wait, did you ever see that youtube video of the kid freaking out while playing some online video game? I'd look for it, but you get the drift. A word of advise - don't smash the monitor.Lying snit troll goes off topic.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 4:45pm.
Lying snit troll concedes he lied.PATCO
Submitted by serfer62 on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 7:38pm.
I was one of those fired controllers. We had grievances that were justified by the Rose commision report submitted to Pres Reagon Dec 1981...it was not about money. Comparing us to those scum is not acceptable. Ultimately it was for the good of the country in that POTUS gained macho status with the Kremilin but it cost. The FAA was then forced to accept another controller union with more clout & increased pay & lesser controller ability. Later as a private ATC company controller 5 of us replaced a 12 man govorment team in a Level III tower. Within weeks we got cards and letters praising our work for the elimination of constant delays and increased traffic. As far as I know there where no ATC related deaths.Jack.. Not per his attending nurologist
Submitted by Gary Hall on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 9:10pm.
From the Billings Gazette, June 7th, 2004, "Billings Surgeon recalls treating late president" President Reagan's treating neurosurgeon, Dr. John Moseley, made the following statement:
Dr. Moseley confirmed (on Super Bowl Sunday) , complements of yours truly, that he absolutely still stands behind his first hand professional observations at the time.
(:~> gary
How about deaths caused by Gore/Clinton -failure of Airport
Submitted by Gary Hall on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 9:20pm.
How about deaths caused by Gore/Clinton -failure of Gore's Airport Commission. July 1996 - PRESIDENT CLINTON: I have asked Vice President Gore to take charge of a commission to review aviation safety, security, and the pace of modernization of the air traffic control system. “The Gore Commission's final report which will examine the entire government role in aviation is expected in mid 1997.” PBS. Online News Hour SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 White House Commission onAviation Safety and SecurityFinal Report to President Clinton Vice President Al Gore, ChairmanFebruary 12, 1997 Interesting to note that the very first entry in the appendices is: A. Civil Liberties Advisory Board Recommendations And what occurred? What did Gore (and the Clinton administration) do to implement the security recommendations? Keep in mind that 1996 was an election year. ‘On Sept. 20, 2001, the Boston Globe broke the story of how the so-called Gore Commission had failed in its mission to address airline safety. The Globe claimed this failure "represents the clearest recent public example of the success that airlines have long had in defeating calls for more oversight." The Globe traced that failure to a series of campaign donations from the airlines to the Democratic National Committee in 1996 in the wake of the crash of TWA Flight 800.” Why did Al Gore really drop out? A bit more, perhaps… But within days, according to an insider on the commission, the airline industry jumped all over Gore. As a result, 10 days later, Gore sent a letter to airline lobbyist Carol Hallett promising that the commission's findings would not result in any loss of revenue. In what can only be seen as a pure political payoff, the Democratic National Committee received $40,000 from TWA the next day. Within two weeks, Northwest, United and American Airlines ponied up another $55,000 for the 1996 campaign. But the money trail didn't stop there. In the next two months leading up to the November elections, American Airlines donated $250,000 to the Democrats. United donated $100,000 to the DNC. Northwestern put $53,000 more into the kitty. Following the election, in January, Gore floated a draft final report that eliminated all security measures from the commission's findings, according to the insider. Two commission members balked, as did CIA Director John Deutch. How Gore aborted air safety. Next? 9/11. Imagine what the 9/11 Truth folks would do with something like this, just in front of 9/11, if it were on Bush's watch. (:~/ garyAir traffic Controllers...and Papantonio..
Submitted by Dr. Ron on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 9:49pm.
I worked for FAA in wake of the strike...to try to ensure that there would be no other union...I met with air traffic controller (ATC's) who stayed and who went out and were fired. Time to face reality, Papantonio.Their demands were ludicrous and their mind-set was tribal...holding hands at meetings and singing we shall overcome. Also, they thought the FAA was blind to what they were going to do...FAA , after the controllers had pulled a sick-out to get some demands met and then a slow-down (if 3 miles vertical separation between planes is the base, why not 10 miles "in trail" as it was called...meaning there was no sense going to the airport after about noon...all backed up in the sky and on the tarmac) to get more demands, the FAA knew that the controllers would go to a strike...EVEN THOUGH ,AS GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES IT WAS ILLEGAL... SO, THE FAA HAD ASKED THE MILITARY HOW MANY CONTROLLERS THEY COULD BORROW; ASKED THE AIRCARRIERS FOR A 10-20% REDUCTION IN SCHEDULED FLIGHTS; SAW HOW MANY MANAGERS IN ATC HAD RECENT ENOUGH EXPERIENCE CONTROLLING AIR TRAFFIC TO BE USED. THE CONTROLLERS BELIEVED WHEN THEY WENT OUT, THEY COULD "BRING THE SYSTEM DOWN"...that is, force the FAA to cancell all flights until the controllers went back...and the FAA met their demands. THEY HAD NO CARE OR CONCERN FOR SAFETY, ONLY THEIR DEMANDS...WHICH I WILL COME TO SOON. ALSO, REAGAN GAVE THEM 2 DAYS TO REPORT BACK AND SOME 3,000 DID..THESE COUPLED WITH MILITARY CONTROLLERS, AIR CARRIER FLIGHT REDUCTION AND FAA ATC MANAGERS MEANT THE SYTEM STAYED UP AND RUNNING. THE THEN-UNION'S DEMANDS: 32 HOUR WEEK WITH NO CHANGE IN TOTAL PAY...SO, WHAT YOU GOT PAID FOR 40 HOURS, YOU NOW GOT PAID FOR 32 HOIURS. BUT, NO WAY THE SYSTEM COULD RUN WITH 32, NOT 40 HOUR WORK WEEKS...SO, ALL WERE "GUARANTEED" 8 HOURS OVERTIME A WEEK. NOW, ATC'S UNLIKE OTHER GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, MADE REAL/TRUE OT: 1 AND 1/2 X BASE PAY FOR WEEKDAY OT;DOUBLE TIME FOR SATURDAY; TRIPLE TIME FOR SUNDAY AND HOLIDAYS. BUT, THEY WORKED A ROLLING SCHEDULE SO, THEY NORMALLY WOULD BE ASSIGNED SAT/SUN/HOLIDAY WORK...AND THEIR SCHEDULES WERE SUCH , IF YOU WORKED 5 MINUTES PAST YOUR SHIFT'S END...YOU GOT A FULL DAY OF OT (MEMORY FAILS ME HERE...MAYBE IT WAS ONLY A FULL HOUR, BUT..). THERE IS MORE: IF YOU WORKED AT NIGHT...AND ROLLING SCHEDULE MEANT YOU WOULD AT TIMES, 10% EXTRA; IF YOU WORKED WITH A NOT COMPLETELY QUALIFIED PERSON, 5% AS IT WAS CALLED TRAINING. IF YOU "WORKED THE BOARDS" (WERE AN ATC) FOR 25 YEARS, THAT COUNTED AS 30 YEARS TOWARDS RETIREMENT. WAIT, THERE IS MORE: AFTER YOU RETIRED, THE FAA WOULD GIVE YOU A BUNDLE, CALLED PROJECT SECOND CAREER, SO YOU COULD GO TO COLLEGE OR BARBER SCHOOL ...WHATEVER, TO FIT YOURSELF FOR A NEW CAREER. PAPANTONIO...WHERE WERE YOU IN 1982? CERTAINLY NOWHERE WHERE THE TRUTH LIVED!!!Dr. Ron
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 10:16pm.
Why aren't you, or someone like you, used as a consultant on one of these talk shows? Oh I know, you have the actual FACTS. Very inconvenient things for these people. Thanks for the information.OK, Papantonio. I'll accept your Reagan premise if . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 10:40pm.
. . . you'll accept that JFK almost killed hundreds of millions of people in a nuclear holocaust thanks to his weak Cold War diplomacy and the brinkmanship that culminated in the Cuban Missile Crisis.papantonio
Submitted by truckinmann on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 7:00am.
The arguement he makes is about the best that the libs have. In other words they're grasping at mosquitoes while falling to their death. Papantonio, if your teachers had been fired you may have ended up an educated person, instead of a shallow, talking points repeating hack for the Democrat party. (Yes I said Democrat party. Democrat is a name, also known as a noun. Democratic is a form of governing, or process, which is an action, and therefore would be a verb, and hence not a proper name. This is just one more way we see Democrats lack of education, even though they think they're smarter than conservatives. We know you want to be called the democratic party because it sounds like you are "fair" if you're called democratic. The thing is, the Republican party is also a democratic party, as the majority of the votes in the party wins. Same as the Democrat party.) You elitist lefties spent to much time in school doing drugs and partying, and not enough time in your textbooks, learning things that could have been helpful to you in life. Teachers help guide you through the learning process, they can't actually make you smart. You have to do the learning yourself. One more thing for you kids and young adults that are still in school... The world is nothing like what any teacher has ever told you. You will be in for a shock when you get out in the workforce. Be prepared to change your way of thinking and how you view the world, because you'll have to. (Unless you become a teacher that is.)Will he condem Obama?
Submitted by tvhall on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 5:10pm.
For the deaths sure to be caused by Obama care?What an idiotic comparison!
Submitted by drsamherman on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 11:39pm.
This is like blaming "almost" deaths for patients who were never diagnosed with illnesses on the physicians or other professionals with whom they NEVER sought care. In the health care disciplines, we hear this kind of horse exhaust every single day. Patients have to seek care to be diagnosed, yet somehow health care professionals are automatically blamed. No difference to any licensed professional in that kind of stupidity.