Town Square

Post a New Topic

The Reagan vs. Obama Debate (short videoclip...worth viewing)

Original post made by Jerry, Amador Estates, on Mar 9, 2010

An extremely profound videoclip of the difference in ideals between Reagan and Obama.

Very sobering to see that it is Obama's intention to fundamentally transform America into a socialist country. >>> Web Link

Comments (31)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Brrrr !
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 9, 2010 at 11:35 pm

Chilling ! VERY chilling ! I ache that our children will never know the meaning of personal freedom. WHAT reason or incentive will they have to exell on their own, if they must fit in a box.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by spoooookie
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 10, 2010 at 7:21 am

we are talking about the ronald reagan who entered office with a 1 trillion dollar national debt and left it at nearly 7 trillion, right? We are talking about the ronald reagan who negotiated with iranian terrorists, sold weapons to them illegally, took the profits from the sale and funneled them to terror groups in nicaragua, right? We are talking about the ronald reagan who cut and run from beirut when the embassy there was bombed killing over 200 marines, right? I just want to make sure we're talking about the same ronald reagan...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Seriously
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 10, 2010 at 10:24 am

You seriously need to quit posting the same ridiculous propaganda under different names. You can vote again in three years. Maybe your side will win, maybe it won't. In the meantime, your fearmongering is a wasted effort.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Mar 10, 2010 at 11:00 am

Serious - I agree with you, spoooki needs to stop revising history.

Anyone who knows a little bit about history knows that Reagan sought to fund the contras to overthrow a Marxist regime in Nicaragua. Further, Reagan sold arms to a legitimate Iranian government and got our hostages back, yeah the same Reagan who ended the cold war while taking us from Carter's stagflation, cutting taxes and presiding over the longest period of unbroken economic expansion in the history of the US. That is the Reagan we are talking about.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Mar 10, 2010 at 11:14 am

Web Link Did somebody say repub? This is what's left...tee hee hee, tee hee hee...

reagan will not be making any appearances any time soon! what you have now is scraps...

PING!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Pleasanton Mom
a resident of Birdland
on Mar 10, 2010 at 12:32 pm

Jerry, thanks for posting this, I heard this video yesterday too and love it - the True American part, not the lousy Marxist part who wants to destroy us.

Sorry "Seriously", I'm not the only person in Pleasanton who can SEE what's going on. Please take off your liberal blinders.

In 1927 an American Socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said the "American people will never vote for socialism, but under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program."

We are witnessing the attempted overthrow of our way of life by Marxists who have hijacked the Democrat Party.

God help us all and God Bless the Americans who will not let their liberty be taken from them or their children.





 +   Like this comment
Posted by spooooookie 2.0
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 10, 2010 at 12:34 pm

Jim,
your post is so wrong on so many fronts it's not even funny. First off, Serious was referring to the fear mongering in your post, not mine. "chilling" you say...that's fear mongering. Pointing out that reagan sold weapons to the iranians is just pointing out facts, not fear mongering. Secondly, Reagan sold weapons to the iranian government. Sure they were advertised as "moderate elements" but they were still PART OF THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT! How many US troops were killed with those US weapons smuggled into the hands of hezbollah or the taliban by that "legitimate iranian government"...that's hilarious. Next, the weapons sales secured the release of 1 hostage. Then immediately, the iranians took 5 more hostages in beirut and began bargaining for them as well. Reagan only incentivized the iranians to take more hostages....and besides that, whatever happened to NOT NEGOTIATING WITH TERRORISTS!

So dude, seriously, you need to spend some time actually reading the facts of history rather than sitting around and having glenn beck tell you how reagan saved us from carter (at a cost of only 6 trillion dollars too!!!) I notice how you didn't address him cutting and running from beirut or exploding the national debt by 6000% under his administration....oh yeah, i forgot, you're not supposed to say anything bad about St. Ronnie...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by spooooookie
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 10, 2010 at 12:43 pm

AND ANOTHER THING. Congress in 1985 cut off funding for the contras because of the atrocities they were committing against civilians in the countryside. These guys were nothing more than common criminals and drug runners masquerading as freedom fighters (remember that the Iran-Contra story broke because a drug running plane that was flying into nicaragua with guns for the contras was flying out with drugs when it crashed). When congress cut off funding, that was it. By going out and finding an alternate funding source BY SELLING WEAPONS TO TERRORISTS and funnelling that money behind congress's back, THEY WERE BREAKING THE LAW. You might not like that congress cut off funding to the contras, BUT THAT'S WHAT ELECTIONS ARE FOR! Reagan and his cohorts can claim all they want they were doing what they thought was right blah blah blah, but according to our constitution (which you wingnuts claim to defend and love but have never bothered to read...like Mitch McConnell who claimed to quote it last year when he was really quoting the declaration of independence) the congress allocates money and the executive branch executes the policies including spending it. If congress cuts off funding for something, the president can't just go out and sell lemonade (or anti-tank rockets) to fund his pet projects on his own. You guys rant here constantly about how Obama is out to destroy our country, undermine the constitution, etc, and yet you hold up as a hero a man WHO SOLD WEAPONS TO TERRORISTS to funnel the funds to a pet project supporting common thugs in the jungles of nicaragua AGAINST THE LAWS CONGRESS HAD ENACTED. Please, for the love of god, be consistent about something....


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Mar 10, 2010 at 2:22 pm

So spook, you admit that the Iranian government was legitimate. You admit further that the money was funneled to the contras to overthrow marxists (not to prop them up or glorify them as Obama and his minions are doing today)
You have it wrong where you put fear mongering and chilling as part of my posts, I only post as jimf01, and I only posted to straighten out the record on iran contra where you described BOTH the iranian government and the contras as terrorists - both falsehoods.
I am perfectly consistent - as long as you aren't putting the words of others in my mouth.
The Obama administration is seeking to negotiate with state sponsors of terrorism in Iran, placating dictators worldwide, and apologizing to any constituency they can find for the actions of the Bush administration who kept us safe post 9-11 and won a war in Iraq while Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Rahm Emmanuel and our very own Jerry McNerney sat up in Congress telling the country the war was lost. I don't need to review explosion of public debt and the budget deficit under Obama.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Seriously
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 10, 2010 at 2:32 pm

Oh, no, Jim F 01, I'm not talking about Spookie - I'm talking about "Jerry," you, etc. But I think you know that.
Spookie, well said. Facts are facts, and fearmongering is what they have to do because they don't have anything else to offer.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by spoooookie 3.0
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 10, 2010 at 2:34 pm

No Jim, I did not admit that the iranian government was legitimate. You seem to be making that insane claim, considering at the time and up till now we have no formal relations with the iranian government. The same regime in control now was in control back in 1985, so to claim they were legitimate then but are now state sponsors of terror makes no sense. You are embarrassing yourself.

"The Obama administration is seeking to negotiate with state sponsors of terrorism in Iran, placating dictators worldwide" And Ronald reagan wasn't doing the same? In fact he did worse BECAUSE HE SOLD WEAPONS TO A GOVERNMENT THAT WAS A SPONSOR OF STATE TERROR. Man, you are consistent...insanely, stupidly so...

"BOTH the iranian government and the contras as terrorists - both falsehoods" Are you serious? You mean the government that was behind the terror group that perpetrated the beirut marine base bombing and hundreds of other acts of terror (the iranian government circa 1985), not to mention that they were behind the kidnappings we sold the weapons to them over...um...hate to break it to you, BUT THEY ARE AND WERE TERRORISTS! Amazing, the ignorance. The Iranian revolution took place in 1979, the Shah was out of power then, we have had no formal relations with the revolutionary government there, so to claim that reagan was dealing with a legitimate government is insane. You need to crack some history books instead of letting rush and beck tell you what to think...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Mar 10, 2010 at 3:02 pm

I never tried to make the claims you are putting up to me. After the 1979 revolution in Iran, the administration tried to negotiate, arms for hostages, all of that. I never said it didn't happen, and I never said it was right to do. Illegal acts should not go unpunished.

Good for you, you are able to look up these facts and claim superior knowledge now, you exhibited your ignorance in your original post revising all sorts of facts pertaining to that period. But that is the normal pattern for unhinged leftists. I know the destruction of the marxists in Nicaragua and the fall of the Soviet Union leaves you with a seething hatred for Reagan. It's understandable. Maybe someday we will get an independent counsel to investigate the sedition and treasonous acts of the Obama administration.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Mar 10, 2010 at 3:22 pm

Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report: Rage On The Right - Web Link

The SPLC Intelligence Report explains the rise in HATE GROUPS. The hate groups have infiltrated the Tea Party Movement and the venom re: President Obama is driven by HATE.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by spooooookie
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 10, 2010 at 8:14 pm

"Maybe someday we will get an independent counsel to investigate the sedition and treasonous acts of the Obama administration."

Yeah, it's the left that's unhinged. Secondly, you wrote yourself that the iranian government was legitimate. you wrote: "Reagan sold arms to a legitimate Iranian government and got our hostages back" I didn't put those words in your mouth, you did. You claim I got my facts wrong but you haven't said a single thing that's right. Furthermore, the contras were never successful in nicaragua...yeah, they continued to terrorize the peasants of the nicaraguan countryside, but it wasn't until the cold war ended and the clinton administration oversaw free and fair elections in nicaragua that the sandanistas left power. Reagan's little pet project had nothing to do with it. Go back to your bunker now with your disaster seed stockpile and your ronald reagan posters and leave reality to the rest of us...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Mar 11, 2010 at 9:53 am

spoook - my posts were successful in that they drew you out to show yourself as the unhinged leftist you are. Nothing I could say would change your thinking, I am certain. You see Reagans expenditures on defense as making the world more safe and free, and you see it from an opposing view. That much is clear.
Furthermore, your Beck and bunker references are silly, but they reveal much about your worldview. You don't understand opposing viewpoints and you fear them. Your views are the extremist views, you cannot post under your real name because you cannot have people knowing how you really feel.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Mar 11, 2010 at 9:56 am

Excuse me, my third sentence should have started "I see Reagan's"


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Seriously
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 11, 2010 at 10:32 am

Jim F Oh One,
You've really altered your course. You were at one time a voice of reason on the right on these boards, but now I don't see any of the substance that used to be in your posts. You used to offer interesting points, even though I disagreed, but your second-to last post there to Spookie just sounds like another RW hate machine attack. Don't give up the substance! In spite of your claims, we on the left are open to honest, intelligent debate without name calling or extremist tactics.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Mar 11, 2010 at 11:12 am

I use the tactics called for in the situation. In each case, I will call it as I see it. In the case of spooki, I read between the lines of the posts and saw the reason for attacking Reagan era deficits. I have been shown to be correct in this case. Spooki couldn't figure out what I was doing, further tweaking him or her in each successive post until we got to see what spooki is, an unhinged leftist.

I believe I have not altered my course one bit. I got after old poster boy in the same way. The cowardly (you notice how they are all anonymous?) progressives on this board end up giving the same old lines, sooner or later. They are the online equivalent of black hooded marchers tossing newspaper racks in Berkeley.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Seriously
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 11, 2010 at 11:20 am

Am I really to believe that your name is jimf01? And before you say at least your real name is Jim, I might point out that it is an extremely common name that still in effect provides anonymity. So let's not talk about people choosing to be anonymous as a basis of proof of their alleged cowardice.
Besides, when you refer to people as "unhinged," you create a hostile environment that prevents people from feeling safe using their real, REAL names. I see less than a handful of people period using their real names on these boards. That applies to the left and the right.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Mar 11, 2010 at 11:43 am

hostile environment. I love that one. It's a blog, not a boxing ring. Look everyone! I am frightening the progressives!

Come on, seriously. (HA, I crack me up!)

If you claim to know about my history on this board, then you should know that I have posted before saying I am not hiding, that I post in multiple places as jimf01, and anyone with a mouse can figure out who I am in a few clicks.

I can only think of Janna as one (lets call her a non-conservative instead of unhinged, wouldn't want to make her cry) off the top of my head who even uses a first name on here. There is a reason for that, and I presume to know it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Seriously
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 11, 2010 at 11:51 am

I wiped all the sarcasm off your post so that I could actually read the text, and I see that you're arguing that you post in multiple places using the same essentially anonymous name. I'm not sure how that's relevant. Jimf01, you may as well use the name "Seriously."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Mar 11, 2010 at 1:08 pm

I wasn't being sarcastic, I do crack me up. It is relevant when I say anyone with a mouse can figure out who I am in a few clicks. Further, and non-sarcastically, I am not going to provide further instructions on use of your mouse in this employ.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Janna
a resident of Dublin
on Mar 11, 2010 at 7:24 pm

Janna is a registered user.

Jim wrote:

"I can only think of Janna as one (lets call her a non-conservative instead of unhinged, wouldn't want to make her cry) off the top of my head who even uses a first name on here. There is a reason for that, and I presume to know it."

You are such a peach, and so clever! I'm fascinated! Why do I use my first name? What are you, one of those crazy Tea Party Conspiracy people? Please share with the group. I think we'd all like to learn something from the omnipotent Jim Oh One!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Mar 11, 2010 at 7:44 pm

crazy tea partier, thats me. I will see you there on April 15?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Janna
a resident of Dublin
on Mar 11, 2010 at 7:55 pm

Janna is a registered user.

You dodged it, you didn't answer the question.

I think I'll let you faux grass-roots tea-baggers enjoy yourselves and your delusions. I think for myself and it might be dangerous if it rubs off on some of those people. Plus, I'm not into white power events.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Pleasanton Mom
a resident of Birdland
on Mar 12, 2010 at 7:56 am

Janna,

It is so disheartening that the truth doesn't get through to you.

The Tea Party movement has nothing to do with racism or "white power." These notions are disgusting to me, and I don't know ANYONE who would have anything to do with it.

More whites than blacks voted for Obama, so now that they don't want a Marxist takeover of the American way of life, they're racist? No. It's not that he's black, it's that he's a Marxist.





 +   Like this comment
Posted by janna
a resident of Dublin
on Mar 12, 2010 at 8:05 am

janna is a registered user.

Your "truth" is crap and the thought of you, a person who who obviously wraps herself in the flag and carries a cross trying to teach "truth" is hilarious! I'm disheartened by your arrogance.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Mar 12, 2010 at 9:27 am

In the space of 6 sentences in two posts, this is what we get. white power/arrogance/carry a cross/wrapping yourself in the flag/faux grass-roots/tea-baggers/delusions.

You cannot have any sort of debate or discussion with this type of person.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Seriously
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 12, 2010 at 11:56 am

Says Jim, whose "debate" and "discussion" includes the following: "But that is the normal pattern for unhinged leftists." "...show yourself as the unhinged leftist you are..." "The cowardly (you notice how they are all anonymous?) progressives on this board end up giving the same old lines, sooner or later. They are the online equivalent of black hooded marchers tossing newspaper racks in Berkeley." "...lets call her a non-conservative instead of unhinged, wouldn't want to make her cry..."
Love it. Really, really nice.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by janna
a resident of Dublin
on Mar 12, 2010 at 6:28 pm

janna is a registered user.

Seriously,

Jim and PM really need to see themselves in the mirror. They are the most judgmental and disrespectful people posting here. Vile.

PM seriously sounds like some kind of religious, Stepford zealot.

She can't even see that because she's had breast cancer, that if she were to lose her insurance, she would never be able to be insured for many years the way things are now. But because that isn't happening to her, right now, she has no empathy for those who are. Sadly, it may take a personal disaster for people like her to really get it.

And Jim avoids the easiest of questions. Typical conservative behavior, changes the subject or just pretends you never asked the question.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Mar 12, 2010 at 8:59 pm

what does that even mean? I am answering so many different people I worried I'd be banned for excessive comments/ When I get a lengthy diatribe thrown at me, I try not to repeat myself. If I have missed something you really want to hear from me on, have at it.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

November Ballot Prop 2 Devils or Angels in the Details?
By Tom Cushing | 2 comments | 927 views

Why we need the Water Bond
By Roz Rogoff | 13 comments | 859 views