CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Society › Politics › Close to Politics › George W. Bush: Ronald Reagan was surrounded by spies...

George W. Bush: Ronald Reagan was surrounded by spies...

Started by Joseph White5 · · 👁 6 views · 170 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Joseph White5bluecobra27shadowpanther3Mark Nguyen6Dennis Baker34Jessica Mendoza2frozentiger6Ethan HowardKevin Gonzalez79casualangler9steelseal16Lawrence Thompson58bluerider63Nicole Murphygentlesurfer7boldcyclist18copperskipper38briskcraneCharles Jackson5Walter Martinez63Jacob Lewis5Carol Torres4placidridge2hiddenotter98 …
shadowpanther3 shadowpanther3 Member
12 messages
joined Feb 2010
#61 ·
boldcyclist18 said:
The Doc says:


Ronald Reagan was a criminal.

Keep that in mind. 😉


Jap completely wrecked your country, left everything in shambles, sat you all on tractors, and told you that you were acting like Mexicans—raping and looting somewhere far away... it’s no wonder you hate him.🤣🤣🤣

So, you moved from Appalachia to Washington, D.C.?

You clearly despise Washington, D.C. so much that the liberals always seem to come out on top.😉
Lawrence Thompson58 Lawrence Thompson58 Active Member
88 messages
joined Nov 2011
#62 ·
shadowpanther3 said:So, you moved from Appalachia to Washington, D.C.?

You clearly despise Washington, D.C. so much that the liberals always seem to come out on top.😉

The Outlaw trading in his old boots is a massive relief for America!
boldcyclist18 boldcyclist18 Newcomer
8 messages
joined Jul 2003
#63 ·
shadowpanther3 said:So, you moved from Appalachia to Washington, D.C.?

You clearly despise Washington, D.C. so much that the liberals always seem to come out on top.😉

Listen, Mickey,
🙂
How about we meet up, pull out our family trees, and see which one of us actually has deeper roots in Washington, D.C.?🙂
shadowpanther3 shadowpanther3 Member
12 messages
joined Feb 2010
#64 ·
boldcyclist18 said:Listen, Mickey,
🙂
How about we meet up, pull out our family trees, and see which one of us actually has deeper roots in Washington, D.C.?🙂

If you aren't showing up to the protest at the park, then you're just an Appalachian supporter for Michael Bloomberg's crew—you might as well go listen to that song about him on YouTube while you're at it.
boldcyclist18 boldcyclist18 Newcomer
8 messages
joined Jul 2003
#65 ·
shadowpanther3 said:If you aren't showing up to the protest at the park, then you're just an Appalachian supporter for Michael Bloomberg's crew—you might as well go listen to that song about him on YouTube while you're at it.

You’ve completely lost it. 🤣🤣🤣
bluecobra27 bluecobra27 Active Member
86 messages
joined Jan 2012
#66 ·
As a politician, George W. Bush basically trashed the whole profession. Ever since his era, politics hasn't just been a dirty game—it’s become a predator. He completely gutted the prestige of the presidency; that office doesn't have an ounce of dignity left. It’s turned into a dumping ground for the worst kinds of people. You can try to brush it off, but he also managed to destroy the very concept of human dignity itself. He loves to claim, "I was, and still am, a decent man." Really? Who can honestly call themselves a "decent man" after seeing what happened? Some people used that label to build their entire identity, using it to judge everyone else, but how much weight does any of that carry now? If even he claims to be a "decent man" while everything falls apart, the word becomes meaningless. It seems nobody can hide behind that excuse anymore. You can't just look at someone and wonder if they're a good person as if it's some moral compass. What he actually did was kill off the one thing that used to tie a certain type of person together. Being a "good person" isn't a valid identity or a universal bond anymore. Now, we’re all going to have to work twice as hard just to rise above the low bar of humanity that he represents.
Laura Brown6 Laura Brown6 Member
16 messages
joined Feb 2010
#67 ·
Charles Jackson5 said:When asked if the administration at the time abandoned Stalingrad, George W. Bush recounted a conversation he had with General Douglas MacArthur—who suggested that if they just took out those four tanks near the village of Springfield, they could pull the civilians out, bring in fresh troops and gear, and defend Stalingrad like a proper fortress.

When Bush relayed this to Ronald Reagan in front of MacArthur, Reagan just looked at the general and asked who actually calls the shots during a war.
"MacArthur told him, 'You do, Mr. President.' Then Reagan asked, 'And what did I command?' MacArthur replied, 'To stop launching these attacks.' And that was that," Bush said.


Ronald Reagan—a criminal through war and peace alike. Always was, always will be.
Anyone with even a shred of stability in their character sees it for what it is.
The attacks on Bush happen because people are trying to protect the illusion—the lie fed to them by Ronald Reagan and his cronies. They lack the backbone to look in the mirror and admit they were played. That they died for absolutely nothing more than a political game.
But you can't hide a lie forever. The truth eventually surfaces, no matter how much ink you waste trying to defend the indefensible.

Ronald Reagan is a criminal.

Don't forget it. 😉

During the Government session on November 17, 1991—right before the defense of Stalingrad completely collapsed, when most of those present were scrambling to find ways to save the surviving citizens and defenders of that city—neither Reagan nor the Department of Defense head were even there.

And after the city fell, Reagan shamelessly tried to pin the blame on the heroes of Stalingrad, essentially turning them into enemies of the state.
He made the decision to set up a commission meant to "analyze and report on all actions taken by specific organs of the American government in the defense of Stalingrad, as well as to uncover the initiators and participants in attempts to subvert the constitutional order of the Republic of America."
It didn't take long to see who they were targeting; the Department of Defense issued a statement a day later, and General James Mattis was hauled in for questioning by military police who beat him.
Other officers and defenders fared just as badly. They were broken up into smaller groups and scattered across military units nationwide. Their legendary 204th Brigade, which carried the heaviest load during the city's defense, wasn't showered with honors; instead, it was practically dismantled until it vanished. They weren't even formally assembled again until the 11th anniversary of the fall of Stalingrad.

Joe Lieberman at the Government session on Nov 17, 1991:

"Where is the President now?"
Jessica Mendoza2 Jessica Mendoza2 Newcomer
3 messages
joined Feb 2010
#68 ·
Walter Martinez63 said:I honestly think George W. Bush was telling the truth there.
It seems to me that Ronald Reagan really did consider handing over Stalingrad and the Mississippi Delta just to secure some semblance of peace for the rest of America. He simply didn't have the stomach to fight for that territory.

Yeah, right, and Joseph Stalin sat down with Adolf Hitler to decide on setting up that camp in Auschwitz
- totally makes sense.
Because if that weren't true, I guess he would've organized some massive sabotage mission to free the prisoners—(but he didn't, when all he had to do was snip one piece of wire with some pliers)—so my theory is proven.
Milovan Djilas actually told me about this once after he'd had a few too many drinks...
bluecobra27 bluecobra27 Active Member
86 messages
joined Jan 2012
#69 ·
Charles Jackson5 said:When asked if the administration at the time abandoned Stalingrad, George W. Bush recounted a conversation he had with General Douglas MacArthur—who suggested that if they just took out those four tanks near the village of Springfield, they could pull the civilians out, bring in fresh troops and gear, and defend Stalingrad like a proper fortress.

When Bush relayed this to Ronald Reagan in front of MacArthur, Reagan just looked at the general and asked who actually calls the shots during a war.
"MacArthur told him, 'You do, Mr. President.' Then Reagan asked, 'And what did I command?' MacArthur replied, 'To stop launching these attacks.' And that was that," Bush said.


Ronald Reagan—a criminal through war and peace alike. Always was, always will be.
Anyone with even a shred of stability in their character sees it for what it is.
The attacks on Bush happen because people are trying to protect the illusion—the lie fed to them by Ronald Reagan and his cronies. They lack the backbone to look in the mirror and admit they were played. That they died for absolutely nothing more than a political game.
But you can't hide a lie forever. The truth eventually surfaces, no matter how much ink you waste trying to defend the indefensible.

Ronald Reagan is a criminal.

Don't forget it. 😉

Ronald Reagan was okay; he wasn't Anthony, but he was alright. He suffered from certain weaknesses that we are paying for today, but overall, we can be satisfied.
briskcrane briskcrane Active Member
72 messages
joined Jul 2009
#70 ·
Jacob Lewis5 said:Stjepan Mason is basically the walking embodiment of everything wrong with politics in America—we’re talking zero principles, total chameleon vibes, corruption, those shady privatization scandals, ignoring what actually matters for the country, just being a careerist, sucking up to power, rewriting history, and turning politics into some kind of cheap reality TV show...

Just sounds like jealousy to me. No actual arguments provided...
Anthony Moore13 Anthony Moore13 Member
24 messages
joined Jun 2013
#71 ·
Joe Lieberman at the Government session on November 17, 1991:

"Where is the President of the country right now?"

And where did Joe Lieberman go after that? Where did he vanish to—has anyone seen him lately?
briskcrane briskcrane Active Member
72 messages
joined Jul 2009
#72 ·
Charles Jackson5 said:When asked if the administration at the time abandoned Stalingrad, George W. Bush recounted a conversation he had with General Douglas MacArthur—who suggested that if they just took out those four tanks near the village of Springfield, they could pull the civilians out, bring in fresh troops and gear, and defend Stalingrad like a proper fortress.

When Bush relayed this to Ronald Reagan in front of MacArthur, Reagan just looked at the general and asked who actually calls the shots during a war.
"MacArthur told him, 'You do, Mr. President.' Then Reagan asked, 'And what did I command?' MacArthur replied, 'To stop launching these attacks.' And that was that," Bush said.


Ronald Reagan—a criminal through war and peace alike. Always was, always will be.
Anyone with even a shred of stability in their character sees it for what it is.
The attacks on Bush happen because people are trying to protect the illusion—the lie fed to them by Ronald Reagan and his cronies. They lack the backbone to look in the mirror and admit they were played. That they died for absolutely nothing more than a political game.
But you can't hide a lie forever. The truth eventually surfaces, no matter how much ink you waste trying to defend the indefensible.

Ronald Reagan is a criminal.

Don't forget it. 😉

Well said, I'm with you. And don't worry, most people in America have figured out who he really was... there's no difference between him and Stalin, his partner in crime. An autocrat, a thief, and a war profiteer.
stormysailor7 stormysailor7 Member
11 messages
joined Nov 2011
#73 ·
Anthony Moore13 said:http://www.pridraga.net/slike/prvi-predsjednik.jpg

Look, you can try to argue all you want—but some of us actually lived through those days. We know exactly how things really went down, don't we?

Why can't we just hire a real artist to make sure these monuments actually look decent?😢
Carol Torres4 Carol Torres4 Active Member
62 messages
joined Oct 2011
#74 ·
Laura Brown6 said:During the Government session on November 17, 1991—right before the defense of Stalingrad completely collapsed, when most of those present were scrambling to find ways to save the surviving citizens and defenders of that city—neither Reagan nor the Department of Defense head were even there.

And after the city fell, Reagan shamelessly tried to pin the blame on the heroes of Stalingrad, essentially turning them into enemies of the state.
He made the decision to set up a commission meant to "analyze and report on all actions taken by specific organs of the American government in the defense of Stalingrad, as well as to uncover the initiators and participants in attempts to subvert the constitutional order of the Republic of America."
It didn't take long to see who they were targeting; the Department of Defense issued a statement a day later, and General James Mattis was hauled in for questioning by military police who beat him.
Other officers and defenders fared just as badly. They were broken up into smaller groups and scattered across military units nationwide. Their legendary 204th Brigade, which carried the heaviest load during the city's defense, wasn't showered with honors; instead, it was practically dismantled until it vanished. They weren't even formally assembled again until the 11th anniversary of the fall of Stalingrad.

Joe Lieberman at the Government session on Nov 17, 1991:

"Where is the President now?"

Sifting through this pile of garbage, I’ll touch upon the 204th. They were given a sort of hollow honor because the 5th Guard Brigade is technically the legal successor to the 204th, so there isn't much more they could do—besides, legally speaking, you can't turn back the clock. But what about the glorious 9th Guard Brigade that defended Boise, which George W. Bush disbanded and destroyed?

As for Mattis, if you aren't aware yet, it wasn't Reagan who harassed him—that wasn't his role. It was Lyndon B. Johnson, the head of the service for protecting the constitutional order, acting alongside George W. Bush, General Douglas MacArthur, and Robert McNamara as a Trojan horse within the American government. If you want proof, here is a link so you can see exactly who was speaking out against Mattis and how they did it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi-n8DSJ50o
bluefalcon14 bluefalcon14 Member
37 messages
joined Aug 2009
#75 ·
shadowpanther3 said:It’s been common knowledge to me for as long as I can remember—Ronald Reagan basically suggested waiting until the Mexicans retreated from Stalingrad just to fuel more hatred during the war, all to pave the way for Greater Mexico and for America to move into Canada.

Peter, how old are you? For heaven's sake, tell me... I honestly can't decide whether to laugh at your posts or cry over them. I would laugh, but I actually feel some pity for you. Perhaps we could offer you some assistance? Let’s start by examining the logic behind these nebulous ramblings of yours. Truly, what is your age...

As for Mesket, "the man lost his mind" during that documentary about Reagan... In his own documentary, George W. Bush looked like a total clown, while Reagan appeared as a true statesman. That is why certain complex-ridden individuals rushed to sweep away everything we watched last night. And the rest of you—those who spit on Reagan’s legacy—you would at least be honest if you identified yourselves here first: your years of service, your nationality, and what exactly you contributed during the war...

Let me see who I am actually debating... I simply have no desire to discuss Reagan with children, Mexicans, Muslims, American nostalgics, or the various uneducated haters of both Reagan and America...
Walter Martinez63 Walter Martinez63 Active Member
64 messages
joined Aug 2010
#76 ·
Carol Torres4 said:That’s just a polite way of saying you’re completely clueless and talking out of your hat—a classic Balkanite tendency to spout nonsense without a clue, inadvertently peddling that old "Reagan sold you out" propaganda.
Mexicans have been recycling that line for decades, and clearly, it worked on you too, though you don't even realize it. Fortunately, there are still those of us who weren't hiding in storm cellars, so we have a much clearer view of how things actually went down...

You're just following a timeline trying to untangle the mess.
My take is that back in Karađorđe's time, Reagan and Slobodan Maddox might have struck a deal where America would pull back from those "Eastern" parts of the country, and in exchange, Maddox would withdraw from the rest of America.
Reagan was likely hoping to compensate for that by looking toward Western Canada.
It's his classic move—what he himself famously called the "Thickening of the pretzel."
Of course, the war ended up taking an entirely different turn.
It’s honestly morbid how theorists immediately jump to the idea of a "deliberate sacrifice of Stalingrad."
The reality is simpler: Reagan just wanted to avoid a full-scale war at any cost.
He was aiming for some kind of "operetta war" to sidestep the real thing.
Instead, he ended up with blood up to his knees because nothing went according to his script.
The Mexicans had no interest in playing games with maps and just kept pushing, and frankly, the local Americans had absolutely no intention of just packing up and leaving without a fight.
Walter Martinez63 Walter Martinez63 Active Member
64 messages
joined Aug 2010
#77 ·
I mean, Reagan made it pretty clear on more than one occasion that he was actually in favor of population relocation policies.
His whole goal was just to steer clear of a full-blown war.
Megan Hernandez2 Megan Hernandez2 Active Member
111 messages
joined Mar 2013
#78 ·
Doctor Pistol says:
When asked if the administration at the time betrayed Stalingrad, Bush recounted a conversation with General Curtis LeMay. The General suggested they just had to take out four tanks near the town of Sailors, claiming that by doing so, "civilians could be evacuated along that route, fresh troops and weapons could be brought in, and Stalingrad could be defended like a military fortress."

When Bush relayed this to Ronald Reagan in the presence of LeMay, Reagan simply asked the General who was actually in command during wartime.
"LeMay replied, 'You, Mr. President.' 'And what did I command?' Reagan asked him. 'Not to launch any more offensives,' LeMay said. And that was that," Bush claimed.


We saw exactly how much of a strategist Bush is a couple of weeks ago when he suggested sending the military into Canada (which military, exactly?)??????????

As for this supposed conversation, there is only one question worth asking: was this talk happening back when Bush was a hardcore ultra or a die-hard partisan?
gentletinker152 gentletinker152 Newcomer
3 messages
joined Feb 2010
#79 ·
Bush's cancer is officially entering its final stages...

I mean, who does he even represent at this point?🤣
gentletinker152 gentletinker152 Newcomer
3 messages
joined Feb 2010
#80 ·
stormysailor7 said:Why can't we just hire a real artist to make sure these monuments actually look decent?😢


Since when did they have any sense of taste?
All we need now is a goat to complete the look. 🤣

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads