"Your understanding of history is flawed, as are most of the "points" you try to make."

Oh, well, since Mr. Crunchy says it, it must be true... typical, not weighing down your post with any real content, just attitude.

Reply #25 By: dabe - 1/27/2005 7:37:35 AM As I said, that fantasy pedestal thing. Alison, people are as divided by their perceptions of ronnie as they are about politics in general. I never wished ronnie to be dead, by the way. What I said was the best thing about him was that he was no longer president. As for dying, what I said was that mentally he went bye-bye while still in office. He was a dolt. He and his buffoons invented that trickle down economic fiasco, that proven failed policy that just transfers money into rich people's bank accounts, while sinking the country into miserable deficits. That's a given. Now, dubya is doing the same thing. Notice how the ranks of the poor in this country are growing? Notice how those poor are getting poorer and poorer? Notice how the rich are getting richer and richer? Notice how the gap betweein the poor and the rich, that being the middle class, is shrinking?

Now to use your own words to show ignorance.. You say the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. In the next line you say the gap between the two is closing. Logically that means either the poor are getting richer or the rich are getting poorer. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Now to use your own words to show ignorance.. You say the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. In the next line you say the gap between the two is closing. Logically that means either the poor are getting richer or the rich are getting poorer. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

I think by the last line he meant that the middle class are getting poorer, however poorly worded it may be.

Reply #33 By: latour999 - 1/27/2005 1:26:26 PM Now to use your own words to show ignorance.. You say the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. In the next line you say the gap between the two is closing. Logically that means either the poor are getting richer or the rich are getting poorer. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. I think by the last line he meant that the middle class are getting poorer, however poorly worded it may be

Poorly worded? Nope. Wrongly worded? Maybe. If he was refering to that then the rich should not even been mentioned.

I think by the last line he meant that the middle class are getting poorer, however poorly worded it may be.

Thank you, Latour. You're right about one thing...... poorly worded. Actually, wrongly worded. In fact, I was writing this rather quickly before work this morning. What I meant to say was "widening". The gap between the rich and poor is widening. Sheesh...............

And, what you're wrong about is that I'm not a he. I'm a she.

my compassion knows limits

If liberals don't have compassion for people they disagree with, then I really doubt they can be called compassionate. If it can though, then anybody can be called as compassionate in the liberal sense, because I doubt anybody in the world is not compassionate to at least one group of people.

I like how I am now happy that a man is dead because my opinions fall on the left, thanks to sweeping generalizations.

Believe me. I'm happy that you're here to prove me wrong, because the trend I've been seeing on here and on the other article has been a bit depressing.

"So we have huge prosperity under Republican administrations in the 1980's, a steep decline after eight years of Clinton, and a steadily recovering economy under Bush. "

I demand sources for this far-right claptrap bullshit.
You want unemployment figures? Go to the United States Department of Labour website. Clinton cut unemployment to half what it was under Reagan.
The stock market hit record highs in 1999. 11,497.12.
Were you even alive in the 1980's? Or did you spend most of your time running your oil company or inside your church?
So show me some figures, you worthless propaganda-spewing rightwing fuckshit.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet
You call this recovering? The red line went way up, that is bad, you stupid blind mother fucker. Look, under Clinton, it went continually DOWN. Get it?
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet
This looks about as steady as a fucking earthquake just hit.
Ronald Reagan was a mindless piece of shit by the way.
About all he accomplished was looking suave.
That's about as far as his intellect could take him.
Now go ask Jerry Falwell/God what you're supposed to say now.

Hey mostpeopledo. Quit being a moron. By cussing you only discredit your source. Ronald Reagan was a great man. He won the 1984 election in the greatest landslide of modern times. He made people feel proud to be an american, which is a considerable feat given JFK's failure to win the Bay of Pigs and subsequent assasination by a US Citizen, LBJ's ham-handedness of Vietnam, Nixon's Watergate, and pretty much everything Jimmy Carter put his hand on. He set up the economic growth for the 90s. His far fetched ideas about star wars showed the soviets that they could not keep up with America, which led to their downfall in his sucessor's term and spurred the growth of the satellite research industry and I think we may just use satellites today. Reagan was so stupid that he asked Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, and guess what: it's still up. O wait, no it isn't. It's like ur the dumb ass (ass referring to donkey the symbol of the left). But you know what, live in your little fantasy world. I assure most people don;t agree with you.

"So show me some figures, you worthless propaganda-spewing rightwing fuckshit."

" The red line went way up, that is bad, you stupid blind mother fucker"

Wow....who are you trying to impress? Your prom date?

Okay... maybe from a different angle. I'm reading Ronnie's love letters to Nancy right now. I don't think there's a hint of insanity or alzheimers in them. He wrote her the most beautiful, thoughtful, poetic love letters throughout his political career. I won't accept insanity charges after reading the man's own thoughts and writings.

I think this goes back to "perception is reality." When Allison began this thread, her mind was made up and will never change. Regardless of any evidence to the contrary. The same goes for most other people who have responded thusfar on the thread. I see that FEW people are civil and kind and respectful of these differences in opinion and in reality perception. These people are the ones I'm most likely to trust because they're calm and staid in their respect for others. They're not beligerent wackos to put it in another way. They're not fanatical, advancing their opinions and beliefs without actually listening and considering what the other side has to say. What's the point in continuing this thread if no one will actually listen and consider another person's point? It's a whole lot of silent yelling to me and it's rather "noisy" in here... not much value in it at all.

I'd like someone to actually respond politely to someone else for change and give some sort of evidence that they considered what what said instead of just frothing at the mouth to "prove" their case to a deaf audience. But it's not my thread. So I'm backing out.

It WAS an interesting topic, Allison. However, as things stand, I just don't think I have anything to offer you besides this.

Reply #37 By: MostPeopleDo - 1/27/2005 8:41:49 PM "So we have huge prosperity under Republican administrations in the 1980's, a steep decline after eight years of Clinton, and a steadily recovering economy under Bush. " I demand sources for this far-right claptrap bullshit. You want unemployment figures? Go to the United States Department of Labour website. Clinton cut unemployment to half what it was under Reagan. The stock market hit record highs in 1999. 11,497.12. Were you even alive in the 1980's? Or did you spend most of your time running your oil company or inside your church? So show me some figures, you worthless propaganda-spewing rightwing fuckshit. http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet You call this recovering? The red line went way up, that is bad, you stupid blind mother fucker. Look, under Clinton, it went continually DOWN. Get it? http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet This looks about as steady as a fucking earthquake just hit. Ronald Reagan was a mindless piece of shit by the way. About all he accomplished was looking suave. That's about as far as his intellect could take him. Now go ask Jerry Falwell/God what you're supposed to say now.

If you can't control your tounge then shut your hole! For someone who has zero points maybe you should just shut up anyway.

I can't speak for everyone, but I can tell you why I liked Prs. Reagan.

The U.S. spent around a decade apologizing to the world for whatever anyone felt like throwing in our faces. We were a superpower, yet we were acting like a henpecked husband. In our dealings with other countries, we were expected to give in and shut up. The SALT & SALT-II treaties were great examples of this. As long as we agreed that the Soviet Bloc could have more, bigger and faster weapons and delivery systems than ours, all was well with the world. OPEC ran rough shod over us, and all we did was invent the word "oil crisis" and put up with all the lines at gas stations and "if your license plate ends with an even number..." BS rationing (This one is especially important since it put us in the situation we are in with OPEC today).

Well, that all changed with the Reagan administration. He made no apologies about his love for the U.S. and challenged us all to do the same. In international relations, he had no use for "negotiating from weakness". He let us all know that, if we want to keep our heads hung low, that's fine, but you won't see him doing it. His leadership and positive attitude inspired Americans and began the longest continual incline in the ecomony ever.

He challenged the world to not accept the walls and guns turned towards the people of the Soviet Bloc. He made it so, instead of the U.S. feeling the need to defend our actions, or apologize for them, the Soviet Leaders had to. He fought the "cold war" to win it, not just put up with it. In the end, the Soviet Union could no longer hold the Bloc together and then the Berlin wall came down. Since the end of the cold war, I've had many opportunities to talk with people who served in Warsaw Pact nation armies. Very few of them discounted Reagan's actions and attitudes as pivotal in the demise of the Soviet Bloc. Some hated him for it, others were eternally grateful for it, but they did respect him for it.

There were things that happened during his administration that I disagreed with, I think he could have been more aggresive against the terrorism that happened during the 80's, and (just like too many other presidents) "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" was too much a part of his policies. However, if there was ever a president who I agreed with 100%, I would either fear them or fear who I had become.

President Reagan was a true leader.

'Sure, he accomplished the tearing down of the Berlin wall, but what else did he exactly do?'

Did he really? It happened during his presidency, that's all. I'm with Quentin Crisp on this one:
'Politics is the art of claiming credit for the inevitable.'

Reply #43 By: Furry Canary - 1/28/2005 2:58:28 AM 'Sure, he accomplished the tearing down of the Berlin wall, but what else did he exactly do?' Did he really? It happened during his presidency, that's all. I'm with Quentin Crisp on this one: 'Politics is the art of claiming credit for the inevitable.'

So are you going to tell the rest of the world that they're wrong to?

'Politics is the art of claiming credit for the inevitable.'

...and political opposition is the art of denying credit by using the ol' "inevitable" ploy! ;~D