PDA

View Full Version : Happy 99th Reagan


SCSTILLER
02-06-2010, 05:38 PM
Today Ronald Reagan would have turned 99 years old. Reagan was the first president I really remember in my life. I remember him saying "Gorbachav, tear down this wall" and also coming out in only his suit to meet the Russion Premier in the cold (don't remember the country). Also remember him telling a reporter "sometime their mouths are open, but thier mouths are closed (or something like that)" Happy birthday to the Gipper

hindes204
02-06-2010, 07:07 PM
The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so. :thumbsup:
-Ronald Reagan

Happy Birthday!!!!

7SteelGal43
02-06-2010, 09:01 PM
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free. ~ Ronald Reagan




To a great American, a great President, and a great man.:drink: We miss ya, Ronnie

St33lersguy
02-07-2010, 08:15 AM
If only we had more presidential nominees like Reagan.

urgle burgle
02-07-2010, 08:41 AM
yep...good man, good president....

for a good read, check out Presidential Courage by Michael Beschloss. covers Reagan's handling of Russia during the Cold War.

it covers a lot of the Presidents and the hard decisions they made (for the betterment of the Country).

covers everything from Washington facing possible impeachment (yeah, George Washington), Adams not wanting to fight France, Jackson and his hatred of the National Bank (he killed it, but it sprang up again, see Fed Reserve), Truman, deciding to recognize Israel, Kennedy's issues with moving forward with civil rights legislation,
i view it as a good read, mostly because it shows that Presidents are not 100% bad or 100% good. they make decisions, they feel are necessary, sometimes with failure and sometimes with success.

Vincent
02-07-2010, 09:33 AM
yep...good man, good president....

for a good read, check out Presidential Courage by Michael Beschloss. covers Reagan's handling of Russia during the Cold War.

it covers a lot of the Presidents and the hard decisions they made (for the betterment of the Country).

covers everything from Washington facing possible impeachment (yeah, George Washington), Adams not wanting to fight France, Jackson and his hatred of the National Bank (he killed it, but it sprang up again, see Fed Reserve), Truman, deciding to recognize Israel, Kennedy's issues with moving forward with civil rights legislation,
i view it as a good read, mostly because it shows that Presidents are not 100% bad or 100% good. they make decisions, they feel are necessary, sometimes with failure and sometimes with success.

I haven't seen that one UB. Thanks for posting. I've read much about those presidential travails and they are very reflective and instructive.

And yes, Happy Birthday to one of the greatest leaders the world has seen. My younger brother, who hates all things political, once said "I'd follow Dutch into hell". He was that much of a leader.

Galax Steeler
02-07-2010, 10:21 AM
He was a great President greatly missed

NJarhead
02-07-2010, 10:32 AM
I loved that man.

"Some people wonder all their lives if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem. " - Ronald Reagan.

Steelboy84
02-07-2010, 02:45 PM
This, a man who slashed taxes heavily while increasing government spending while running on a "conservative" platform and left a budget deficit of over a trillion dollars.

Nah, he ain't missed that much.

MasterOfPuppets
02-07-2010, 05:37 PM
The Real Reagan Legacy
Debunking Myths About Reagan

March 19, 2002 (Political Sanity/APJP) -- Let's begin our examination of the real Reagan Legacy by taking a look at myth number one: Democrats dominated Congress all through Reagan's terms, and called all his budgets Dead On Arrival.

That's numerically and historically false. Reagan's people shoved his program through the Congress during the early Reagan years. James A. Baker, David Stockman and other Reaganites ran roughshod over Tip O'Neill and the divided Democrats in the House and Senate, and won every critical vote. This is because of the GOP majority in the Senate and the GOP-"Boll Weevil" (or "Dixiecrat") coalition in the House. Phil Gramm was a House Democrat at the time, and he even sponsored the most important Reagan budgets.

Only after the huge Reagan recession -- made worse by utterly failed Reagan "Voodoo Economics" - did Democrats regain some control in Congress. They halted some Reagan initiatives, but couldn't do much on their own. That was a time of gridlock.

Six years into Reagan's presidency, Democrats retook the Senate, and began to reverse some of Reagan's horrendous policies. By that time, Reaganomics had "accomplished" quite a bit: doubled the national debt, caused the S&L crisis, and nearly wrecked the financial system.

Which brings us to myth number two: Jimmy Carter wrecked the economy, and Reagan's bold tax cuts saved it.

This is utterly absurd. Economic growth indices -- GDP, jobs, revenues -- were all positive when Carter left office. All plunged after Reagan policies took effect.

Reagan didn't cure inflation, the main economic problem during the Carter years. Carter's Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker tried when he raised interest rates. That's the opposite of what Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has done to keep inflation low.

Carter's policies and people fought inflation, but maintained real growth. On the other hand, Reagan's policies helped cause the worst recession since the Great Depression: two bleak years with nearly double-digit unemployment! Reaganomics failed in less than a year, and it took an entire second year for the economy to recover from the failure.

Carter didn't cause the inflation problem, but his tough policies and smart personnel solved it. Unfortunately for Carter, it took too long for the good results to kick in. Not only didn't Reagan help whip inflation, he actually opposed the Volcker policies!

Another major myth: Reagan cut taxes on all Americans, and that led to a great expansion.

Here's the truth: the total federal tax burden increased during the Reagan years, and most Americans paid more in taxes after Reagan than before. The "Reagan Recovery" was unremarkable. It looks great only contrasted against the dismal Reagan Recession -- but it had nothing to do with Supply Side voodoo.

With a red ink explosion -- $300 BILLION deficits looming as far as the eye could see -- GOP Senators, notably including Bob Dole, led the way on tax hikes. The economy enjoyed its recovery only after total tax increases larger than the total tax cuts were implemented. Most importantly, average annual GDP growth during the Reagan 80s was lower than during the Clinton 90s or the JFK-LBJ 60s!

Enough about the economy. Here's the biggest myth of them all: Ronald Reagan won the "Cold War".

In reality, Reagan did nothing to bring down the Soviet Union.

By 1980, the Soviet Union was trying to cut its own defense spending. Reagan made it harder for them to do so. In fact, Reagan increased the possibility of a nuclear war because he was -- frankly, and sadly -- senile. He thought we could actually recall submarine-launched nuclear missiles (talk about a Reagan myth), and bullied the Soviets to highest alert several times.

Critically, Reagan never even tried to bring down the Soviet Union.

Wasteful overspending on defense didn't end the Soviet Union. In fact, it played into the hands of authoritarian "Communist" hard-liners in the Kremlin. Reagan thought the Soviet Union was more powerful than we were. He was trying to close what he called "the window of vulnerability."

This was sheer idiocy.

No general in our military would trade our armed forces for theirs. If it were to happen, none of the Soviet military command would turn down that deal. We had better systems, better troops, and better morale.

Here's the truth: we'd already won the Cold War before Reagan took office. All Reagan needed to do was continue the tried-and-true containment policies Harry S. Truman began and all subsequent presidents employed. The Soviet Union was Collapsing from within. The CIA actually told this to Reagan as he took office.

Here's an example: the Soviet Union military couldn't deal with a weak state on its own border, the poor, undermanned Afghanistan. Most of the Soviets' military might had to make sure its "allies" in the Warsaw Pact and subjects along the South Asian front didn't revolt. Even Richard Nixon told Reagan he could balance the budget with big defense cuts.

Reagan ignored this, and wrecked our budget.

We didn't have to increase weapons spending, but Reagan didn't care. He ran away from summits with the dying old-guard Soviets, and the new-style "glasnost" leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev baffled the witless Reagan and his closed-minded extremist advisors.

Maggie Thatcher finally cajoled the Gipper into meeting Gorby, and Gorby cleaned Reagan's clock. Reagan's hard-right "handlers" nearly had to drag Reagan out of the room before he signed away our entire nuclear deterrent. Reagan -- and the planet -- was lucky Gorbachev sought genuine and stable peace. Had Yuri Andropov's health held, Reagan's "jokes" and gaffes might have caused World War III.

Eventually Reagan even gave Gorbachev his seal of approval. Visiting Moscow before the August Coup, Reagan said the Soviet Union was no longer the "Evil Empire." He predicted his friend Gorbachev would lead the Soviet Union for many years to come.

As usual, Reagan was wrong. A few months later, disgruntled military officers kidnapped Gorbachev, throwing him out of power forever. Reagan remained disengaged: nothing he did caused the coup, and nothing he did made the Soviet military support Boris Yeltsin over their superiors.

We're all fortunate things happened as they did -- but once again, Reagan did nothing to make this fluke more likely.

All this is vintage Reagan. Reagan took credit for others' hard word and hard choices, and blamed them for his failures. Reagan even blamed Jimmy Carter for Reagan's foolish, fatal, and reckless decision to leave 243 Marines stationed in Beirut, helpless and unguarded.

Reagan hired over 100 crooks to run our government, and broke several laws himself. His policies were almost uniformly self-defeating, wrong-headed, immoral and unfair.

Reagan was an actor playing the part of the president. He was style over substance; lucky, not good.

And once the myths are stripped from the "legacy", the truth becomes obvious: Reagan was by far the most overrated man in American history.
:coffee:

urgle burgle
02-07-2010, 06:06 PM
The Real Reagan Legacy
Debunking Myths About Reagan


:coffee:

i didnt quote your whole post, just too long and not necessary.

but wow.....

1) most, if not all, of that article is cherry picked, to formulate a bias. ok, no biggy there as thats obvioulsy your view.
2)i have no idea who wrote that article or where it came from (link, author, etc.), besides the date and the name of the publication.
3)within the article, there is nothing referenced. its all just veiwpoints, with nothing to back them up.
4)it wouldnt take long to pick apart the opinions given that supposely disputed the percieved "myths"

but, alas, im watchin this crappy game were not in, so right now isnt the time.

however, interesting post, i suppose.

X-Terminator
02-07-2010, 06:10 PM
This, a man who slashed taxes heavily while increasing government spending while running on a "conservative" platform and left a budget deficit of over a trillion dollars.

Nah, he ain't missed that much.

Problem is, if he would have even thought about reducing government spending, he'd have been demagogued to hell and back by the Democrats, and been accused of all sorts of evil things...kind of like the Republicans were in the 1995 budget wars. Instead, he caved and signed all sorts of pork-laden spending bills into law. The previous administration did the same thing.

Tax cuts do not work if you do not curb spending. Plain and simple. And it's about time a real fiscal conservative got into power and really stood up for what he believed in.

MasterOfPuppets
02-07-2010, 06:57 PM
i didnt quote your whole post, just too long and not necessary.

but wow.....

1) most, if not all, of that article is cherry picked, to formulate a bias. ok, no biggy there as thats obvioulsy your view.
2)i have no idea who wrote that article or where it came from (link, author, etc.), besides the date and the name of the publication.
3)within the article, there is nothing referenced. its all just veiwpoints, with nothing to back them up.
4)it wouldnt take long to pick apart the opinions given that supposely disputed the percieved "myths"

but, alas, im watchin this crappy game were not in, so right now isnt the time.

however, interesting post, i suppose.

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020319Hersh.html

Texasteel
02-07-2010, 07:04 PM
Mike Hersh is not what I would call an objective reporter by any means.

urgle burgle
02-07-2010, 07:07 PM
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020319Hersh.html

thanks...that does help the dicourse a bit

Vincent
02-07-2010, 07:24 PM
This, a man who slashed taxes heavily while increasing government spending while running on a "conservative" platform and left a budget deficit of over a trillion dollars.

Nah, he ain't missed that much.

Listen steeltwink, while you were crunching crumbs and drooling on yourself in your playpen, this great American stared down the greatest threat to life, liberty, and the American way we had seen since the big war. On his birthday, quietly express your appreciation.

And while you're once again flaunting your colossal ignorance, note that it is congress that sets budgets. One of the hallmarks of the Tip O'Neill years was pronouncing the President's budgets "DOA". http://www.gvsu.edu/hauenstein/index.cfm?id=609AE608-D008-C8DF-AC0F33F982D5E4A2 http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/08/reagans-december-declaration-g and again http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020319Hersh.html

zulater
02-07-2010, 07:49 PM
Reagan was the first President I voted for.:thumbsup:

GBMelBlount
02-07-2010, 07:53 PM
Let's face it, cherry picking the bad and demonizing republicans is the only way libs can justify voting for democrats.

They cannot win on principles.

Most everything liberals stand for for runs contrary to the principals on which this great country was founded.

MasterOfPuppets
02-07-2010, 08:00 PM
---- Ronald Reagan's Record "Firsts" --------------------

1. First to serve as Governor on a "conservative" platform and increase spending by 112%.
2. First Governor to increase personal income taxes by 60%, increase the cigarette tax by 200%, and increase state tax collections by 152%.
3. First to have a popularity rating of only 35% after his first two years in office.
4. First to have had a shotgun wedding.
5. First president to have been divorced.
6. First to increase spending by 80% – in only 8 years.
7. First to spend more in eight years than was spent in prior 50 years.
8. First to cut taxes by 60% for his rich pals.
9. First to have increased the national debt faster than growth of national income.
10. First to "almost": triple the national debt.
11. First to increase the national debt faster than growth of GDP.
12. First to double the deficit.
13. First to turn America into a debtor nation.
14. First to set a record for the largest one day percentage decline in the DOW in history. 10-19-87.
15. First to have "real" interest rates of 8% after averaging 1% over 35 years.
16. First to keep prime interest rates at 20%.
17. First to have home loan interest rates as high as 16%.
18. First to allow the savings and loan industry to be raided after signing a deregulatory bill and proclaiming "I think we have hit the jackpot". Come and get it the vaults are unguarded.
19. First to send an autographed Bible to a man he called "The Satan of Terrorists".
20. First to have an admiral plead the Fifth Amendment.
21. First to have a stealing, lying, gutless wife abusing Marine LT. Colonel plead the Fifth Amendment.
22. First to have a sitting cabinet member indicted.
23. First to have an Assistant Secretary of State indicted.
24. First to have an Asistant Secretary of Defense sent to prison.
25. First to have over 100 members of an administration charged with crimes.
26. First to have more members of his administration charged with crimes than the cumulative total of all other presidents in the twentieth century.
27. First to testify "under oath" 130 times that "I don't remember".
28. First to have an Admiral with a photographic memory testify 128 times " I don't remember".
29. First to repeatedly falsify his wife's age, as though anyone cared.
30. First to promote his religious faith and while never having an active membership in any church.
31. First to never use the term Jesus Christ in speeches.
32. First to have unemployment at 10.8% since great depression.
33. First to attack a small unprotected nation with 88,000 inhabitants and 10,000 bb guns, and then proclaim "America stands tall again". "we have whipped the Vietnam Syndrome. We have defeated communism".
34. #1-in farm foreclosures.
35. #1-In bank failures.
36. #1-In Savings and Loan failures.
37. #1-In percent increase in personal bankruptcies.
38. #1-In having servicemen killed during peacetime.
39. #1-In largest drop in popularity in one week.
40. #1-In being first to honor Nazi Storm Troopers by calling them" Innocent Victims".
41. First to lie - over and over- to reporters "I do not dye my hair; my barber uses a special shampoo."
42. First to have a wife who "forced" him to wear three suits in one day.
43. First to boast "Not bad for a dumb guy who worked only 20 hours per week".
44. First to have his wife sit nearby and whisper answers to questions.
45. First to have his press secretary remove him from the microphone when he could not answer questions. (When the reporter shouted out "answer my question", the president replied "my handlers won't let me speak").
46. First to have a Special Assistant say on national TV "sometimes you had to hit him on the head with a 2 x 4 to get his attention".
47. #1-In needing a staff person standby during press conferences to tell the press "what he really meant".
48. #1-In recorded misstatements.
49. #1-In never having a single press conference in which he did not make incorrect statements.
50. First to invite the Pope to visit the White House and "bring the wife and kids".
51. First to fall asleep while the Pope spoke.
52. First 20th Century president to have historians rate him below every president of the 20th except for Richard Nixon. 1994 Poll.
53. First to have been openly alienated from his children.
54. First to suggest his eldest son undergo psychiatric examination.
55. First to have been voted in British polls (twice) as the "most feared leader in the world" sic em Rambo.
56. First to have his official biographer state on national TV: 'After he was shot in 1981, he got slower and slower each year. His speech got slower. He deliberated more and he hesitated more when he spoke. He lost his physical quickness and would not make decisions on the spot. It was a very, very slow and steady mental and physical decline".
57. First president to have the Geriatrics Department of a major university study his behavior and conclude that after three years in office he had Alzheimer's.
58. First to have over $10,000,000 increase in wealth from serving for 8 years as president.
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/Reagan.html

GBMelBlount
02-07-2010, 08:02 PM
Thank you for proving my point.

Does that make you feel better about voting for Obama? :toofunny:

MasterOfPuppets
02-07-2010, 08:13 PM
Thank you for proving my point.

Does that make you feel better about voting for Obama? :toofunny:
this thread isn't about obama...try to stay on topic...:popcorn:
would you care to point out any untruths in the articles ? did you have a problem with any of these during those "great " reagan years ?...

6. First to increase spending by 80% – in only 8 years.
7. First to spend more in eight years than was spent in prior 50 years.
10. First to "almost": triple the national debt.
13. First to turn America into a debtor nation.

isn't this the same stuff you guys are bitching about now ?

GBMelBlount
02-07-2010, 08:19 PM
Reagan had a deficit before Obama so it's all good. :wink02:

I get it.

Go Obama! :cheer:

zulater
02-07-2010, 08:59 PM
this thread isn't about obama...try to stay on topic...:popcorn:
would you care to point out any untruths in the articles ? did you have a problem with any of these during those "great " reagan years ?...

6. First to increase spending by 80% – in only 8 years.
7. First to spend more in eight years than was spent in prior 50 years.
10. First to "almost": triple the national debt.
13. First to turn America into a debtor nation.

isn't this the same stuff you guys are bitching about now ?

It's all spin. I'm not the guy to do it, but there's plenty of people that can offer a spin to the contrary that's just as good or better than yours.

Reagan did a lot of good and some not so good. All in all I think the country came out of Reagans' Presidency in pretty good shape. .

GBMelBlount
02-07-2010, 09:33 PM
It's all spin. I'm not the guy to do it, but there's plenty of people that can offer a spin to the contrary that's just as good or better than yours.



Good point zulater.

Let's cut and past bullet points. :chuckle:

* Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
* The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s.


In the last year of the Carter Administration (1980) the US inflation rate climbed to a peak of 14.8%, the top individual tax payer rate was 78%, unemployment was 7.4%, federal outlay was 17% higher than the economy's growth rate, and the federal government grew while enacting loads of new spending programs. During this period, the US economy was the worst it had been since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Perhaps he lowered taxes to get us out of the worst recession since the depression?

At least our debt was sustainable at that point...

Sure looks like he did OK to me, especially with what he "inherited". :wink02:

MasterOfPuppets
02-07-2010, 09:39 PM
Reagan had a deficit before Obama so it's all good. :wink02:

I get it.

Go Obama! :cheer: i'd dodge that question too if i knew that answering it would make me look like a hypocrite...
actually its more like ...
reagan puts country in huge debt = national hero
obama put country in huge debt = destroyer of country.

GBMelBlount
02-07-2010, 09:45 PM
i'd dodge that question too if i knew that answering it would make me look like a hypocrite...
actually its more like ...
reagan puts country in huge debt = national hero
obama put country in huge debt = destroyer of country.

No, it's more like Reagan got us out of the worst recession since the depression. A large part of the spending increase was arguably necessary due to the cold war, which we won....

Now when the economy is bad, Obama does the exact opposite, he RAISES both taxes and the deficit in an unprecedented fashion to the point where it is now generational and unsustainable AND the unemployment is at 10% which he promised us his back breaking tax and spend liberal platform would work, it's not looking good so far friend...

What Reagan inherited was WORSE than what Obama inherited and Reagans tax cuts worked.....Big difference....

tony hipchest
02-07-2010, 10:17 PM
Reagan did a lot of good and some not so good. .

i agree 100%. and while not as perfect as his fans make him out to be, he deserves his accolades.

the aids and crack epidemics wouldnt have been the same w/o him.

and while we're all bowing at the regan altar let us not forget we made some pretty good friends in iraq and afghanistan during his tenure.

He would have liked meeting President Reagan. He thought he was a great leader. Honorable man.

-sadaam hussein on pres. reagan :tt04:

zulater
02-07-2010, 10:23 PM
i agree 100%. and while not as perfect as his fans make him out to be, he deserves his accolades.

the aids and crack epidemics wouldnt have been the same w/o him.

and while we're all bowing at the regan altar let us not forget we made some pretty good friends in iraq and afghanistan during his tenure.



-sadaam hussein on pres. reagan :tt04:

I understand all that Tony. But it's like anything, it all depends on what side you approach it from as to what your perspective is going to be.

I could sit here for hours and dig up "facts" or what I take to be facts to support Reagan, and you can do the same against him. But in the end we're both going to retire at the end of the night with the same opinion of him that we started with, so why go through all the bother? :drink:

tony hipchest
02-07-2010, 11:22 PM
like the post i agreed with....

he did alot of good and some not so good. the point being that the man wasnt as flawless as some make him out to be.

however, aids and cocaine has taken many of lives. some might see that as the "purification and cleansing" of our nation. :hunch:

MasterOfPuppets
02-07-2010, 11:26 PM
No, it's more like Reagan got us out of the worst recession since the depression. A large part of the spending increase was arguably necessary due to the cold war, which we won....

Now when the economy is bad, Obama does the exact opposite, he RAISES both taxes and the deficit in an unprecedented fashion to the point where it is now generational and unsustainable AND the unemployment is at 10% which he promised us his back breaking tax and spend liberal platform would work, it's not looking good so far friend...

What Reagan inherited was WORSE than what Obama inherited and Reagans tax cuts worked.....Big difference....

is that a fact ?

Myth: Carter ruined the economy; Reagan saved it.

Fact: The Federal Reserve Board was responsible for the events of the late 70s and 80s.



Summary

Carter cannot be blamed for the double-digit inflation that peaked on his watch, because inflation started growing in 1965 and snowballed for the next 15 years. To battle inflation, Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, who defeated it by putting the nation through an intentional recession. Once the threat of inflation abated in late 1982, Volcker cut interest rates and flooded the economy with money, fueling an expansion that lasted seven years. Neither Carter nor Reagan had much to do with the economic events that occurred during their terms.

As for the claim that Reagan's 1981 tax cuts were responsible for "the greatest peacetime expansion in U.S. history," a few grains of salt are in order here. The timeline better fits the liberal explanation than the conservative one. Volcker expanded the money supply in late 1982, and a few months later the economy took off. However, Reagan's tax cuts were passed in 1981, and were already in effect by 1982 -- but, as we have seen, 1982 was the year of the horrific recession.

Tax cuts were supposed to have spurred economic recovery by liberating the tax dollars of entrepreneurs and allowing them to invest them in greater productivity and jobs. However, such greater investment never occurred. It appears that the rich simply pocketed the savings, because investment fell during the 80s:

read the rest of it ...its even got those little charts and what not. :chuckle:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-carterreagan.htm

zulater
02-07-2010, 11:33 PM
like the post i agreed with....

he did alot of good and some not so good. the point being that the man wasnt as flawless as some make him out to be.

however, aids and cocaine has taken many of lives. some might see that as the "purification and cleansing" of our nation. :hunch:



I never saw him as flawless. He was shortsighted on a number of things. But rampant cocaine abuse in the 80's doesn't fall on him. It was just the times.


As far as aids goes, people were learning about it on the fly during his administration. At the time it was considered mostly a gay disease, Reagan was too much in bed with the Christain right unfortunatally imo to do as much as he should have at the time. But honestly if Carter had been re-elected would things have gone greatly differently for people suffering from aids at the time? I seriously doubt it.

Steelboy84
02-07-2010, 11:43 PM
Listen steeltwink, while you were crunching crumbs and drooling on yourself in your playpen, this great American stared down the greatest threat to life, liberty, and the American way we had seen since the big war. On his birthday, quietly express your appreciation.

And while you're once again flaunting your colossal ignorance, note that it is congress that sets budgets. One of the hallmarks of the Tip O'Neill years was pronouncing the President's budgets "DOA". http://www.gvsu.edu/hauenstein/index.cfm?id=609AE608-D008-C8DF-AC0F33F982D5E4A2 http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/08/reagans-december-declaration-g and again http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020319Hersh.html


Wahhhhhhhh.........................

If getting on your knees praying to your Messiah Reagan makes you feel better, then you have fun with it. I don't have to express anything for him. I can talk bad about him all I want just like you can post bias articles against anything Obama or any Democrat says or does.

And if me talking bad against your boy Reagan hurts your little feelings, then I don't care. :coffee:

tony hipchest
02-07-2010, 11:54 PM
But honestly if Carter had been re-elected would things have gone greatly differently for people suffering from aids at the time? I seriously doubt it.unfortunately the discussion of hypotheticals is frowned uporn by the majority around here.

this is where i am supposed to say- bu..bu.. bu.. carter. :rolleyes:

while i would never suggest aids was willingly imported into our country, i do know that mounting evidence of an epidemic was ignored for far to long. i dont think reagan even mentioned the word "AIDS" publicly until his friend rock hudson died from it in like '86.

however, i do lump in the free flow of cocaine into this nation with the likes of iran-contra, the privitization of our prison system, the bogus failed 'war on drugs' carried on by his successor, etc.

zulater
02-08-2010, 12:24 AM
unfortunately the discussion of hypotheticals is frowned uporn by the majority around here.

this is where i am supposed to say- bu..bu.. bu.. carter. :rolleyes:

while i would never suggest aids was willingly imported into our country, i do know that mounting evidence of an epidemic was ignored for far to long. i dont think reagan even mentioned the word "AIDS" publicly until his friend rock hudson died from it in like '86.

however, i do lump in the free flow of cocaine into this nation with the likes of iran-contra, the privitization of our prison system, the bogus failed 'war on drugs' carried on by his successor, etc.

Presidents are like qb's imo. They get too much credit when things go right, and far too much blame when things go poorly.

With that i bid you good night Tony. :hatsoff:

ricardisimo
02-08-2010, 12:34 AM
It should be mentioned that he was horrifically unpopular while in office (only Nixon has lower approval ratings since they started keeping track right around one or another of FDR's terms). Then he underwent a massive Hollywood makeover. The "liberal" media was simply not going to let him go down as the douchebag he really was.

I dare say the only makeovers to compare to his were Washington's and Jackson's, both monsters in their own right who wound up, miraculously, on our currency instead of in any Hall of Shame.

MACH1
02-08-2010, 01:06 AM
unfortunately the discussion of hypotheticals is frowned uporn by the majority around here.

this is where i am supposed to say- bu..bu.. bu.. carter. :rolleyes:

while i would never suggest aids was willingly imported into our country, i do know that mounting evidence of an epidemic was ignored for far to long. i dont think reagan even mentioned the word "AIDS" publicly until his friend rock hudson died from it in like '86.

however, i do lump in the free flow of cocaine into this nation with the likes of iran-contra, the privitization of our prison system, the bogus failed 'war on drugs' carried on by his successor, etc.

No. no, no Its bu bu bu bush. :wink02:

GBMelBlount
02-08-2010, 07:13 AM
MasterOfPuppets

Myth: Carter ruined the economy; Reagan saved it.

Fact: The Federal Reserve Board was responsible for the events of the late 70s and 80s.


Summary

Carter cannot be blamed for the double-digit inflation that peaked on his watch, because inflation started growing in 1965 and snowballed for the next 15 years.

Ummmm, OK. So I guess it was all the federal reserve and Carter didn't really suck and Reagn really wasn't any good as a president.

So, now that you have proven that presidents really have nothing to do with anything, let's talk about what does....

I don't mean to make you feel awkward MOP (:chuckle:) but are you a liberal? It is just a wild guess based on your posts, and if so, why?

I am asking you this only because I find that most libs on this board tend not to vote lib because of good things about the liberal philosophy that makes good sense when actually applied in the real world... but almost always for reasons that involve bashing republicans, conservatives, freedom, liberty and capitalism.

So friend, you have the stage.....would you like to discuss this....or "pull a TH" which involves running when it heats up a little bit? :chuckle:

7SteelGal43
02-08-2010, 12:07 PM
Sad that the leftists on this board took it upon themselves to hijack a thread remembering one of the most beloved Presidents in American History on the anniversary of his birth.










" Minnesota would be nice " ~ Ronald Reagan after his 1984 re-election upon being asked by a reporter what he wanted for Christmas

urgle burgle
02-08-2010, 01:56 PM
i like the qb comparison, id say thats fairly accurate.

now, just for fun, ill address one of the myths of Regan. as far as the cold war goes.
it wont be the normal link, reference setup, but if youre so inclined, you can do your research. these give a picture into why i would disagree with some who think he didnt have a major impact on the cold war, and the soviets collapes.

http://www.science.co.il/arab-israeli-conflict/Articles/Hoffman-2004-06-06.asp

Ronald Reagan p. 304
Reagan Papers Dec 25, 1981
Farrell, Tip O’Neill p. 607
Ronald Reagan Diary, April 6, 1983
Beschloss, Presidential Courage, p. 319


It should be mentioned that he was horrifically unpopular while in office (only Nixon has lower approval ratings since they started keeping track right around one or another of FDR's terms). Then he underwent a massive Hollywood makeover. The "liberal" media was simply not going to let him go down as the douchebag he really was.

I dare say the only makeovers to compare to his were Washington's and Jackson's, both monsters in their own right who wound up, miraculously, on our currency instead of in any Hall of Shame.

now this is an interesting thought...i kinda get the Jackson thing (and its not cuz he was a Dem), but im kinda intrigued about what your referring to as to Washington.

maybe another thread is more aprepo....but here could work as well, since these threads seem to go off the beaten path....neither here nor there.

NJarhead
02-08-2010, 02:26 PM
The Real Reagan Legacy
Debunking Myths About Reagan

Reagan was by far the most overrated man in American history.


:coffee:

Even if that WASN'T complete bullshit, it hasn't been true since last November.

MasterOfPuppets
02-08-2010, 04:22 PM
Ummmm, OK. So I guess it was all the federal reserve and Carter didn't really suck and Reagn really wasn't any good as a president.

So, now that you have proven that presidents really have nothing to do with anything, let's talk about what does....

I don't mean to make you feel awkward MOP (:chuckle:) but are you a liberal? It is just a wild guess based on your posts, and if so, why?

I am asking you this only because I find that most libs on this board tend not to vote lib because of good things about the liberal philosophy that makes good sense when actually applied in the real world... but almost always for reasons that involve bashing republicans, conservatives, freedom, liberty and capitalism.

So friend, you have the stage.....would you like to discuss this....or "pull a TH" which involves running when it heats up a little bit? :chuckle: i don't consider myself to be either. i form my own opinions based on the subject ,not on party affiliation.

GBMelBlount
02-08-2010, 04:46 PM
That's great MOP!

Soooooo, as an open minded, independent thinker, I am just curious to know.....

since this thread is about Reagan and you have done nothing but post negative things about Reagan.....

and being that you want me to stay on topic about Reagan....... :chuckle:

Are you more pleased with job Obama is doing running this country than Reagan did? :popcorn:

augustashark
02-08-2010, 10:39 PM
It should be mentioned that he was horrifically unpopular while in office (only Nixon has lower approval ratings since they started keeping track right around one or another of FDR's terms). Then he underwent a massive Hollywood makeover. The "liberal" media was simply not going to let him go down as the douchebag he really was.

I dare say the only makeovers to compare to his were Washington's and Jackson's, both monsters in their own right who wound up, miraculously, on our currency instead of in any Hall of Shame.

http://holtz.org/Library/Images/Social%20Science/Ronald%20Reagan%201.jpg


You are the douchebag!

Signed Ronnie.

ricardisimo
02-09-2010, 12:56 PM
You are the douchebag!

Signed Ronnie.

More scintillating wit from the guy with his hand up someone's backside.

7SteelGal43
02-09-2010, 04:14 PM
It should be mentioned that he was horrifically unpopular while in office (only Nixon has lower approval ratings since they started keeping track right around one or another of FDR's terms). Then he underwent a massive Hollywood makeover. The "liberal" media was simply not going to let him go down as the douchebag he really was.

I dare say the only makeovers to compare to his were Washington's and Jackson's, both monsters in their own right who wound up, miraculously, on our currency instead of in any Hall of Shame.


Why would Hollywood and/or the liberal media be so keen to paint the most Conservative Republican in recent memory in any sort of positive light ? Course, if you believe that, you'd believe Washington and Jackson were somehow monters........................................... .......oh wait

silver & black
02-09-2010, 04:23 PM
Reagan was the first President I voted for.:thumbsup:

Same here. :thumbsup:

Vincent
02-09-2010, 04:48 PM
I dare say the only makeovers to compare to his were Washington's and Jackson's, both monsters in their own right who wound up, miraculously, on our currency instead of in any Hall of Shame.

Alright. I'll bite. Why are Washington and Jackson "monsters"?

urgle burgle
02-09-2010, 04:53 PM
Alright. I'll bite. Why are Washington and Jackson "monsters"?

no fair dude, i asked him first (on a previous post)....
im also interested to hear this. i did mention i could kind of see Jackson (i dont agree hes a monster), but im clueless on the Washington thing.....
i suggested maybe another thread for this, but ce la vie...

Bob Dole says ," Bob Dole knew Bob Dole. Bob Dole was a friend of mine. You, sir, are no Bob Dole."

zulater
02-09-2010, 06:05 PM
no fair dude, i asked him first (on a previous post)....
im also interested to hear this. i did mention i could kind of see Jackson (i dont agree hes a monster), but im clueless on the Washington thing.....
i suggested maybe another thread for this, but ce la vie...

Bob Dole says ," Bob Dole knew Bob Dole. Bob Dole was a friend of mine. You, sir, are no Bob Dole."

I'm going to guess because they were slave owners? :noidea:

urgle burgle
02-09-2010, 06:19 PM
I'm going to guess because they were slave owners? :noidea:

that would be my guess. at least to cover Washington. the Jackson thing, i think it will be his fighting/condoning of the War of 1812, Jacksonian Democracy, and the treatment of American Indians (Trail of Tears, etc). thats my guess, anyhoo



Bob Dole says ," Bob Dole knew Bob Dole. Bob Dole was a friend of mine. You, sir, are no Bob Dole."

ricardisimo
02-10-2010, 12:02 AM
now this is an interesting thought...i kinda get the Jackson thing (and its not cuz he was a Dem), but im kinda intrigued about what your referring to as to Washington.

maybe another thread is more aprepo....but here could work as well, since these threads seem to go off the beaten path....neither here nor there.

You did ask first, and so I'm making a point of replying to you. Also, you did get the basic idea on Jackson. He was a mass-murderer (Seminole Wars, "Trail of Tears", etc.) and the architect of America's permanently expansionist foreign policy. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say it goes beyond mass-murder to genocide.

The case against Washington is less dramatic, but when you look at the details, it's pretty clear he was a vicious class criminal. There is, for example, his brutal treatment of conscripted Revolutionary soldiers who figured out right away that they were merely trading masters, and not ridding themselves of masters. He would have a handful of mutineers shot by their closest friends in the regiment. These were fellow revolutionaries, doing the hard work for as long as they could stand to do it, and he showed no mercy towards them for daring to ask that they actually be fed, clothed and paid what they were promised. The insolence of these commoners!

So, was he even harsher with Loyalists, against whom he was fighting? No, not if they were rich. Lord Fairfax, second wealthiest man in America (after Washington himself), got to keep all of his property. My guess is that Washington paid some early Bostonian equivalent of a PR firm a handsome fee to spruce up his image for the newspapers and history books, and now we have "the Father of our country," who never told a lie.

Murderer, class criminal, slimeball... and completely reinvented after his death. Reagan's reincarnation, on the other hand, began almost immediately after he left office.

You suggest this might be more apropos in a new thread. I'd say it would be a nice topic to ask: Did any of our nation's presidents deserve anything less than being put up against a wall and shot? I think you can probably guess my response.

urgle burgle
02-10-2010, 12:48 PM
as far as Washington is concerned, and this post will be brief for now....i would sumbit that a harsh decision of that nature was aprepo of the time. to let some mutiny would have destroyed/disbanded the Continental Army, which for most of the War, was hanging by a thread anyway. similar to mutinys on ships. execution was (some may disagree) the best way to enforce this issue. which has been carried on throughout most history.

i have more in ways of disagreement, but wil only note that for now.

and to say all Presidents should be shot.....that is quite a reach (of monumental proportions) in my opinion. especially for one who seems to be against harsh punishment.

but what about William Henry Harrison, i mean come on, he was only in office for, like a month....:wink02:

zulater
02-10-2010, 01:17 PM
as far as Washington is concerned, and this post will be brief for now....i would sumbit that a harsh decision of that nature was aprepo of the time. to let some mutiny would have destroyed/disbanded the Continental Army, which for most of the War, was hanging by a thread anyway. similar to mutinys on ships. execution was (some may disagree) the best way to enforce this issue. which has been carried on throughout most history.

i have more in ways of disagreement, but wil only note that for now.

and to say all Presidents should be shot.....that is quite a reach (of monumental proportions) in my opinion. especially for one who seems to be against harsh punishment.

but what about William Henry Harrison, i mean come on, he was only in office for, like a month....:wink02:

I hear Joe Stalin, Fidel Castro, and Mao Tse Tung were good guys though. :chuckle:

revefsreleets
02-10-2010, 03:11 PM
I'm not sure why people continue to "debate" with ric. He's a self-admitted anarchist. As SOON as I realized that, it was like puzzle pieces locking together. It explains everything about him.

Anarchy has roots in some pretty deep thinkers, but, as a Philosophy, it's JUST that: A Philosophy. And let's just say that the apple has fallen FAR from the original intellectual tree of thought from which the notion sprang.There's a very good reason that most associations with the word nowadays pretty much are exclusive to teenagers and the disgruntled. It's a petulant deconstructionist way of thinking, basically taking the easy way out by being nihilistic and attacking EVERYTHING.

It's also a completely unworkable mess that works against the very laws of the universe. Most things are ordered, even in their decay. Anarchism is a childish clinging to chaos-as-order, just a silly little single-celled-organism type of thought that fails the minute you extrapolate it out of pseudo-intellectual think tanks and other pie-in-the-sky perfectly controlled experiments of the mind. In fact, if you put more than 2-3 Anarchists together, their whole philosophy will collapse in on itself if one of the people take any kind of leadership role in the group. It's a complete avoidance of nature, especially human nature.

Anyway, Ric will attack any and all institutions and symbols because that's the anarchist way. There will NEVER be solutions, just an over-the-top exaggeration of any negative aspects of anything he can find.

Best advice: Don't feed the troll.

zulater
02-10-2010, 03:28 PM
I'm not sure why people continue to "debate" with ric. He's a self-admitted anarchist. As SOON as I realized that, it was like puzzle pieces locking together. It explains everything about him.

Anarchy has roots in some pretty deep thinkers, but, as a Philosophy, it's JUST that: A Philosophy. And let's just say that the apple has fallen FAR from the original intellectual tree of thought from which the notion sprang.There's a very good reason that most associations with the word nowadays pretty much are exclusive to teenagers and the disgruntled. It's a petulant deconstructionist way of thinking, basically taking the easy way out by being nihilistic and attacking EVERYTHING.

It's also a completely unworkable mess that works against the very laws of the universe. Most things are ordered, even in their decay. Anarchism is a childish clinging to chaos-as-order, just a silly little single-celled-organism type of thought that fails the minute you extrapolate it out of pseudo-intellectual think tanks and other pie-in-the-sky perfectly controlled experiments of the mind. In fact, if you put more than 2-3 Anarchists together, their whole philosophy will collapse in on itself if one of the people take any kind of leadership role in the group. It's a complete avoidance of nature, especially human nature.

Anyway, Ric will attack any and all institutions and symbols because that's the anarchist way. There will NEVER be solutions, just an over-the-top exaggeration of any negative aspects of anything he can find.

Best advice: Don't feed the troll.

Got it. Don't bother with ric about anything other than sports and trivialities. :thmbup:

ricardisimo
02-10-2010, 04:11 PM
I'm not sure why people continue to "debate" with ric. He's a self-admitted anarchist. As SOON as I realized that, it was like puzzle pieces locking together. It explains everything about him.

Anarchy has roots in some pretty deep thinkers, but, as a Philosophy, it's JUST that: A Philosophy. And let's just say that the apple has fallen FAR from the original intellectual tree of thought from which the notion sprang.There's a very good reason that most associations with the word nowadays pretty much are exclusive to teenagers and the disgruntled. It's a petulant deconstructionist way of thinking, basically taking the easy way out by being nihilistic and attacking EVERYTHING.

It's also a completely unworkable mess that works against the very laws of the universe. Most things are ordered, even in their decay. Anarchism is a childish clinging to chaos-as-order, just a silly little single-celled-organism type of thought that fails the minute you extrapolate it out of pseudo-intellectual think tanks and other pie-in-the-sky perfectly controlled experiments of the mind. In fact, if you put more than 2-3 Anarchists together, their whole philosophy will collapse in on itself if one of the people take any kind of leadership role in the group. It's a complete avoidance of nature, especially human nature.

Anyway, Ric will attack any and all institutions and symbols because that's the anarchist way. There will NEVER be solutions, just an over-the-top exaggeration of any negative aspects of anything he can find.

Best advice: Don't feed the troll.

Did everyone catch that last line?

Vincent
02-10-2010, 04:28 PM
Did everyone catch that last line?

Q: How many anarchists does it take to change a light-bulb?















































A: Why should they change it -- they deliberately broke the thing in the first place as part of their attempt to destroy the oppressive, technological mega-machine we live under.

revefsreleets
02-11-2010, 08:05 AM
Where was there a personal attack? I attacked a childish and silly philosophy, and postulated that any adherent to such a fundamentally flawed philosophy will naturally follow certain flawed patterns of thought. The facts in this case bear that out, which is evident if you read through this thread.

I get that you are one of the few who follow me around and try and trash anything I say now, MOP....and I'm sorry I've pissed you off by intelligently disagreeing with MANY things you say. But, again, get your facts straight, and stop and think about what you are posting for at least a moment before you post. I did NOT personally attack Ric....I attacked the philosophy he espouses, and I did so by backing up my assertions with some substance.

It's bad enough to hear people whine about slights against themselves (real, or perceived), but it takes things to a new depth when people are crying about perceived attacks against others. Why not just worry about your own hypocrisy and hyper-sensitivity?

ricardisimo
02-11-2010, 12:30 PM
Actually, you did attack me personally, rev, and you're a coward, so you're avoiding owning it. Whatever, you have certain standards to uphold around here, so I understand. As I've mentioned elsewhere, attacks from certain people have started to have the opposite effect of what was probably intended. So, for you - of all people on these boards - to use the phrase "Don't feed the troll" is amusing and enlightening, but certainly not offensive. Don't sweat it, dude.

At some point I'll start a "What do you think anarchism is?" thread, and I'll contribute my usual buck-and-a-quarter. I'm very eager to hear just how what I take to be normal common sense, and "democracy the hard way" is actually a facile, artificial imposition on the world (did I get you fairly accurately there?)

However, I'm sure that you are going to be the one enlightening me, rev. Maybe urgle, maybe vinnie, preach or someone else, but not you. As I've been telling you (and Indo, and others) since I first joined SFF, you undermine every single one of your own arguments with your bizarre fetish. If ever a worthwhile thought were somehow miraculously to float betwixt thine ears, the world would never know it, since you elven magic automatically transmutes even gold into a lump of dookie, always, without exception.

Anyhow, that discussion will probably have to wait, since i have both of my kids' b-days coming up, and family in town. You'll be getting your wish for the next few weeks, rev: a whole lot less of ricardisimo.

revefsreleets
02-11-2010, 01:01 PM
Actually, you did attack me personally, rev, and you're a coward, so you're avoiding owning it. Whatever, you have certain standards to uphold around here, so I understand. As I've mentioned elsewhere, attacks from certain people have started to have the opposite effect of what was probably intended. So, for you - of all people on these boards - to use the phrase "Don't feed the troll" is amusing and enlightening, but certainly not offensive. Don't sweat it, dude.

At some point I'll start a "What do you think anarchism is?" thread, and I'll contribute my usual buck-and-a-quarter. I'm very eager to hear just how what I take to be normal common sense, and "democracy the hard way" is actually a facile, artificial imposition on the world (did I get you fairly accurately there?)

However, I'm not sure that you are going to be the one enlightening me, rev. Maybe urgle, maybe vinnie, preach or someone else, but not you. As I've been telling you (and Indo, and others) since I first joined SFF, you undermine every single one of your own arguments with your bizarre fetish. If ever a worthwhile thought were somehow miraculously to float betwixt thine ears, the world would never know it, since you elven magic automatically transmutes even gold into a lump of dookie, always, without exception.

Anyhow, that discussion will probably have to wait, since i have both of my kids' b-days coming up, and family in town. You'll be getting your wish for the next few weeks, rev: a whole lot less of ricardisimo.

Wah...more crying and whining, and hardly a shred of defense. LOTS of attacks on me personally, but nothing of any kind of substance at all. I attack your position. I attack your posts. I attack your ridiculous philosophy. If you internalize that, so be it, and, in a way, we are what we think. But I am NOT personally attacking you.

You attack me, though, and, in a laughable self-defeating diatribe, claim to have some kind of intellectual high-ground. Based on what? YOU'RE the one espousing nonsensical, outdated, irrelevant and completely unworkable political claptrap.

And, a coward? Why? Because I'm calling your infantile philosophy out? Anarchism is laughably ill-suited to run anything more than maybe the bar in a bowling alley. It's a cry for help from middle class teenagers who don't get enough attention from their mommies.

I don't expect you to take anything away from what I have to say. How can you learn anything when you already think you know it all? But I certainly won't stand idly by whilst you thump your chest blowing hollow puffs of smoke at real solid arguments and positions and then claiming to be some kind of intellectual by doing so. Until I get banned or censured, I'm going to stay after you and your ridiculous pedantic, pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo.

Anarchy, indeed....pure rubbish.

zulater
02-12-2010, 08:40 AM
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1111660620100212?type=marketsNews

Anyone else remember when Reagan got mocked and ridiculed for suggesting that this country pursue a defensive weapons system just such as this? Turns out 'SDI' aka Star Wars was feasible after all. :thmbup:

Vincent
02-12-2010, 09:30 AM
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1111660620100212?type=marketsNews

Anyone else remember when Reagan got mocked and ridiculed for suggesting that this country pursue a defensive weapons system just such as this? Turns out 'SDI' aka Star Wars was feasible after all. :thmbup:

Yesterday we were "bopped on the chin" by an islamofascist regime that has now figured out how to enrich uranium, and has vehicles that might be able to deliver a warhead. I don't take that lightly.

I am thankful for Dutch's prescience. And as Dutch always did, w\he weathered the scorn with that smile and "Well, there you go again".

:salute:

SteelerEmpire
02-12-2010, 09:56 AM
I think Regan was one of the few politicians that "most " people liked... he did good... Happy 99th...

Indo
02-12-2010, 12:14 PM
Actually, you did attack me personally, rev, and you're a coward, so you're avoiding owning it. Whatever, you have certain standards to uphold around here, so I understand. As I've mentioned elsewhere, attacks from certain people have started to have the opposite effect of what was probably intended. So, for you - of all people on these boards - to use the phrase "Don't feed the troll" is amusing and enlightening, but certainly not offensive. Don't sweat it, dude.

At some point I'll start a "What do you think anarchism is?" thread, and I'll contribute my usual buck-and-a-quarter. I'm very eager to hear just how what I take to be normal common sense, and "democracy the hard way" is actually a facile, artificial imposition on the world (did I get you fairly accurately there?)

However, I'm sure that you are going to be the one enlightening me, rev. Maybe urgle, maybe vinnie, preach or someone else, but not you. As I've been telling you (and Indo, and others) since I first joined SFF, you undermine every single one of your own arguments with your bizarre fetish. If ever a worthwhile thought were somehow miraculously to float betwixt thine ears, the world would never know it, since you elven magic automatically transmutes even gold into a lump of dookie, always, without exception.

Anyhow, that discussion will probably have to wait, since i have both of my kids' b-days coming up, and family in town. You'll be getting your wish for the next few weeks, rev: a whole lot less of ricardisimo.



And now you're going after me?

Just priceless...
I've undermined my own arguments, or is it that you continue to wear blinders so that you see/read only that which supports your rather limited worldview? I've asked this before and got something to the effect that I let my emotions control me.

Wow.

Your sense of self-importance is just unbelievable. Your arrogance is unfathomable.

I'm just speechless---and I just don't have the time or the Energy to even bother with you
But you do provide good entertainment

Vincent
02-12-2010, 12:42 PM
If ever a worthwhile thought were somehow miraculously to float betwixt thine ears, the world would never know it, since you elven magic automatically transmutes even gold into a lump of dookie, always, without exception.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KmYGpxuYpJQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KmYGpxuYpJQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

GBMelBlount
02-12-2010, 12:48 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KmYGpxuYpJQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KmYGpxuYpJQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Now THAT was funny!...... :toofunny:

and especially humorous with where (& why) you inserted it into this thread. :drink:

I also admire your restraint friend, you could easily have used this other one which gets to the meat (farting) a bit more quickly imo ....... :chuckle:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FWBUl7oT9sA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FWBUl7oT9sA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Vincent
02-12-2010, 12:58 PM
This thread is straying very nicely.

GBMelBlount
02-12-2010, 01:07 PM
This thread is straying very nicely.

Agreed, I am not really sure how we strayed from the topic of Monty Python in the first place. :noidea:

Glad we're back on track.

Although many use the Godfather movies, I prefer to characterize fighters, and fights in terms of Monty Python....

In responding to his absurd call to arms AGAINST half the members of this board, including our dearly beloved Indo, I would have probably responded with the "black knight" analogy........"I'm Invincible!!" :chuckle: :

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zKhEw7nD9C4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zKhEw7nD9C4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Vincent
02-12-2010, 01:22 PM
I quite agree. I sensed another "element" as well...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DMs-p5y6cvo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DMs-p5y6cvo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

The ...tension in this thread is remarkable. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: