Happy 87th President Reagan!
Stupendous Man
Help celebrate the Gipper's 87th birthday!
Visit the Ronald Reagan home page at
http://www.dnaco.net/~bkottman/reagan.html to find
out how you can help fund a scholarship that rewards
students following in the Gipper's footsteps.
Another win for the Gipper!
Brett
God over weasels.
Marcel
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote in message
<6attt7$124$2...@usenet47.supernews.com>...
>Stupendous Man <"root"@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
>>Help celebrate the Gipper's 87th birthday!
>
>no stupe send them to The White Rose.
>
>>Brett
>>God over weasels.
>
>weasel power
>
>==========================================================================
>Let The White Rose enlighten you.
>
>http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
>
>gdy weasel
>==========================================================================
>McGilvray explaining that he would spit on Vietanm Vets if the differ on
his political outlook:
>
>>The vets who went to Vietnam took risk, and if you stop hiding behind the
VVAW,
>>your little heroes of the days of rage are all phoneys-I spit on them.
>
>===========================================================================
=======
>
Excellent site.
Mitchell Holman
In article <6ar8r5$mmp$1...@pike.dnaco.net>, "root"@[127.0.0.1] wrote:
}Help celebrate the Gipper's 87th birthday!
}
}http://www.dnaco.net/~bkottman/reagan.html to find
}out how you can help fund a scholarship that rewards
}students following in the Gipper's footsteps.
}
Lemme guess - they teach students how to sleep thru classes?
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
Stupendous Man <"root"@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>Help celebrate the Gipper's 87th birthday!
no stupe send them to The White Rose.
Mark McGilvray
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
> Stupendous Man <"root"@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
> >Help celebrate the Gipper's 87th birthday!
>
> no stupe send them to The White Rose.
Is this a new brand of toilet paper, Gidget?
>
>
> >Brett
> >God over weasels.
>
> weasel power
Visit the Clinton page and win one "for the Zipper"
Rich Travsky
Stupendous Man <"root"@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>Help celebrate the Gipper's 87th birthday!
We had a birthday cake for him - with several trillion
candles, one for each dollar of debt he saddled us with.
RT
Between 1980 and 1989, some 138 appointees of the Reagan
administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were
criminally indicted. This marks the largest collection of
political wrongdoers in the nation's history.
Elite Deviance - David R. Simon & D. Stanley Eitzen
Austin Bishop
Rich Travsky wrote:
>
> Stupendous Man <"root"@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> >Help celebrate the Gipper's 87th birthday!
> > [...]
>
> We had a birthday cake for him - with several trillion
> candles, one for each dollar of debt he saddled us with.
Funny, I had a cake with the same number of candles on it on election
night 1994 when the Democrats lost Congress.
Dave Powell
87? God bless him :+)
Happy birthday, President Reagan!
Dave
Stupendous Man <"root"@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
<6ar8r5$mmp$1...@pike.dnaco.net>...
>Help celebrate the Gipper's 87th birthday!
>
> Visit the Ronald Reagan home page at
>http://www.dnaco.net/~bkottman/reagan.html to find
>out how you can help fund a scholarship that rewards
>students following in the Gipper's footsteps.
>
Thomas Odell
Rich Travsky wrote:
>
> Stupendous Man <"root"@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> >Help celebrate the Gipper's 87th birthday!
>
> We had a birthday cake for him - with several trillion
Ronald Reagan did NOT saddle you with a dime of debt. The liberals who
controlled Congress accomplished that dirty deed.
So says the U.S. Constitution. Article 1, section 8. Congress is
responsible for ALL debt and debt financing. Plain black and white fact.
Peddle your socialist propaganda elsewhere. Your lies don't cut it
here.
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
Thomas Odell <od...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
still having trouble dealing with the facts odull. The facts are that
congress proposed budgets were less than the budgets the drooling
idiot submitted.
Rich Travsky
Thomas Odell wrote:
> Rich Travsky wrote:
> > Stupendous Man <"root"@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> > >Help celebrate the Gipper's 87th birthday!
> > > [...]
> > We had a birthday cake for him - with several trillion
> > candles, one for each dollar of debt he saddled us with.\
>
> Ronald Reagan did NOT saddle you with a dime of debt. The liberals who
> controlled Congress accomplished that dirty deed.
>
> So says the U.S. Constitution. Article 1, section 8. Congress is
> responsible for ALL debt and debt financing. Plain black and white fact.
>
> Peddle your socialist propaganda elsewhere. Your lies don't cut it
> here.
Snort! Snicker! Guffaw!
Not one dime eh?
Reagan's obsession with cutting taxes had helped double the deficit.
- Warren Rudman, "Combat"
During his first term few of those close to him dared confront him with the
unpleasant truth that his huge tax cut and defense buildup, combined with his
relatively minor spending cuts and refusal to consider new taxes, had not
reduced the trillion-dollar debt he inherited but -- amazingly and tragically
-- had doubled it. That was the dirty little secret of the Reagan years. The
Great Budget Balancer of the campaign trail had become the Great Deficit
Spender of the Oval Office. - Warren Rudman, "Combat"
"The liberals who controlled Congress accomplished that dirty deed."
LiBBruls? And that chief liberal Bob Dole, MAJORITY LEADER OF THE
SENATE FOR SIX OUT OF REAGAN'S EIGHT YEARS in office???????
The senate prepares its own version of the budget. And the White
House likewise submits a budget.
Now, list here how many balanced budgets the republican senate
came up with as well as how many balanced budgets Reagan
submitted --->
Bye now.
RT
Gary Frazier
>Rich Travsky wrote:
>>
>> Stupendous Man <"root"@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>> >Help celebrate the Gipper's 87th birthday!
>> > [...]
>>
>> We had a birthday cake for him - with several trillion
>> candles, one for each dollar of debt he saddled us with.\
>Ronald Reagan did NOT saddle you with a dime of debt. The liberals who
>controlled Congress accomplished that dirty deed.
Odell, keep showing us you're a dumbass.
What a kook!
--
Gary
http://www.efn.org/~gfrazier
Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! http://www.cauce.org
Jim Meritt
From rec.humor.funny, on the topic of birthdays:
Last week, President Clinton announced a plan to allow people
as young as 55 to buy into Medicare if they lose their jobs.
In the most amazing of coincidences, President Clinton will turn
55 in the year 2001, the very same year his second term will end.
--
Selected by Jim Griffith.
--
James W. Meritt
The opinions expressed above are my own. The facts simply
are and belong to none.
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
Thomas Odell <od...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Rich Travsky wrote:
>>
>> Stupendous Man <"root"@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>> >Help celebrate the Gipper's 87th birthday!
>> > [...]
>>
>> We had a birthday cake for him - with several trillion
>> candles, one for each dollar of debt he saddled us with.\
>Ronald Reagan did NOT saddle you with a dime of debt. The liberals who
>controlled Congress accomplished that dirty deed.
>So says the U.S. Constitution. Article 1, section 8. Congress is
>responsible for ALL debt and debt financing. Plain black and white fact.
>Peddle your socialist propaganda elsewhere. Your lies don't cut it
>here.
heres a new one for you to chew on odull. It has been no reported that
raygun pressured the pentagon to come up with a Vietnam Vet for the
Tomb of the Unknowns by Memorial Day so the drooling idiot could have
a photo op. The problem odull was the drooling idiot was so desperate
for that photo op they stripped the identy of the person. Your
drooling idiot pissed on all vets in doing so, all for a fucking photo
op.
Thomas Odell
Rich Travsky wrote
Much liberal bullshit snipped...
> Now, list here how many balanced budgets the republican senate
> came up with as well as how many balanced budgets Reagan
> submitted ---> see answer below
As has been testified to by Reagan Administration OMB Director Jim
Miller, ALL of President Reagan's budgets were MATERIALLY ALTERED by the
Demorat-controlled House leadership upon their delivery to Capitol
Hill. You are playing games.
Article 1, section 8. U.S. Constitution. Congress and Congress alone is
responsible for the debt.
Congress was controlled by liberals. You lose.
> Bye now.
>
> RT
Say goodnight. Your argument is toast.
Jason Christian
On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
> Thomas Odell <od...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> heres a new one for you to chew on odull. It has been no reported that
> raygun pressured the pentagon to come up with a Vietnam Vet for the
> Tomb of the Unknowns by Memorial Day so the drooling idiot could have
> a photo op. The problem odull was the drooling idiot was so desperate
> for that photo op they stripped the identy of the person. Your
> drooling idiot pissed on all vets in doing so, all for a fucking photo
> op.
Without in general defending Reagan, nor entering into a discussion of
Reagan's motives, "photo op" badly misrepresents the ceremony.
The interrement of the Vietnam War "Unknown" was an important national
ceremony, in particular for veterans of that conflict, who finally got
"their parade."
I stood on Constitution Avenue as the parade went past. There was, of
course, the ceremonious pomp and sadness as the caisson rolled past,
bearing a casket containing the remains of an American serviceman.
Frankly, I have no interest in whether or not those remains could be
identified. The casket symbolized, symbolizes, all of the war dead, and
for many of us the entire sad episode. The casket had to be there.
Behind the casket marched the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, all
buffed, all young, all sober. And then the parade was over.
But no, it wasn't. A block behind, following the motorcycle outriders of
the official parade, came the ghost army, camouflage and slouch hats,
jackets with ribbons and embroidered patches celebrating Danang and Hue
and the other strange names that haunted our youths, full metal jackets,
helmets, the familiar black and white POW/MIA flags, full beards, long
hair, bald heads, big bellies. Men in wheelchairs, men limping in their
old canvas-top jungle boots.
Five yards east of me, an older gentleman, with white crewcut, stood at
attention, holding a long salute to the ragged column of veteran grunts,
as tears flowed down his face, and mine.
Some photo op.
I was a little angry at the time that the Vietnam Vets had not been
included in the formal parade, excluded as too scruffy, they reminded us
too much of the divisions and anger of Vietnam. But the Veterans
marched anyway, their way, and had all the more honor that way. It was,
finally, at long last, their parade.
Whatever Reagan's motives at the time, I was glad then, and am still
glad, that the ceremony unrolled. If indeed the remains can now be
identified, then the dead soldier's family should have that fact
confirmed, and then should be asked to allow their son, brother, father
and uncle to serve his comrades with honor, one last time, forever a
symbol of the soldier's sacrifice to his country, whether his country be
right or wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Christian University of California, Davis
ja...@primal.ucdavis.edu Agricultural and Resource Economics
Office:(530)752-1357 FAX:(530)752-5614 Davis, CA 95616
Thomas Odell
Gary Frazier wrote:
>
> Odell, keep showing us you're a dumbass.
>
> What a kook!
> --
> Gary
Gary - Keep showing us that you can't argue the facts and must resort to
cheap nasty namecalling to cover up your intellectual dishonesty.
U.S. Constitution. Article 1, section 8. Congress is responsible for
the debt. Period.
President must sign their budget or veto all of it and shut down the
government exposing the country to military threat and economic
unstability. No other choice in the Reagan years as Congress refused to
grant the LIV to President Reagan.
U.S. Constitution. Article 1, section 8.
I've posted facts. You nasty namecall. Clear to any intelligent person
that you are on the losing side.
Why do you continue to embarrass yourself so badly? I know liberals
aren't very smart, but really.....
Thomas Odell
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
> odull
> raygun
> drooling idiot
> odull
> drooling idiot
> drooling idiot pissed on
> fucking
What you are speaks so loudly that most need not even listen to what you
say.
Have you cleaned up your webpage lies yet? Or are you still
intentionally misquoting Ronald Reagan?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What a difference a decade makes...
1988: "Go out and win one for the Gipper" - President Ronald Reagan
1998: "Go down and undo my Zipper" - Pervert Bill Clinton
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thomas Odell
Jason Christian wrote:
>
> I stood on Constitution Avenue as the parade went past. There was, of
> course, the ceremonious pomp and sadness as the caisson rolled past,
> bearing a casket containing the remains of an American serviceman.
> Frankly, I have no interest in whether or not those remains could be
> identified. The casket symbolized, symbolizes, all of the war dead, and
> for many of us the entire sad episode. The casket had to be there.
>
> Behind the casket marched the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, all
> buffed, all young, all sober. And then the parade was over.
>
> But no, it wasn't. A block behind, following the motorcycle outriders of
> the official parade, came the ghost army, camouflage and slouch hats,
> jackets with ribbons and embroidered patches celebrating Danang and Hue
> and the other strange names that haunted our youths, full metal jackets,
> helmets, the familiar black and white POW/MIA flags, full beards, long
> hair, bald heads, big bellies. Men in wheelchairs, men limping in their
> old canvas-top jungle boots.
>
> Five yards east of me, an older gentleman, with white crewcut, stood at
> attention, holding a long salute to the ragged column of veteran grunts,
> as tears flowed down his face, and mine.
>
> Some photo op.
Mr. Christian - in general this is a very well written contribution to
Usenet and I personally thank you for sharing your observations and
thoughts and emotions with us. I genuinely do respect what you've
posted here today.
The Vietnam era is a sad legacy in America's past. One of the many
lessons to be learned from the Vietnam experience is that the
motivations of our leaders must be continually checked. It is now
PUBLIC INFORMATION that Lyndon Johnson OPENLY ADMITTED to his senior
aides that he realized very early on that Vietnam was an unwinable
situation. Yet the bastard Johnson INSISTED that young, brave,
wonderful American men be sent to their deaths because the bastard
Johnson was concerned about his presidential image and did not wish to
go down in history as the first American president to lose a war.
Instead he will go down in history as a terrible bastard who caused the
unneeded deaths of tens of thousands of American men.
Richard Nixon, despite all of his flaws (and flaws aplenty did he have)
did end the war albeit not as quickly as we all would have wished and
for that President Nixon should always be remembered with a degree of
compassion when we weigh his place in history against his other
activities in office.
As for Lyndon Johnson, he will always be America's worst president in my
book. A dirty bastard of the worst degree, a man who makes Clinton look
saintly by comparison.
Jon M. Gallagher
: heres a new one for you to chew on odull. It has been no reported that
: raygun pressured the pentagon to come up with a Vietnam Vet for the
: Tomb of the Unknowns by Memorial Day so the drooling idiot could have
: a photo op. The problem odull was the drooling idiot was so desperate
: for that photo op they stripped the identy of the person. Your
: drooling idiot pissed on all vets in doing so, all for a fucking photo
: op.
For God's sakes leave something untouched.
The Unknowns represent something deeply personal for those who have
served our country. It's their sacrifice and those who served and
those who died for our country that consecrate the the ground they lie
in. The idea that something some politician did could sully that is
infuriating to anyone who has served this country.
It's bad enough that Arlington got dragged into this partisan
bitch-slap contest. Leave the soldiers who died nameless and alone out
of it.
--
Jon Gallagher
M & M Consultants, 1630 North Main Street Suite 111, Walnut Creek CA 94596
Voice: 510-945-7571 E-mail: mm...@netcom.com
Thomas Odell
Jon M. Gallagher wrote:
>
> : heres a new one for you to chew on odull. It has been no reported that
> : raygun pressured the pentagon to come up with a Vietnam Vet for the
> : Tomb of the Unknowns by Memorial Day so the drooling idiot could have
> : a photo op. The problem odull was the drooling idiot was so desperate
> : for that photo op they stripped the identy of the person. Your
> : drooling idiot pissed on all vets in doing so, all for a fucking photo
> : op.
>
> For God's sakes leave something untouched.
Hey GDY - this is one of your fellow liberals nailing you here. Even
your own reject you.
kj
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
>
> heres a new one for you to chew on odull. It has been no reported that
> raygun pressured the pentagon to come up with a Vietnam Vet for the
> Tomb of the Unknowns by Memorial Day so the drooling idiot could have
> a photo op. The problem odull was the drooling idiot was so desperate
> for that photo op they stripped the identy of the person. Your
> drooling idiot pissed on all vets in doing so, all for a fucking photo
> op.
>
> Let The White Rose enlighten you.
>
presided over that ceremony on Memorial Day, 1984, those remains were
reclassified as unknown in 1980 - during the CARTER administration.
Enlightening indeed.
I am awaiting the sound of your backstepping feet.
kj
Gary Frazier
>Gary Frazier wrote:
>>
>> Odell, keep showing us you're a dumbass.
>>
>> What a kook!
>> --
>> Gary
>Gary - Keep showing us that you can't argue the facts and must resort to
>cheap nasty namecalling to cover up your intellectual dishonesty.
>U.S. Constitution. Article 1, section 8. Congress is responsible for
>the debt. Period.
>President must sign their budget or veto all of it and shut down the
>government exposing the country to military threat and economic
>unstability. No other choice in the Reagan years as Congress refused to
>grant the LIV to President Reagan.
Really?
Odell, don't you know that Reagan had a working majority in the Congress
for the first six years of his administration? Not only did
Republicans have an outright majority in the Senate, but in the House a
coalition of Republicans and "Boll-Weevil" Democrats (to include
current Republicans like Phil Gramm) supported Reagan's budgets.
Do you think you can just, in the manner of a true follower of INGSOC,
rewrite the past to your own ideological tastes?
You haven't posted facts. Your entire post is intellectually dishonest
and revisionist.
In fact, the Congress gave Reagan >less money< than he originally asked for.
Ronald Reagan gave us stupdendous deficits, aided and abetted by a mostly
conservative Congress, that couldn't control its own appetites for pork
barrel spending.
You're still a kook, Odell. Congratulations on coming in third for
USENET Kook of the Year.
Jason Christian
You're welcome, and thank you.
> The Vietnam era is a sad legacy in America's past. One of the many
> lessons to be learned from the Vietnam experience is that the
> motivations of our leaders must be continually checked. It is now
> PUBLIC INFORMATION that Lyndon Johnson OPENLY ADMITTED to his senior
> aides that he realized very early on that Vietnam was an unwinable
> situation. Yet the bastard Johnson INSISTED that young, brave,
> wonderful American men be sent to their deaths because the bastard
> Johnson was concerned about his presidential image and did not wish to
> go down in history as the first American president to lose a war.
> Instead he will go down in history as a terrible bastard who caused the
> unneeded deaths of tens of thousands of American men.
...and of many more Vietnamese men, women and children.
Johnson could have been remembered as the President who signed the Civil
Rights Act. He isn't, nor will be. Odell's harsh assessment of
Johnson's legacy accords, unfortunately, with mine, and (I suspect) with
a great many of those "fine young men" (I'm quoting from memory) who as
a consequence lost respect for the military profession. In their
maturity, one hopes that they regained that respect, especially as far
as the soldiers were concerned, retaining their distain for the
so-called leaders, some of them in uniform, more of them not, whose lies
and dissembling prolonged the war.
> Richard Nixon, despite all of his flaws (and flaws aplenty did he have)
> did end the war albeit not as quickly as we all would have wished and
> for that President Nixon should always be remembered with a degree of
> compassion when we weigh his place in history against his other
> activities in office.
That's Richard "Peace with Honor" Nixon to whom Mr. Odell refers.
Architect of the widening of the war into Cambodia, supporter of the
incompetent, cruel and wildly corrupt Lon Nol regime---a regime which
managed to transform what was under Sihanouk a marginal band of lunatics
into the toxic flood tide of the Khmer Rouge. That Richard Nixon.
Historians may cut Nixon some slack on the basis that he inherited the
Vietnam War, rather than building it (as did LBJ), and should recognize
that he did, finally, wind up the war...but he bought into it just as
much as did LBJ. Perhaps it was primarily LBJ's war...but Nixon was a
minority shareholder.
>
> As for Lyndon Johnson, he will always be America's worst president in my
> book. A dirty bastard of the worst degree, a man who makes Clinton look
> saintly by comparison.
I have always thought that canonizing politicians was rather silly.
There are a lot of reasons to put Nixon and Johnson in the same chapter.
Both were highly effective politicians, and the last former members of
the U.S. Senate to sit in the White House. Both were ruthless, and
extremely partisan...in the sense that partisan loyalty, and partisan
power, counted for both of them far more than did party ideology. Bush
fits that mold; Reagan and Carter do not. I have a hard time ascribing
either party loyalty or ideology to Clinton; he strikes me as more of a
technocrat...resembling Eisenhower on that dimension.
Clinton deserves credit for sane economic policy...which is faint
praise, more for what he has not done than what he has done. He has
been helped by the presence of a recalcitrant Republican congress...I
suspect that having a Democrat President and a Republican congress makes
for a saner economic policy than any other combination. Otherwise I
reckon Clinton's administration will be remembered for the lurid air of
scandal, never really consummated, never touching areas of policy (no,
no Mr. Bill, don't touch me there!), in an economic climate of general
well-being, than for any notable positive or negative accomplishments.
If the nation slept with the Reagan presidency, under Clinton it has
been on an extended visit to a peep show that delivers rather less
than it promises. Even Starr's name misrepresents his role: he is just
the barker out front.
Thomas Odell
Gary Frazier wrote:
> Odell, don't you know that Reagan had a working majority in the Congress
> for the first six years of his administration?
False. The House was controlled by liberal Demorats for ALL eight
years. The Senate was in Republican hands for the first term but so
what?
> Not only did
> Republicans have an outright majority in the Senate,
During the first term but again so what? Some Senate Republicans are no
better than many Senate Demorats. I've never claimed that the Republican
Party is pure. There are many Republicans in Congress who should be
hung on the same gallows used to hang free-spending liberal Demorats.
> but in the House a
> coalition of Republicans and "Boll-Weevil" Democrats (to include
> current Republicans like Phil Gramm) supported Reagan's budgets.
Malarkey. The House was controlled by lunatic liberals and you know it.
> You haven't posted facts. Your entire post is intellectually dishonest
> and revisionist.
U.S. Constitution. Article 1, section 8. Congress is responsible for
the debt and debt financing. FACT.
> In fact, the Congress gave Reagan >less money< than he originally asked for.
Baldface lie. Former Reagan Administration OMB Director Jim Miller has
testified that the liberals on the Hill MATERIALLY ALTERED ALL of
President Reagan's budgets. FACT.
And to cut to the chase, the presidential budget is largely just
ceremonial. The president submits it and Congress disposes of it as
they wish. Learn your civics and read your Constitution you poor
ill-educated tyke.
> Ronald Reagan gave us stupdendous deficits
Amazing. How do you lie like this with a straight face? The
Constitution of the United States (Article 1, section 7) grants spending
authority solely to the Congress and Congress alone. The president
couldn't give you deficits if he wanted to. Congress must appropriate
ALL spending. Learn your Constitution.
> You're still a kook, Odell.
Best you can do huh? Lame and pathetic. You are a sad little tyke.
Grow up and learn some facts.
Marcel
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote in message
<6b8f7i$hbn$2...@usenet11.supernews.com>...
>mm...@netcom.com (Jon M. Gallagher) wrote:
>
>>Tell it to the family of the solider stripped of his idenity. They are
>demanding DNA testing. It was the drooling idiot demanding a photo op
>for Memorial Day that was responsible.
>
>
I certainly won't disagree with you that Reagan was a teflon president who
did much of what he did for the sake of the camera. But to be fair, one
must say that Clinton does the same thing. That infuriates me just as much.
Gary Frazier
>Gary Frazier wrote:
>> Odell, don't you know that Reagan had a working majority in the Congress
>> for the first six years of his administration?
>False. The House was controlled by liberal Demorats for ALL eight
>years. The Senate was in Republican hands for the first term but so
>what?
This is just so flat out WRONG that it defies belief. "Jelly Donut"
strikes again with his revision of history.
>> Not only did
>> Republicans have an outright majority in the Senate,
>During the first term but again so what? Some Senate Republicans are no
>better than many Senate Demorats. I've never claimed that the Republican
>Party is pure. There are many Republicans in Congress who should be
>hung on the same gallows used to hang free-spending liberal Demorats.
Reagan got what he wanted, and the Republicans controlled the Senate
for Reagan's first >six< years in office. You could look it up, but
you don't want to, because it interfers with your fantasy that Jesse
Helms is an evil liberal or something.
>> but in the House a
>> coalition of Republicans and "Boll-Weevil" Democrats (to include
>> current Republicans like Phil Gramm) supported Reagan's budgets.
>Malarkey. The House was controlled by lunatic liberals and you know it.
Right. Lunatic liberals like Phil Gramm. Tell us another one, Jelly Donut.
>> You haven't posted facts. Your entire post is intellectually dishonest
>> and revisionist.
>U.S. Constitution. Article 1, section 8. Congress is responsible for
>the debt and debt financing. FACT.
And Ronald Reagan never once proposed a budget to them, right? If the
money asked for by the President exceeds the revenues received by the
government, a deficit (which must be financed through debt) results. Are
you denying that Reagan submitted anything but a balanced budget to Congress?
>> In fact, the Congress gave Reagan >less money< than he originally asked for.
>Baldface lie. Former Reagan Administration OMB Director Jim Miller has
>testified that the liberals on the Hill MATERIALLY ALTERED ALL of
>President Reagan's budgets. FACT.
You're just digging yourself in deeper, loon. If the Congress did
anything, they didn't give Reagan everything he wanted!
>And to cut to the chase, the presidential budget is largely just
>ceremonial. The president submits it and Congress disposes of it as
>they wish. Learn your civics and read your Constitution you poor
>ill-educated tyke.
More wishful thinking from a master of doublethink. Facts are stupid
things, aren't they Odell?
>> Ronald Reagan gave us stupdendous deficits
>Amazing. How do you lie like this with a straight face? The
>Constitution of the United States (Article 1, section 7) grants spending
>authority solely to the Congress and Congress alone. The president
>couldn't give you deficits if he wanted to. Congress must appropriate
>ALL spending. Learn your Constitution.
So the entire Defense buildup of the 80's is a figment of my imagination.
How interesting.
>> You're still a kook, Odell.
>Best you can do huh? Lame and pathetic. You are a sad little tyke.
>Grow up and learn some facts.
You don't have command of the facts, kook. I do.
What a slavish devotee of INGSOC you are, Odell.
Thomas Odell
Jason Christian started out here with a piece on Veterans. As this
thread evolved, he went on to highlight Clintonomics (the business of
stealing credit for a good economy when Clinton doesn't deserve it).
What follows is interesting trail of where liberal logic will go if you
follow it to its ultimate end.
Wanna know who to give credit to for a healthy economy if you follow
liberal logic to its ultimate end? Read on, the answer will make those
same among you laugh...
Jason Christian wrote:
> I have always thought that canonizing politicians was rather silly.
Regrettably there are not many to "canonize." There are great men such
as Washington, Lincoln and Reagan who defined their greatness while in
office. Men such as these three indeed do deserve to be canonized.
There are also men who were great men apart from their office as
presidents and indeed may have better distinquished themselves before
and after their presidencies than while in office. I refer to men such
as Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower as examples. Then there
are men such as Johnson and Clinton who disgrace and offend the office
of the presidency with their mere presence.
> Clinton deserves credit for sane economic policy
Now that sillyness of yours which has historically earned my contempt is
rearing its all-to-frequently seen face here Mr. Christian. If you were
to be pushed for a specific response to define Clinton's economic
policies, you would be driven to exhaustion to find any identifiable
policy on which to hang your hat. As quite properly pointed out in the
latest literary exercise to honor our nation's greatest living hero,
Dinesh D'Souza notes that Clinton has NO economic policy ---- he hasn't
needed one ---- he is benefitting from the policies which are still
priming the pump of our American economic engine and which were put into
effect a decade ago by our nation's beloved 40th president.
Bill Clinton is basking in happy economic times basically because of two
reasons: 1.) The current Republican Congress is not passing big spending
tax-raising bills at every opportunity and 2.) U.S. military spending in
a post-Cold War world can be significantly reduced. In other words, we
can afford the frivilousness of a Clinton Administration because the
Soviet Union is but no more.
But why is that? Let's look closely...
Your gang, Mr. Chrisitian, has long argued that Ronald Reagan did not
cause the fall of the Soviet Union and that the Evil Empire merely
imploded from its own weight. Of course the fact that while President
Reagan worked tirelessly to bring an end to Soviet communism and while
he long predicted the fall of the Soviets only to see virtually all of
your gang, to a man, laughing at him for doing so is of course to be
ignored. Just as the facts are always to be ingored (or rewritten) when
they do not correspond to the liberal view of life.
Your gang, Mr. Christian, claims that Mikhail Gorbachev (of all people -
what a joke) caused the fall of the Soviet Union. This has always been
humorous to reasonable people, rational thinkers and conservatives in
general as it seems clear that Mikhail Gorbachev could have only caused
the end of the Soviet Union by using the same logic that Adolph Hilter
ended World War 2 by committing suicide. Indeed even the bulk of
residents of the former Soviet Union dispised communism and wanted to
hasten its end, but even THEY do not give credit to Gorbachev whom they
disliked and viewed as a bungler.
But the Soviet Union is no more. And your gang gives him credit for
ending the Soviet Union. So let us follow the liberal logic here. We
are spending less and less because the military no longer needs to be
funded to compete with the Soviets. Conservatives give Reagan policies
credit for this. Liberals viciously argue that the credit goes to
Gorbachev.
So if Gorby gets credit for ending the Soviet Union and there is no more
need to spend money on the military and this is all Gorby's doing, then
it MUST ALSO FOLLOW, that it is Mikhail Gorbachev who is responsible for
your "sane U.S. economic policy" and NOT Bill Clinton. Understand, I'm
only following contemporary liberal logic here.
So please, let us not give Clinton credit for the economy. Using
liberal logic, that credit MUST be properly given to none other than
Mikhail Gorbachev!
Let's all send Gorby our thanks for our great economy!
Praise the Lord!
Thomas Odell
Mitchell Holman wrote:
Snip much liberal bullshit...
> If he is ignorant of all
> of this, what else is he ignorant of?
Last we saw of you here Mitchell you were claiming that I had posted
hate-inspired stuff about Clinton burning American flags and other such
tripe. I retorted that I would give you a week to draw a crowd and
agreed to kiss your ass in the front window of Macy's in downtown
Manhattan if you could prove this by posting ANYTHING I had ever posted
to Usenet.
You disappeared.
I never saw an answer to my post.
Why is that Mitchell?
Are you willing to now admit that you slurred my good name and that you
are a filthy liar or will you just ignore this post too because it shows
what an unethical man you are???
Thomas Odell
Gary Frazier wrote:
>
> In <6b8dj2$4...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> Thomas Odell <od...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> >False. The House was controlled by liberal Demorats for ALL eight
> >years. The Senate was in Republican hands for the first term but so
> >what?
>
> This is just so flat out WRONG that it defies belief.
What an idiot you are. Disprove it or admit your lie.
House of Representatives controlled by Demorats for the entire decade of
the 80's
Senate in Republican hands in Reagan's first term, Demorat hands the
second term.
Post your evidence or your apology. Post it here ----->
Gary Frazier
>> I certainly won't disagree with you that Reagan was a teflon
>> president who did much of what he did for the sake of the
>> camera. But to be fair, .....
>If by "for the sake of the camera", you mean Ronald Reagan acted well (as
>president), yes he certainly did. I think that a lot of us enjoyed knowing
>that there was something very good going on beneath that polished exterior.
>By the way, Teflon is a registered trademark of Dupont.
"Something very good"?
You mean like cotton candy? All sugar, no substance?
By all accounts, Ronald Reagan was one of the laziest men ever to hold
the office.
Thomas Odell
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
> Speaking of which after I backed you into a corner last summer about
> the criminal enterprise known as the raygun adminstration, that you
> couldn't handle you then claimed to killfile me and disappeared.
> Odull is a coward
> Odull is a kook
> ODull is a proven liar
You really DO need to see your doctor about that medication problem...
Thomas Odell
Gary Frazier wrote:
> By all accounts, Ronald Reagan was one of the laziest men ever to hold
> the office.
So lazy he restored the American economy, rebuilt America's pride in
herself and shut down Soviet communism.
Please Lord, damn upon us more lazy men like this who can accomplish so
much!
A. Bishop
DA MAN wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2 Feb 1998 19:43:40 -0500, "Dave Powell" <david_po...@msn.com>
> typed:
>
> >87? God bless him :+)
> >
> >Happy birthday, President Reagan!
> >
> >Dave
>
> What a moron.. Do you *really* think it is some kind of an accomplishment to
> live 87 years in this modern era? Do you think being 87 means something
> special? How many other people lived older than 87?
>
> Seems fiting that 19(87) was around the time the iran-contra drugs for arms
> scandal hit the news.. Reagan couldn't recall, and we're now arguing over what
> clinton does with his women... A tad bit hypocritical..
>
> And don't give me that shit about he did the iran-contra deal to support
> democracy. I mean, he went around his own country's democratic process to sell
> those arms to get money...How is that DEFENDING democracy by making a mockery
> out of the one we hold true, our own?
>
> FUCK REAGAN!
HEY NOW! He was just wishing him a happy birthday. Would you like it if
someone jumped all over you if you wished your grandfather a happy
birthday. What then if they said fuck your grandfather?! You asshole.
Thomas Odell
DA MAN
> FUCK REAGAN!
The advance of technology always amazes me.
They even have Internet access for junkies to use in the crack houses!
Thomas Odell
Gary wrote:
> Explain to everyone exactly who signed the budgets asswipe.
> I know you will ignore this but if Raygun had any guts he would have
> held strong and refused to sign any budget that included deficit
> spending.
Asswipe? I guess when you are frustrated beyond belief because all of
your most cherished screwball liberal beliefs have been ripped to
shreads before your eyes by the truth of my posts, you then have no
other release other than lashing out with 5-year-old tactics.
As posted at least 500 times, the president submits a budget. That
process is largely ceremonial as the Congress will dispose of it as they
wish upon its delivery on Capitol Hill. With Reagan's budgets the
liberals then in charge of the House materially altered the numbers
submitted (as so testified by Jim Miller OMB Director) and then
discarded it and said that Reagan's budget was --- and these were their
words "dead on arrival."
The Congress then fashions their own budget as they wish. This is their
privilege as specified under the Constitution -- article 1, section 7.
The Congressional appropriations and budget are then sent to the
president for his signature. This too is largely ceremonial as in the
pre-line-item-veto era, ALL the president could do is either sign the
legislation in its ENTIRITY or veto it in its ENTIRITY.
Vetoing the ENTIRE budget would have shut down the ENTIRE government
causing the military to be defunded and leaving the United States
vulnerable to foreign threats. This action would also have likely
created a global depression as we would have defaulted on debt
obligations and unstablized global money markets. The Congress would
have to (rightly) move to impeachment proceedings. By vetoing the
entire budget, Reagan or any president, would cause massive security and
economic disasters. Signing the Congressional budget is not an
option. It is the equivalent of having someone hold a gun to your head
and tell you to sign a blank cheque.
Now anticipating your next piece of baloney, Clinton did NOT veto ANY
budget. The standoff of a couple of years ago was the result of the
Congress refusing to raise the debt ceiling and appropriate ADDITIONAL
spending. Some lying or confused liberals have made the argument here
that Clinton stood up to the Congress and vetoed their budgets. This is
laughable. Congress vetoed Clinton spending any MORE money.
So again we see that President Reagan was not responsible for the debt.
He had to sign the Congressional budget or force the government into
default and shut down the military. Hardly reasonable options to solve
the budget problems. The only option open to him was to ask for the
line-item veto which would have allowed his to veto SPECIFIC sections of
budget bills without shutting dowm the whole of government. Liberals
would not give Reagan that control and so they continued to pile on debt
to the current 5.5 trillion dollar bill our children will face.
Any reasonable person will see who is right and who is wrong here. I
have offered facts and history and you offer hate and namecalling.
> You area a goddamned liar once again.
Proving my point again.
Thomas Odell
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
> we'll see if you have the balls to last round 2 odull. betcha you
> don't make it.
If you intend to offer an intelligent exchange absent the funny names
(odull, raygun and so forth) and type sentences that are coherent, then
I guarantee you that you will be engaged in debate and will most
certainly lose those same exchanges.
If you intend to continue littering your posts with massive doses of
filthy language (fuck this and fuck that, etc) sillyness (odull, raygun,
etc) and incoherent endless rants, then you will find me paying less and
less attention to your posts. I am already growing weary of struggling
to find anything of value meshed in with your seemingly endless barrage
of crap and kookery.
Clean it up lad or move on.
Thomas Odell
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
> Come on odull lets here some Kook speak.
...Post ignored due to excessive childish 5-year-old tactics.
Try harder to be an adult next time or be prepared to continue to be
ignored.
Gary Frazier
>Gary Frazier wrote:
>> By all accounts, Ronald Reagan was one of the laziest men ever to hold
>> the office.
>So lazy he restored the American economy, rebuilt America's pride in
>herself and shut down Soviet communism.
Odell once again displays his ignorance.
You don't know much about the inner workings of the Reagan administration
at all, do you Jelly Donut?
Stupendous Man
The facts are that congress spent more than Reagan asked for.
You can try to change the subject and state that congress
asked for even less, but then that only makes them look like
even greater liars, for having such a huge discrepency between
what they promised to spend and what they eventually did!
Brett
Left and right-wing certainly holds true for the bell curve of IQ!
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
Thomas Odell <od...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Rich Travsky wrote
>Much liberal bullshit snipped...
>
>> Now, list here how many balanced budgets the republican senate
>> came up with as well as how many balanced budgets Reagan
>> submitted ---> see answer below
>As has been testified to by Reagan Administration OMB Director Jim
>Miller, ALL of President Reagan's budgets were MATERIALLY ALTERED by the
>Demorat-controlled House leadership upon their delivery to Capitol
>Hill. You are playing games.
>Article 1, section 8. U.S. Constitution. Congress and Congress alone is
>responsible for the debt.
>Congress was controlled by liberals. You lose.
wrong again odull the senate was controled by the republicons. Further
the house was controlled by the republicons and southern conservatives
dems. You just lost idiot get over it.
>> Bye now.
>>
>> RT
>Say goodnight. Your argument is toast.
==========================================================================
Let The White Rose enlighten you.
http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
gdy weasel
==========================================================================
McGilvray explaining that he would spit on Vietanm Vets if the differ on his political outlook:
>The vets who went to Vietnam took risk, and if you stop hiding behind the VVAW,
>your little heroes of the days of rage are all phoneys-I spit on them.
==================================================================================
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
Thomas Odell <od...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
>> odull
>> raygun
>> drooling idiot
>> odull
>> drooling idiot
>> drooling idiot pissed on
>> fucking
looks like odull has been doing some selective editting. Gee odull
guess I will just have to keep reposting it until you answer the
question. It follows below
heres a new one for you to chew on odull. It has been no reported that
raygun pressured the pentagon to come up with a Vietnam Vet for the
Tomb of the Unknowns by Memorial Day so the drooling idiot could have
a photo op. The problem odull was the drooling idiot was so desperate
for that photo op they stripped the identy of the person. Your
drooling idiot pissed on all vets in doing so, all for a fucking photo
op.
Now is this much better odull. Now tell us odull why did raygun feel
the need to piss on the vets for a god damn photo op????
>What you are speaks so loudly that most need not even listen to what you
>say.
ya sure thats why your pants are all messed after reading the post.
>Have you cleaned up your webpage lies yet? Or are you still
>intentionally misquoting Ronald Reagan?
Nope a dierct word for word quote from the drooling idiot, about how
little he valued the lifes of those with opposing political views.
Now odull why don't you try looking under the menu choice skunks
descented. The drooling idiot was a crook.
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>What a difference a decade makes...
>1988: "Go out and win one for the Gipper" - President Ronald Reagan
>1998: "Go down and undo my Zipper" - Pervert Bill Clinton
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
==========================================================================
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
mm...@netcom.com (Jon M. Gallagher) wrote:
>: heres a new one for you to chew on odull. It has been no reported that
>: raygun pressured the pentagon to come up with a Vietnam Vet for the
>: Tomb of the Unknowns by Memorial Day so the drooling idiot could have
>: a photo op. The problem odull was the drooling idiot was so desperate
>: for that photo op they stripped the identy of the person. Your
>: drooling idiot pissed on all vets in doing so, all for a fucking photo
>: op.
>For God's sakes leave something untouched.
>The Unknowns represent something deeply personal for those who have
>served our country. It's their sacrifice and those who served and
>those who died for our country that consecrate the the ground they lie
>in. The idea that something some politician did could sully that is
>infuriating to anyone who has served this country.
>It's bad enough that Arlington got dragged into this partisan
>bitch-slap contest. Leave the soldiers who died nameless and alone out
>of it.
Tell it to the family of the solider stripped of his idenity. They are
demanding DNA testing. It was the drooling idiot demanding a photo op
for Memorial Day that was responsible.
>--
>Jon Gallagher
>M & M Consultants, 1630 North Main Street Suite 111, Walnut Creek CA 94596
>Voice: 510-945-7571 E-mail: mm...@netcom.com
==========================================================================
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
Thomas Odell <od...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Jon M. Gallagher wrote:
>>
>> : heres a new one for you to chew on odull. It has been no reported that
>> : raygun pressured the pentagon to come up with a Vietnam Vet for the
>> : Tomb of the Unknowns by Memorial Day so the drooling idiot could have
>> : a photo op. The problem odull was the drooling idiot was so desperate
>> : for that photo op they stripped the identy of the person. Your
>> : drooling idiot pissed on all vets in doing so, all for a fucking photo
>> : op.
>>
>> For God's sakes leave something untouched.
>Hey GDY - this is one of your fellow liberals nailing you here. Even
>your own reject you.
are you telling another whooper odull? Maybe he should watch CBS
evening news.
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>What a difference a decade makes...
>1988: "Go out and win one for the Gipper" - President Ronald Reagan
>1998: "Go down and undo my Zipper" - Pervert Bill Clinton
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
==========================================================================
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
kj <k...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
>>
>> heres a new one for you to chew on odull. It has been no reported that
>> raygun pressured the pentagon to come up with a Vietnam Vet for the
>> Tomb of the Unknowns by Memorial Day so the drooling idiot could have
>> a photo op. The problem odull was the drooling idiot was so desperate
>> for that photo op they stripped the identy of the person. Your
>> drooling idiot pissed on all vets in doing so, all for a fucking photo
>> op.
>>
>> ==========================================================================
>> Let The White Rose enlighten you.
>>
>Here's one for you to chew on, smack. While it's true that Reagan
>presided over that ceremony on Memorial Day, 1984, those remains were
>reclassified as unknown in 1980 - during the CARTER administration.
>Enlightening indeed.
>I am awaiting the sound of your backstepping feet.
try watching the CBS evening news, they say different. And the family
is demanding DNA testing.
> kj
LShaping
> What you are speaks so loudly that most need not even listen to what you
> say.
>
> intentionally misquoting Ronald Reagan?
Hey, your late for the VRWC meeting. Tonights agenda, "Killing time while
Ken Starr gathers evidence".
DA MAN
>87? God bless him :+)
>
>Happy birthday, President Reagan!
>
>Dave
What a moron.. Do you *really* think it is some kind of an accomplishment to
live 87 years in this modern era? Do you think being 87 means something
special? How many other people lived older than 87?
Seems fiting that 19(87) was around the time the iran-contra drugs for arms
scandal hit the news.. Reagan couldn't recall, and we're now arguing over what
clinton does with his women... A tad bit hypocritical..
And don't give me that shit about he did the iran-contra deal to support
democracy. I mean, he went around his own country's democratic process to sell
those arms to get money...How is that DEFENDING democracy by making a mockery
out of the one we hold true, our own?
FUCK REAGAN!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^BEGIN LONG ASS SIGNATURE^^^^^^^^^^^^
Remember, "YOU CAN'T POLISH A TURD!"
WHY? Cause It's Still a Turd!
************************************************************
NUKE THE MOONŽŠ1997---->http://www.concentric.net/~Marlboro/
INCOME BASED EDUCATION->http://www.concentric.net/~Marlboro/
************************************************************
http://www.weather.com/aboutus/cable/ocms/schwartz.html
*********************************************************
PLEASE NOMINATE ME KOOK OF THE MONTH [KOTM]
Post all nominations to alt.usenet.kooks
DO IT NOW!!!
***************END OF LONG ASS SIGNATURE FILE*********
LShaping
Mitchell Holman
}
}> In fact, the Congress gave Reagan >less money< than he originally asked for.
}
}Baldface lie. Former Reagan Administration OMB Director Jim Miller has
}testified that the liberals on the Hill MATERIALLY ALTERED ALL of
}President Reagan's budgets. FACT.
Earth to Odell - Congress is *supposed* to revise the
budgets sent to them by the president. And then send
them back. And if they are not vetoed, they become law.
Rather like the "free-spending" budgets that Reagan
cheerfully signed into law, having forgotten where he
left his veto stamp.
}
}And to cut to the chase, the presidential budget is largely just
}ceremonial. The president submits it and Congress disposes of it as
}they wish. Learn your civics and read your Constitution you poor
}ill-educated tyke.
}
Speaking of basic civics, was Odell asleep when his
class was informed about presidential veto authority?
}> Ronald Reagan gave us stupdendous deficits
}
}Amazing. How do you lie like this with a straight face? The
}Constitution of the United States (Article 1, section 7) grants spending
}authority solely to the Congress and Congress alone. The president
}couldn't give you deficits if he wanted to. Congress must appropriate
}ALL spending. Learn your Constitution.
So Odell thinks the president is powerless to draft
budgets, submit them to Congress, and then veto them
if he does not like the revisions. If he is ignorant of all
of this, what else is he ignorant of?
Mitchell Holman
In early 1982, he [Reagan] claimed there were a million more Americans
at work than when he took office, when in fact there were 100,000 fewer.
The Power Game - Hedrick Smith p.428.
Mitchell Holman
In article <#R7#qzDM9...@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net>, "Dave Powell" <david_po...@msn.com> wrote:
}
}87? God bless him :+)
}
}Happy birthday, President Reagan!
}
Too bad the 247 Marines that Reagan sent to on a one-way
mission to Beirut will not be celebrating *their* birthdays this
year..........
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
Thomas Odell <od...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Mitchell Holman wrote:
>Snip much liberal bullshit...
>> If he is ignorant of all
>> of this, what else is he ignorant of?
>Last we saw of you here Mitchell you were claiming that I had posted
>hate-inspired stuff about Clinton burning American flags and other such
>tripe. I retorted that I would give you a week to draw a crowd and
>agreed to kiss your ass in the front window of Macy's in downtown
>Manhattan if you could prove this by posting ANYTHING I had ever posted
>to Usenet.
>You disappeared.
>I never saw an answer to my post.
>Why is that Mitchell?
>Are you willing to now admit that you slurred my good name and that you
>are a filthy liar or will you just ignore this post too because it shows
>what an unethical man you are???
forget it odull, you never did have a good name.
Speaking of which after I backed you into a corner last summer about
the criminal enterprise known as the raygun adminstration, that you
couldn't handle you then claimed to killfile me and disappeared.
Odull is a coward
Odull is a kook
ODull is a proven liar
does that bring back any memories odull?
Gary
On Tue, 03 Feb 1998 00:31:34 -0800, Thomas Odell
<od...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Rich Travsky wrote:
>>
>> Stupendous Man <"root"@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>> >Help celebrate the Gipper's 87th birthday!
>> > [...]
>>
>> We had a birthday cake for him - with several trillion
>> candles, one for each dollar of debt he saddled us with.\
>
>
>Ronald Reagan did NOT saddle you with a dime of debt. The liberals who
>controlled Congress accomplished that dirty deed.
>
>So says the U.S. Constitution. Article 1, section 8. Congress is
>responsible for ALL debt and debt financing. Plain black and white fact.
>
>Peddle your socialist propaganda elsewhere. Your lies don't cut it
>here.
Explain to everyone exactly who signed the budgets asswipe.
I know you will ignore this but if Raygun had any guts he would have
held strong and refused to sign any budget that included deficit
spending.
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
Thomas Odell <od...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
>> Speaking of which after I backed you into a corner last summer about
>> the criminal enterprise known as the raygun adminstration, that you
>> couldn't handle you then claimed to killfile me and disappeared.
>> Odull is a coward
>> Odull is a kook
>> ODull is a proven liar
>You really DO need to see your doctor about that medication problem...
we'll see if you have the balls to last round 2 odull. betcha you
don't make it.
==========================================================================
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
Thomas Odell <od...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Gary Frazier wrote:
>> By all accounts, Ronald Reagan was one of the laziest men ever to hold
>> the office.
>So lazy he restored the American economy, rebuilt America's pride in
>herself and shut down Soviet communism.
now how could he "rebuild" the US economy when its your claim that the
budgets were the product of a democratic controlled congress???? Come
on odull lets here some Kook speak.
>Please Lord, damn upon us more lazy men like this who can accomplish so
>much!
==========================================================================
Stupendous Man
LShaping wrote: ...
> Hey, your late for the VRWC meeting. Tonights agenda, "Killing time while
> Ken Starr gathers evidence".
Please note that this month's conspiracy meeting has been moved from the
second Tuesday to the fifth Tuesday!
Oops, was this post out loud?!
"You know who".
Conspiracy members: please refrain from waving to the cameras and
saying "hi mom" when being monitored by the co-conspiring media!
Thomas Odell
Gary Frazier wrote:
>
> You don't know much about the inner workings of the Reagan administration
> at all, do you Jelly Donut?
Indeed I do. I would probably be classified as the most knowledgable
guy around here on the inner workings of what was the finest
administration in well over a century. I am so because I have studied
President Reagan and his fine accomplishments in detail and unlike you
don't spend all my hours hating a man who is unquestionably America's
greatest living hero.
Now on the "jelly donut" thing, I must admit that I can't recall
anything President Reagan did regarding jelly donuts. I can remember
John Kennedy standing in front of the German people and claiming to be a
"jelly donut" by using inappropriate German but we've been over that
before and you lost then too. I know it didn't stop you from lying
about it but then what has ever stopped your dihonesty?
Get some rest, you're getting lamer than you use to be --- which is
pretty bad.
Gary Frazier
In <6b8rvl$r8s$2...@pike.dnaco.net> Stupendous Man <"root"@[127.0.0.1]> writes:
> The facts are that congress spent more than Reagan asked for.
Stupidnessman, you wouldn't know a fact if it hit you in the face.
When you stop being a buttboy for Ronnie, let us know.
Gary Frazier
>Gary Frazier wrote:
>>
>> You don't know much about the inner workings of the Reagan administration
>> at all, do you Jelly Donut?
>Indeed I do. I would probably be classified as the most knowledgable
>guy around here on the inner workings of what was the finest
>administration in well over a century. I am so because I have studied
>President Reagan and his fine accomplishments in detail and unlike you
>don't spend all my hours hating a man who is unquestionably America's
>greatest living hero.
Oh, brother. The devotee of INGSOC displays his doublethink skills.
>Now on the "jelly donut" thing, I must admit that I can't recall
>anything President Reagan did regarding jelly donuts. I can remember
>John Kennedy standing in front of the German people and claiming to be a
>"jelly donut" by using inappropriate German but we've been over that
>before and you lost then too. I know it didn't stop you from lying
>about it but then what has ever stopped your dihonesty?
For which you won Kook of the Month honors, Jelly Donut, after native
German speakers informed you that you were spectacularly mistaken.
I had thought you had learned your lesson, as you dropped off USENET for
months afterwards. Apparently you're not even THAT clever.
Mitchell Holman
In article <6b8m13$g...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, od...@usa.net wrote:
}Mitchell Holman wrote:
}
}Snip much liberal bullshit...
}
Sigh.....challange Odell on basic constitutional law, he snips it all
as "liberal bullshit" and launches a personal hatefest.
Let's try it again - does the president have authority to veto budgets
or not? It is not THAT difficult a question, you know........
Mitchell Holman
"At least I can spell and make complete sentenses."
Mark Balcom, 10/25/97
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
Stupendous Man <"root"@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> The facts are that congress spent more than Reagan asked for.
> You can try to change the subject and state that congress
>asked for even less, but then that only makes them look like
>even greater liars, for having such a huge discrepency between
wrong again stupe its just another example of how clueless raygun was.
Once the budget is passed its up to the prez to follow it.
>what they promised to spend and what they eventually did!
>Brett
>Left and right-wing certainly holds true for the bell curve of IQ!
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
Thomas Odell <od...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
>> we'll see if you have the balls to last round 2 odull. betcha you
>> don't make it.
>If you intend to offer an intelligent exchange absent the funny names
>(odull, raygun and so forth) and type sentences that are coherent, then
>I guarantee you that you will be engaged in debate and will most
>certainly lose those same exchanges.
>If you intend to continue littering your posts with massive doses of
>filthy language (fuck this and fuck that, etc) sillyness (odull, raygun,
>etc) and incoherent endless rants, then you will find me paying less and
>less attention to your posts. I am already growing weary of struggling
>to find anything of value meshed in with your seemingly endless barrage
>of crap and kookery.
ah poor little odull wants me to restrict myself to a subset of the
English language. Get use to it odull I used the complete version of
English, it tends to be more discriptive.
>Clean it up lad or move on.
==========================================================================
Jason Christian
On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Thomas Odell wrote:
> Jason Christian started out here with a piece on Veterans. As this
> thread evolved, he went on to highlight Clintonomics (the business of
> stealing credit for a good economy when Clinton doesn't deserve it).
>
> What follows is interesting trail of where liberal logic will go if you
> follow it to its ultimate end.
>
> Wanna know who to give credit to for a healthy economy if you follow
> liberal logic to its ultimate end? Read on, the answer will make those
> same among you laugh...
>
>
> Jason Christian wrote:
>
> > I have always thought that canonizing politicians was rather silly.
>
> Regrettably there are not many to "canonize." There are great men such
> as Washington, Lincoln and Reagan who defined their greatness while in
> office. Men such as these three indeed do deserve to be canonized.
> There are also men who were great men apart from their office as
> presidents and indeed may have better distinquished themselves before
> and after their presidencies than while in office. I refer to men such
> as Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower as examples. Then there
> are men such as Johnson and Clinton who disgrace and offend the office
> of the presidency with their mere presence.
>
>
> > Clinton deserves credit for sane economic policy
>
> Now that sillyness of yours which has historically earned my contempt is
> rearing its all-to-frequently seen face here Mr. Christian. If you were
> to be pushed for a specific response to define Clinton's economic
> policies, you would be driven to exhaustion to find any identifiable
> policy on which to hang your hat. As quite properly pointed out in the
> latest literary exercise to honor our nation's greatest living hero,
> Dinesh D'Souza notes that Clinton has NO economic policy ---- he hasn't
> needed one ---- he is benefitting from the policies which are still
> priming the pump of our American economic engine and which were put into
> effect a decade ago by our nation's beloved 40th president.
Tom, before I deleted the rest of your ramble, I searched for the string
'> >', indicating that you had found some words of mine with which to
argue. The search failed. The entire rest of your post, which you
claim is an explanation of my logic, responds to...your own imagination,
or your fictional construction. You even, for reasons known only to
yourself, snipped the rest of the sentence, and the sentence following,
wherein I gave credit to Clinton for what he has not done, rather than
what he has done. In this, and probably in this alone, I seem to agree
with D'Souza.
You also snipped the part where I asserted that a Democrat President in
combination with a Republican Congress (d-r) might produce a less damaging
economic policy that any other combination (including d-d, r-d, and r-r).
You seem to have appropriated part of that point in your ramble. A cite
would have been appreciated, albeit astonishing.
By the way, "pump priming" is old Keynesian jargon for
expansionary fiscal policy...which is how professional economists (as
opposed to the gold-bug quacks) explain the early-'80s nominal boom.
The runup in real interest rates that followed follows quite closely the
predictions of the *monetarist* school of professional economists.
I give Clinton credit for working within the bounds of very sober fiscal
policy, cooperating with the Fed, and allowing the economy to find a
zero-inflation growth path. Reagan's obsession with cutting taxes
prevented his doing this. If you want to call Clinton's performance a
"lack of policy," I'll agree with that; I differ from some of my more
liberal colleagues in thinking that a very restrained fiscal policy is,
at least these days, A Good Thing. Vigorous tax cutting, unaccompanied
by vigorous reductions in government expenditures, is *not* a restrained
fiscal policy.
The real credit for the apparent health of the U.S. economy belongs
neither with Clinton, nor with his predecessors. It belongs with all
of our history and our society, which has allowed the development of a
fundamentally robust political economy...including a variety of
features that soften the pain of the occasional and unavoidable
shocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Christian University of California, Davis
ja...@primal.ucdavis.edu Agricultural and Resource Economics
Office:(530)752-1357 FAX:(530)752-5614 Davis, CA 95616
DA MAN
On Wed, 04 Feb 1998 02:51:00 GMT, ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell Holman) typed:
See, that's exactly why I say FUCK REAGAN and his relatives,friends,family,and
supporters.. F THEM ALL TO HELL!!!!!!
Watson Aname
On Tue, 03 Feb 1998, Thomas Odell <od...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Rich Travsky wrote:
>
>> Stupendous Man <"root"@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>>
>>> Help celebrate the Gipper's 87th birthday!
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> We had a birthday cake for him - with several trillion
>> candles, one for each dollar of debt he saddled us with.\
>
> Ronald Reagan did NOT saddle you with a dime of debt. The liberals
> who controlled Congress accomplished that dirty deed.
This is thorough going nonsense, as has been pointed out to you any
number of times. From 1981-1987 the Republicans held the majority
in the Senate, the Democratic controlled House offered budgets LOWER
than HIS 7 out of 8 years, and Reagan had the Presidential veto to
send any bill back to Congress if his principles were offended by
their proposed priorities or amount of spending. Your argument is
knowingly and unambiguously deceitful.
> So says the U.S. Constitution. Article 1, section 8. Congress is
> responsible for ALL debt and debt financing. Plain black and white
> fact.
You might benefit by giving Article 1, Section 7.2 a cursory read:
Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives
and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the
president of the United States; if he approve, he shall sign it,
but if not, he shall return it, with his objections, to that house
in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections
at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after
such reconsideration, two-thirds of that house shall agree to pass
the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the
other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if
approved by two-thirds of that house, it shall become a law. But
in all such cases the votes of both houses shall be determined by
yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against
the bill shall be entered on the journal of each house respectively.
If any bill shall not be returned by the president within ten days
(Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the
same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless
the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case
it shall not be a law.
> Peddle your socialist propaganda elsewhere. Your lies don't cut it
> here.
Heh. Good one, Tom.
Watson Aweasel
Thomas Odell
Gary Frazier wrote:
>
> In <6b8rvl$r8s$2...@pike.dnaco.net> Stupendous Man <"root"@[127.0.0.1]> writes:
>
> > The facts are that congress spent more than Reagan asked for.
>
>
> When you stop being a buttboy for Ronnie, let us know.
> --
> Gary
Butt Boy, Jelly Donut, Blah, Blah, Blah...
Your really are a small hatefilled man. How sad.
Thomas Odell
Gary Frazier wrote:
> Oh, brother. The devotee of INGSOC displays his doublethink skills.
I hope INGSOC means something to you. The rest of us are laughing at
your silly little games.
> For which you won Kook of the Month honors, Jelly Donut, after native
> German speakers informed you that you were spectacularly mistaken.
Negative. A few screwball liberals tried to pass themselves off as
German speakers. As usual, I documented my position with source
materials while the liberals tried to pass baloney.
> I had thought you had learned your lesson, as you dropped off USENET for
> months afterwards. Apparently you're not even THAT clever.
As with many people, I come and go based on my work load. Wasn't here
the last two weeks as I was in Asia on a business trip. Won't be here
in at several points in the next few months as I satisfy other business
duties. What is pathetic is the way you must continually seek to villify
an opponent whom you cannot beat with facts and objective reasoning.
You really are a sad little hatefilled man. Pity.
Gary Frazier
>Gary Frazier wrote:
>> Oh, brother. The devotee of INGSOC displays his doublethink skills.
>I hope INGSOC means something to you. The rest of us are laughing at
>your silly little games.
It's obvious it means little to you. Which is indicative of your political
and cultural illiteracy.
>> For which you won Kook of the Month honors, Jelly Donut, after native
>> German speakers informed you that you were spectacularly mistaken.
>Negative. A few screwball liberals tried to pass themselves off as
>German speakers. As usual, I documented my position with source
>materials while the liberals tried to pass baloney.
Right. "Liberals" posting from sites in Germany, with German names.
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, Jelly Donut.
>> I had thought you had learned your lesson, as you dropped off USENET for
>> months afterwards. Apparently you're not even THAT clever.
>As with many people, I come and go based on my work load. Wasn't here
>the last two weeks as I was in Asia on a business trip. Won't be here
>in at several points in the next few months as I satisfy other business
>duties. What is pathetic is the way you must continually seek to villify
>an opponent whom you cannot beat with facts and objective reasoning.
>You really are a sad little hatefilled man. Pity.
Right. Wish away your 'Net reputation, Odell. Don't let minor details
like facts get in your way.
Thomas Odell
Watson Aname wrote:
> This is thorough going nonsense, as has been pointed out to you any
> number of times. From 1981-1987 the Republicans held the majority
> in the Senate,
And has been answered countless times: So what?
> the Democratic controlled House offered budgets LOWER
> than HIS 7 out of 8 years,
Patent lie and so documented so many times as to make this just a
spewing of lying propaganda from you.
> and Reagan had the Presidential veto to
> send any bill back to Congress if his principles were offended by
> their proposed priorities or amount of spending.
Reagan could only shut down the ENTIRE government and cause massive
economic and security nightmares in the process. Your argument is
complete balderdash.
U.S. Constitution. Article 1, section 8. CONGRESS is responsible for
the debt. Plain black and white fact.
> Your argument is
> knowingly and unambiguously deceitful.
Kettle/pot Mr. Weasel. Article 1, section 8. Note is taken that you
cannot refute the facts and so must resort to piling on loads of
diversions and dodges rather than admit your defeat.
U.S. Constitution. Article 1, section 8. Congress is accountable for
debt. Period.
Sorry you again lose on this one. Don't waste any more of our good time
with your diversions and baloney. Unless you can specifically address
the very clear words of the Constitution, you've lost this argument.
Article 1, section 8. You're toast.
Thomas Odell
Andrew Hall wrote:
>
> Chuckle. The only "sources" I saw you post were
> accounts you had with friends.
Andrew Hall. Expert. Only the things he sees are the only reality he
has.
I cited German language documents, idiot.
Of course because you didn't SEE this, it couldn't have existed.
Next you'll demand that I repost this stuff.
Point your browser and learn something.
Damn are you lame.
Thomas Odell
Gary Frazier wrote:
> Right. Wish away your 'Net reputation, Odell. Don't let minor details
> like facts get in your way.
Ya know Gary your overflowing and all-consuming hate is really the sign
of a deeply disturbed man.
Get some help.
Thomas Odell
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
>
> Thomas Odell <od...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >If you intend to continue littering your posts with massive doses of
> >filthy language (fuck this and fuck that, etc) sillyness (odull, raygun,
> >etc) and incoherent endless rants, then you will find me paying less and
> >less attention to your posts. I am already growing weary of struggling
> >to find anything of value meshed in with your seemingly endless barrage
> >of crap and kookery.
>
> ah poor little odull wants me to restrict myself to a subset of the
> English language. Get use to it odull I used the complete version of
> English, it tends to be more discriptive.
My dear little man, how you abuse the English language is nothing short
of a crime.
You are one of the most illiterate people I have ever had the misfortune
to read.
And now I tire of reading your endless name insults, broken syntax and
incoherent ramblings. Get thee to a remedial grammar school for some
emergency language lessons. You are quite in need of some serious help.
Larry Racies
In article <6b8kc1$g...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
The key word is *acted* for that is exactly and almost exclusively
what he did well.
Rich Travsky
Mitchell Holman wrote:
> od...@usa.net wrote:
> }Mitchell Holman wrote:
> }
> }Snip much liberal bullshit...
> }
>
> Sigh.....challange Odell on basic constitutional law, he snips it all
> as "liberal bullshit" and launches a personal hatefest.
>
> Let's try it again - does the president have authority to veto budgets
> or not? It is not THAT difficult a question, you know........
You don't really expect a reply from him, do you?
RT
Between 1980 and 1989, some 138 appointees of the Reagan
administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were
criminally indicted. This marks the largest collection of
political wrongdoers in the nation's history.
Elite Deviance - David R. Simon & D. Stanley Eitzen
Rich Travsky
Thomas Odell wrote:
> [...]
> Indeed I do. I would probably be classified as the most knowledgable
> guy around here on the inner workings of what was the finest
> administration in well over a century. I am so because I have studied
"Finest"???
Between 1980 and 1989, some 138 appointees of the Reagan
administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were
criminally indicted. This marks the largest collection of
political wrongdoers in the nation's history.
Elite Deviance - David R. Simon & D. Stanley Eitzen
> President Reagan and his fine accomplishments in detail and unlike you
> don't spend all my hours hating a man who is unquestionably America's
> greatest living hero.
Unlike you we've looked at his record a little more objectively.
> [...]
RT
When the Commander in Chief of a nation finds it necessary to order
government employees or agents to do things that would technically
break the law, he has to be able to declare it legal for them to do so
- Ronald Reagan defending Richard Nixon, television interview, 1977
Thomas Odell
Rich Travsky wrote:
> Between 1980 and 1989, some 138 appointees of the Reagan
> administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were
> criminally indicted. This marks the largest collection of
> political wrongdoers in the nation's history.
> Elite Deviance - David R. Simon & D. Stanley Eitzen
Crinimally indicted? Like Ray Donovan the guy you libs indicted and who
was subsequently found to be 100% innocent of the trumped-up charges you
slandered him with? Or like poor old Cap Weinberger the guy you sleazy
libs indicted with a pile of lies? You mean those indictments?
How many of those 138 people you mentioned who were SLANDERED by
hatefilled liberals were ACTUALLY convicted of anything?
Post your answer right here ----->
Now tell us about how many former Assistant Secretaries of Justice and
how many former governors of Arkansas and others have been convicted and
jailed because of Bill Clinton.
Put your answer right here ---->
Now also tell us how many of the following Clinton cabinet are facing
(or would have faced) multiple criminal indictments:
Agriculture
Commerce
Labor
Interior
Housing and Urban Development
Energy
Put your answer right here ---->
(Hint: the answer is ALL of the above)
Your game is pathetic.
Thomas Odell
Rich Travsky wrote:
> You don't really expect a reply from him, do you?
Asked and answered yesterday idiot.
RHA
In article <6ba1ku$hc6$2...@usenet87.supernews.com>,
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com <gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com> wrote:
>Stupendous Man <"root"@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
>
>> The facts are that congress spent more than Reagan asked for.
>
>>asked for even less, but then that only makes them look like
>>even greater liars, for having such a huge discrepency between
>
>wrong again stupe its just another example of how clueless raygun was.
>Once the budget is passed its up to the prez to follow it.
It's factual to note that Congress passed initial budgets
which were lower than Reagan's initial submitted budgets
seven out of eight years. What I haven't seen, and can't
recall, is information about how Reagan's departments
actually spent their funds. Did his department heads
waste their money, or spend it within the letter and
spirit of the signed budgets? Doesn't a President send
supplemental budget requests to Congress when original
budgets were exhausted? This would void rightwing
arguments that Congress authorized supplemental spending
Reagan didn't want. I know for a fact that at least one
goverment agency raced to spend all their budget (initial
and supplementals) as the fiscal year came to an end
rather than have a surplus.
Arguments about who created the Reagan/Bush era deficits
are incomplete. (AFAIK.)
>
>>what they promised to spend and what they eventually did!
>
>>Brett
>>Left and right-wing certainly holds true for the bell curve of IQ!
>
>
>==========================================================================
>Let The White Rose enlighten you.
>
>http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
>
>gdy weasel
>==========================================================================
>McGilvray explaining that he would spit on Vietanm Vets if the differ on his political outlook:
>
>>The vets who went to Vietnam took risk, and if you stop hiding behind the VVAW,
>>your little heroes of the days of rage are all phoneys-I spit on them.
>
>==================================================================================
>
--
rha
Gary Frazier
>Rich Travsky wrote:
>> Between 1980 and 1989, some 138 appointees of the Reagan
>> administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were
>> criminally indicted. This marks the largest collection of
>> political wrongdoers in the nation's history.
>> Elite Deviance - David R. Simon & D. Stanley Eitzen
>Crinimally indicted? Like Ray Donovan the guy you libs indicted and who
>was subsequently found to be 100% innocent of the trumped-up charges you
>slandered him with? Or like poor old Cap Weinberger the guy you sleazy
>libs indicted with a pile of lies? You mean those indictments?
Odell, you didn't even wait for the facts to come out before demanding
Clinton's head on a platter.
What an incredible dumbass. He's eager to repeat as KOTM.
Rich Travsky
Another substance filled response by escape artist
O'Duh.
RT
Between 1980 and 1989, some 138 appointees of the Reagan
administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were
criminally indicted. This marks the largest collection of
political wrongdoers in the nation's history.
Elite Deviance - David R. Simon & D. Stanley Eitzen
During his first term few of those close to him dared confront him with
the
unpleasant truth that his huge tax cut and defense buildup, combined with
his
relatively minor spending cuts and refusal to consider new taxes, had not
reduced the trillion-dollar debt he inherited but -- amazingly and
tragically
-- had doubled it. That was the dirty little secret of the Reagan years.
The
Great Budget Balancer of the campaign trail had become the Great Deficit
Spender of the Oval Office. - Warren Rudman, "Combat"
Reagan's obsession with cutting taxes had helped double the deficit.
- Warren Rudman, "Combat"
When the Commander in Chief of a nation finds it necessary to order
government employees or agents to do things that would technically
break the law, he has to be able to declare it legal for them to do so
- Ronald Reagan defending Richard Nixon, television interview, 1977
How are you, Mr. Mayor, and how are things in your city? -
Ronald Reagan, failing to recognize his own Housing Secretary
and sole black member of his Cabinet) Samuel Pierce a reception
for big city mayors, 6/12/81
Gary Frazier
>Gary Frazier wrote:
>>
>> In <6b8dj2$4...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> Thomas Odell <od...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>> >False. The House was controlled by liberal Demorats for ALL eight
>> >years. The Senate was in Republican hands for the first term but so
>> >what?
>>
>> This is just so flat out WRONG that it defies belief.
>What an idiot you are. Disprove it or admit your lie.
>House of Representatives controlled by Demorats for the entire decade of
>the 80's
>Senate in Republican hands in Reagan's first term, Demorat hands the
>second term.
Not unless the President somehow magically serves a six year term now.
>Post your evidence or your apology. Post it here ----->
Are you really so naive to assume that all Democrats vote on the party
line every time?
Go back and look at the records. Or do you actually believe that Phil
Gramm voted AGAINST Ronald Reagan on buget matters?
I'm not apologizing to you, ignoramus. Not in a zillion years.
Have anohter Jelly Donut, dumbass.
Thomas Odell
Gary Frazier wrote:
> Odell, you didn't even wait for the facts to come out before demanding
> Clinton's head on a platter.
Unlike you Mr. Frazier, I do investigate matters and get facts before I
draw conclusions. For instance I know that Bill Clinton told Gennifer
Flowers to lie about their relationship because I heard the recordin g
of him telling her to do so. I also have followed the cases of
Clinton's sexual escapades with Mdms Jones, Scott and Willey. I also
know that White House records show that Monica Lewinsky visited the
White House -- late at night -- over 3 dozen times AFTER she left
employment there. She claimed to be visiting the president's secretary
-- at midnight. Now I've been in the employ of my current company and
have NEVER visited my boss' secretary at midnight nor do I know anyone
who has ever had a similar experience in a work setting.
Today's news reports have released the news that Lewinsky is willing to
testify that she has indeed had sexual relations with Mr. Clinton. This
runs directly in opposition to Clinton standing in front of the American
people and shaking his crooked finger and saying "I did not have sexual
relations with THAT woman." He's lying. It is so apparent that anyone
with two brain cells to rub together could figure it out. You tell us
what this 21-year-old girl was doing at the White House at midnight OVER
3 dozen times AFTER she no longer worked there. Discussing Asian
economic matters? Peace in Bosnia?
Lame. You are completely lame. Now I know that you are desperate to
namecall and rant and pull your regular hate tactics because your hero
Clinton is going to fall and fall hard and even you know it inside and
it is just eating your gut out. And that's too damn bad. Perhaps you
ought to think harder about the leaders you choose to admire and the
character values that they hold. Clinton has been dirty since day one
and anyone who studied his tenure as governor of Arkansas could tell you
so. I mean really, what was he doing all those days in Mena? He was
doing drugs. It is documented that he was in Mena, Arkansas time after
time after time with no explanation for being there. Mena was where his
buddy Dan Lassiter was arrested for trafficing in drugs. And of course
Lassiter is the same guy Clinton pardoned for the drug conviction.
Clinton may have been able to get away with this crap in Arkansas but he
can't pull off his slimy Dogpatch act on the world stage. It was only a
matter of time before he got nailed.
And now he is going to fall. And fall hard.
> What an incredible dumbass.
Yes, Clinton is for thinking that he could get away with his antics in
the White House. And regrettably you are also a hatefilled man who
needs counseling badly.
Thomas Odell
Gary wrote:
> Restored the economy....My God you are a fucking idiot. He nearly
> ruined our nation with his deficit spending.
> Christ you are really as stupid as everyone says.
Well I am smart enough to know that the United States Constitution says
that Congress is responsible for ALL debt and debt financing. Article
1, section 8.
Too bad that your ill-placed emotionalism and hate-filled ways cloud
your judgement so. Have you given any thought to seeing a good
therapist to help you with your emotional and anger-related problems?
Thomas Odell
Gary wrote:
> So...how many times did you watch Bedtime for Bonzo?
Never have seen it actually. Sante Fe Trail with Errol Flynn was pretty
good though.
Thanks for asking.
Checked into seeing a professional yet for that anger problem of yours?
Thomas Odell
Gary Frazier wrote:
>
> Have anohter Jelly Donut, dumbass.
That vein in your neck is jutting out. Looking kinda bad actually.
Getting kinda worried over your risk of having a stroke while you read
Usenet.
Tell me, doesn't it damage your computer when you slam and pound your
shoe over your monitor as you read my posts?
Go back and tell the doc he needs to increase your Prozac. It really
will help.
Stupendous Man
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
...
> >> the criminal enterprise known as the raygun adminstration
...
Thanks for the laugh! Do you do parties?
Brett
God over weasels.
Konrad Vandegaer
On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Jason Christian wrote:
> Five yards east of me, an older gentleman, with white crewcut, stood at
> attention, holding a long salute to the ragged column of veteran grunts,
> as tears flowed down his face, and mine.
I was opposed to the war and consider myself lucky to never have been
called but these type of scenes including the Vietnam memmorial always
do the same to me. My hat's off to the veteran's and I weep for the
utter waste of it all. I can't help but consider what, those who died
for nothing in a war we didn't need to fight, could have done for this
country had they lived.
Konrad Vandegaer
LShaping
> those 140+ indictments handed out to members of raygun's criminal
> enterprise that some refer to as a adminstation. Or the conviction in
Yeah yeah, but your problem right now isn't how bad Ronald Reagan is in
your mind, it's how bad Bill Clinton is in Ken Starr's mind. Go convince
Mr Starr that Billy is OK.
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
"LShaping" <LSha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
I don't need to convince anyoen, but the little gestapo agent has even
given up trying to convince anyone as well. He's done gone fishing and
tell us he's going to turn any dirt over to congress, where the
evidence don't have the normal restrictions of legally placed on it.
Sounds like he knows he fucked up big time.
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
Thomas Odell <od...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Rich Travsky wrote:
>> Between 1980 and 1989, some 138 appointees of the Reagan
>> administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were
>> criminally indicted. This marks the largest collection of
>> political wrongdoers in the nation's history.
>> Elite Deviance - David R. Simon & D. Stanley Eitzen
>Crinimally indicted? Like Ray Donovan the guy you libs indicted and who
>was subsequently found to be 100% innocent of the trumped-up charges you
still don't want to admit that the sleeze ball was Mafia connected,
huh?
>slandered him with? Or like poor old Cap Weinberger the guy you sleazy
>libs indicted with a pile of lies? You mean those indictments?
try reading the whinemore indictment 107 seperate charges of
obstructing lying to congress. One hundred and seven criminal
violations for whinemore, odell.
now odull post your proof of his innocence right here -------->
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
Thomas Odell <od...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
see how quick it is to confuse odull, hes already been reduced to
spelling/typo and grammer flames. Guess he doesn't want to defend
those 140+ indictments handed out to members of raygun's criminal
enterprise that some refer to as a adminstation. Or the conviction in
the World Court of violating a peaceful nation's harbors. Or the
illegal gun and drug running enterprise known as Iran/Contra/Cocaine.
Or the Oct Surprise.
go ahead and count the number of typos and other errors. I'm sure no
one can wait for it.
Gary
On Tue, 03 Feb 1998 19:52:04 -0800, Thomas Odell
<od...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Gary Frazier wrote:
>> By all accounts, Ronald Reagan was one of the laziest men ever to hold
>> the office.
>
>So lazy he restored the American economy, rebuilt America's pride in
>herself and shut down Soviet communism.
Gary
On Wed, 04 Feb 1998 01:34:55 -0800, Thomas Odell
<od...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Gary Frazier wrote:
>>
>> You don't know much about the inner workings of the Reagan administration
>> at all, do you Jelly Donut?
>
>Indeed I do. I would probably be classified as the most knowledgable
>guy around here on the inner workings of what was the finest
>administration in well over a century. I am so because I have studied
>President Reagan and his fine accomplishments in detail and unlike you
>don't spend all my hours hating a man who is unquestionably America's
>greatest living hero.
So...how many times did you watch Bedtime for Bonzo?
Gary
On Wed, 04 Feb 1998 13:40:12 -0800, Thomas Odell
<od...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Why do you suppose it is that I have never seen one person back you up
in this group?
Not even another right wing kook like yourself.
Could it be that they don't want to be stained by your ignorance.
You're all alone kook and theres nothing you can do about it.
Your best bet would be to turn off your computer, blow up your plastic
girlfriend and have some fun.
No one is showing you any respect on here.
Get over it.
LShaping
> ..... Monica Lewinsky visited the White House -- late at night
> claimed to be visiting the president's secretary -- at midnight.
> Now I've been in the employ of my current company and have NEVER
> visited my boss' secretary at midnight nor do I know anyone who
> has ever had a similar experience in a work setting.
I wonder what the president's secretary said when she was questioned.
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
Stupendous Man <"root"@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
>...
>> >> the criminal enterprise known as the raygun adminstration
>...
> Thanks for the laugh! Do you do parties?
thanks for showing all of us that your standards fro acceptable
behavior for a republicon prez is soo low that snakes are having a
hissy fit over it, stupe.
>Brett
>God over weasels.
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
Thomas Odell <od...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Gary wrote:
>> Restored the economy....My God you are a fucking idiot. He nearly
>> ruined our nation with his deficit spending.
>> Christ you are really as stupid as everyone says.
>Well I am smart enough to know that the United States Constitution says
>that Congress is responsible for ALL debt and debt financing. Article
>1, section 8.
>Too bad that your ill-placed emotionalism and hate-filled ways cloud
>your judgement so. Have you given any thought to seeing a good
>therapist to help you with your emotional and anger-related problems?
so that must mean that same congress was responsible for that economic
recovery that you false label as raygun's? After all if the drooling
idiot couldn't find his veto stamp, how would any sane person expect
him to understand a more complex concept like the economy.
Mitchell Holman
In article <6bbohh$j...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, od...@usa.net wrote:
}Gary wrote:
}> Restored the economy....My God you are a fucking idiot. He nearly
}> ruined our nation with his deficit spending.
}> Christ you are really as stupid as everyone says.
}
}Well I am smart enough to know that the United States Constitution says
}that Congress is responsible for ALL debt and debt financing. Article
}1, section 8.
}
And presidents can veto any legislation sent to them. Art. 1, Sec 7.
Opps, Odell doesn't like the notion of presidents vetoing spending bills,
even tho they all do it. Even Reagan, before he lost his veto stamp.
Truth hurts, don't it..............
Mitchell Holman
"El Salvador has a 400 year history of military dictatorships."
Ronald Reagan, 12/20/83. The first military dictatorship only
took power there in 1931.
Rich Travsky
Stupendous Man wrote:
> gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
> ...
> > >> the criminal enterprise known as the raygun adminstration
> ...
>
> Thanks for the laugh! Do you do parties?
Thanks for the laugh! do YOU do parties?
Between 1980 and 1989, some 138 appointees of the Reagan
administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were
criminally indicted. This marks the largest collection of
political wrongdoers in the nation's history.
Elite Deviance - David R. Simon & D. Stanley Eitzen
RT
Mitchell Holman
In article <6b8u1d$r...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, od...@usa.net wrote:
}
}As posted at least 500 times, the president submits a budget. That
}process is largely ceremonial as the Congress will dispose of it as they
}wish upon its delivery on Capitol Hill. With Reagan's budgets the
}liberals then in charge of the House materially altered the numbers
}submitted (as so testified by Jim Miller OMB Director) and then
}discarded it and said that Reagan's budget was --- and these were their
}words "dead on arrival."
}
}The Congress then fashions their own budget as they wish. This is their
}privilege as specified under the Constitution -- article 1, section 7.
}
}The Congressional appropriations and budget are then sent to the
}president for his signature. This too is largely ceremonial as in the
}pre-line-item-veto era, ALL the president could do is either sign the
}legislation in its ENTIRITY or veto it in its ENTIRITY.
}
}Vetoing the ENTIRE budget would have shut down the ENTIRE government
}causing the military to be defunded and leaving the United States
}vulnerable to foreign threats. This action would also have likely
}created a global depression as we would have defaulted on debt
}obligations and unstablized global money markets. The Congress would
}have to (rightly) move to impeachment proceedings. By vetoing the
}entire budget, Reagan or any president, would cause massive security and
}economic disasters. Signing the Congressional budget is not an
}option. It is the equivalent of having someone hold a gun to your head
}and tell you to sign a blank cheque.
}
Funny - Reagan vetoed the "entire budget" in November of 1981,
and none of the dire consequences you predicted happened. Why
is that, do you think?
Could it just be that Odell is - gasp - *wrong*?
Mitchell Holman
"Iran is the strangest collection of looney tunes and squalid criminals since the Third Reich".
Ronald Reagan, just prior to selling weapons to that same Iran in the Iran/Contra deal.
Mitchell Holman
In article <6bamof$o...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, od...@usa.net wrote:
}
}
}U.S. Constitution. Article 1, section 8. CONGRESS is responsible for
}the debt. Plain black and white fact.
}
}Kettle/pot Mr. Weasel. Article 1, section 8.
}
}U.S. Constitution. Article 1, section 8. Congress is accountable for
}debt. Period.
}
}Article 1, section 8. You're toast.
Article 1, section 7. The president can veto any budget sent to him.
Specifically:
"Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate
and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of
Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and
before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being
disapproved by him, shall be re-passed by two thirds of the Senate and
House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed
in the Case of a Bill."
Truth hurts, don't it, Odell................
Mitchell Holman
"Inexperienced youth cannot produce enough of value to make
it worthwhile for employers to pay them the full minimum wage"
Ronald Reagan, arguing for a reduction in the minimum wage in
his budget message to Congress. April 1983