***GORE IS TRYING TO STEAL THE ELECTION***
Czar Christopher I
:
: I seriously hope no one is surprised.
:
: **OF COURSE** he will steal it if he can't win it fairly. There is
: "no controlling legal authority" on votes for Buchananan.
Watching you writhe in agony trying to justify an electoral college
victory as morally superior while the Florida recount threatens to
erase even that is some of the best entertainment I've had in months.
And hell, I *want* Bush to win.
--
Czar Christopher I rec.sport.football.college
"I consider myself a hardy veteran of the USENET wars, but this
particular newsgroup has to be the most cliquish and inaccessible
of all. It's even ahead of rec.sport.basketball.pro" --Chad Scott
Arthur Miller
>
> Sn0rky <5n0...@here1is.com> wrote:
> :
> : I seriously hope no one is surprised.
> :
> : **OF COURSE** he will steal it if he can't win it fairly. There is
> : "no controlling legal authority" on votes for Buchananan.
>
> Watching you writhe in agony trying to justify an electoral college
> victory as morally superior while the Florida recount threatens to
> erase even that is some of the best entertainment I've had in months.
>
> And hell, I *want* Bush to win.
Please don't lie.
--
Art Miller
Northwestern '91
John Rogers
<pory...@irevb.arg.invalid>! :
>Sn0rky <5n0...@here1is.com> wrote:
>:
>: I seriously hope no one is surprised.
>:
>: **OF COURSE** he will steal it if he can't win it fairly. There is
>: "no controlling legal authority" on votes for Buchananan.
>
>Watching you writhe in agony trying to justify an electoral college
>victory as morally superior while the Florida recount threatens to
>erase even that is some of the best entertainment I've had in months.
It's not my habit to jump in and defend ol' Snork, but an electoral
college victory IS morally superior because it is constitutional.
Overturning a constitutional electoral college victory utilizing
ambulance chaser tactics is much closer to being "immoral".
John M. Rogers
AU Class of 1985
The Al Del Greco of Atlanta
Vijay Ramanujan
wrote:
> It's not my habit to jump in and defend ol' Snork, but an electoral
> college victory IS morally superior because it is constitutional.
Since when is the constitution a moral guideline? It's a political
guideline. An electoral victory is politically superior one.
> Overturning a constitutional electoral college victory utilizing
> ambulance chaser tactics is much closer to being "immoral".
Huh?
What's going on right now is simple: there are ALWAYS legal challenges
to the vote, especially in Florida. There are ALWAYS elections that
hinge on recounts and investigations. It's just that this is the first
time I know of in which those recounts and investigations affect the
presidential race.
And don't let yourself be tricked into believing one party is whining
and the other just wants to get on with the business of the country. The
Republican party has challenged the recount in Florida (and wants a
complete mechanical recount of a few counties) and doesn't believe the
recent recount is correct. They have also challenged certain practices
(including get out of the vote campaigns) used by volunteers in New
Jersey and Wisconsin.
Both parties have challenged. Both parties always challenge. And the
morally superior victory is the one that reflects an accurate and fair
vote count.
Vijay R.
Czar Christopher I
: Czar Christopher I wrote:
:>
:> :
:> : I seriously hope no one is surprised.
:> :
:> : **OF COURSE** he will steal it if he can't win it fairly. There is
:> : "no controlling legal authority" on votes for Buchananan.
:>
:> Watching you writhe in agony trying to justify an electoral college
:> victory as morally superior while the Florida recount threatens to
:> erase even that is some of the best entertainment I've had in months.
:> And hell, I *want* Bush to win.
:
: Please don't lie.
I'm serious. Gore is a cancer.
Czar Christopher I
: On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 19:04:52 GMT, Czar Christopher I
: <pory...@irevb.arg.invalid>, a conduit of the liberal media, wrote:
: ::
: ::Sn0rky <5n0...@here1is.com> wrote:
: :::
: ::: I seriously hope no one is surprised.
: :::
: ::: **OF COURSE** he will steal it if he can't win it fairly. There is
: ::: "no controlling legal authority" on votes for Buchananan.
: ::
: ::Watching you writhe in agony trying to justify an electoral college
: ::victory as morally superior while the Florida recount threatens to
: ::erase even that is some of the best entertainment I've had in months.
: ::
: ::And hell, I *want* Bush to win.
:
: have always been for the Electoral College. Think about it: it
: dilutes the democracy. Don't you think that's what I'd morally be for
: all along???
If you want to, read what I actually wrote and respond to that. You
apparently misread me.
Czar Christopher I
: Never give up! Never surrender, Czar Christopher I
: <pory...@irevb.arg.invalid>! :
:
:>:
:>: I seriously hope no one is surprised.
:>:
:>: **OF COURSE** he will steal it if he can't win it fairly. There is
:>: "no controlling legal authority" on votes for Buchananan.
:>
:>Watching you writhe in agony trying to justify an electoral college
:>victory as morally superior while the Florida recount threatens to
:>erase even that is some of the best entertainment I've had in months.
:
: college victory IS morally superior because it is constitutional.
: ambulance chaser tactics is much closer to being "immoral".
So, what you're saying is that Harrison over Cleveland and Hayes
over Tilden worked out just as they should have? Because neither
of those guys was able to mount an effective administration. One
of the reasons I want Bush to win Florida, frankly, is because I'd
rather enjoy seeing a Republican president be so hobbled from day
one.
Czar Christopher I
: On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 23:57:09 GMT, Czar Christopher I
: <pory...@irevb.arg.invalid>, a conduit of the liberal media, wrote:
: ::
: ::Sn0rky <5n0...@here1is.com> wrote:
: ::: <pory...@irevb.arg.invalid>, a conduit of the liberal media, wrote:
: ::: ::
: ::: :::
: ::: ::: I seriously hope no one is surprised.
: ::: :::
: ::: ::: **OF COURSE** he will steal it if he can't win it fairly. There is
: ::: ::: "no controlling legal authority" on votes for Buchananan.
: ::: ::
: ::: ::Watching you writhe in agony trying to justify an electoral college
: ::: ::victory as morally superior while the Florida recount threatens to
: ::: ::erase even that is some of the best entertainment I've had in months.
: ::: ::And hell, I *want* Bush to win.
: :::
: ::: Well you are wrong in saying I'm trying to justify the E.C because I
: ::: have always been for the Electoral College. Think about it: it
: ::: dilutes the democracy. Don't you think that's what I'd morally be for
: ::: all along???
: ::
: ::If you want to, read what I actually wrote and respond to that. You
: ::apparently misread me.
: I think you misread me.
I'll take that as, "No, I have no interest in what you really wrote."
Hint: "An electoral college victory" is not the same thing as "the
electoral college."
Jeffrey Davis
Czar Christopher I wrote:
One of the reasons I want Bush to win Florida, frankly, is because I'd
rather enjoy seeing a Republican president be so hobbled from day one.
Bush isn't simply hobbled by a lack of mandate. Or by the poisonous
atmosphere that surrounds the question of fraud in the election in Florida.
Or by his laziness. Or his indifference to issues. Or willingness to play
fast-and-loose ethically. Or his dyslexia. Or his lack of curiosity. Or his
habit of bringing bad luck for the people near him. Or his past problems
like going AWOL, or his DUI, or his potential perjury in the Texas funeral
home case.
He's hobbled by all of them.
Czar Christopher I
Czar Christopher I
: On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:15:02 GMT, Jeffrey Davis
: <jeffk...@earthlink.net>, a conduit of the liberal media, wrote:
: ::
: ::
: ::
: ::Czar Christopher I wrote:
: ::
: ::One of the reasons I want Bush to win Florida, frankly, is because I'd
: ::rather enjoy seeing a Republican president be so hobbled from day one.
: Yet more proof that you'd rather tear the country apart than look
: wrong.
A hobbled Republican president would do far less to tear the country
apart than a politically strong one. Just look at the damage Ronnie
Reagan did. We're *still* not over that.
M1A1Hokie
college football analyst by ABC on Fri, 10 Nov 2000 07:06:51 GMT for
saying:
Wow.. such delusions.
Ronald Reagan will go down in history as one of this country's
greatest presidents of all-time.
================================================================================
Bryan S. Slick
nowSPAM3...@codenet.net
For those who preserve it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.
================================================================================
Czar Christopher I
: Ronald Reagan will go down in history as one of this country's
: greatest presidents of all-time.
You forget that people who weren't around to get all misty-eyed at
his rambling telegenic musings will have only his record to examine.
A record that consists of this:
- Unprecedent growth in the federal debt
- A record number of convictions for executive branch corruption
- The shredding of regulation that led to the S&L and banking scandals
- The shrinking of the American middle class
- The explosion of poverty
- The increased concentration of wealth in the upper class
- Iran/Contra
- The unconscionable support of genocide in El Salvador and Guatemala
- The shredding of environmental protection enforcement
- The creation of open-door policy for corporations wishing to buy
their way out of federal regulation
- "Morning in America" ads
I'm certain that future generations will appreciate the irony in those
ads that you probably loved so much.
M1A1Hokie
saying:
>M1A1Hokie <now3...@codenet.net> wrote:
>
>: Ronald Reagan will go down in history as one of this country's
>: greatest presidents of all-time.
>
>You forget that people who weren't around to get all misty-eyed at
>his rambling telegenic musings will have only his record to examine.
>A record that consists of this:
>
>- Unprecedent growth in the federal debt
>- A record number of convictions for executive branch corruption
>- The shredding of regulation that led to the S&L and banking scandals
>- The shrinking of the American middle class
>- The explosion of poverty
>- The increased concentration of wealth in the upper class
>- Iran/Contra
>- The unconscionable support of genocide in El Salvador and Guatemala
>- The shredding of environmental protection enforcement
>- The creation of open-door policy for corporations wishing to buy
> their way out of federal regulation
>- "Morning in America" ads
>
>I'm certain that future generations will appreciate the irony in those
>ads that you probably loved so much.
>
>--
You have been well-programmed... congratulations(?).
Czar Christopher I
: Czar Christopher I <pory...@irevb.arg.invalid> was hired on as a
: college football analyst by ABC on Fri, 10 Nov 2000 08:45:03 GMT for
: saying:
:
:>M1A1Hokie <now3...@codenet.net> wrote:
:>
:>: Ronald Reagan will go down in history as one of this country's
:>: greatest presidents of all-time.
:>
:>You forget that people who weren't around to get all misty-eyed at
:>his rambling telegenic musings will have only his record to examine.
:>A record that consists of this:
:>
:>- Unprecedent growth in the federal debt
:>- A record number of convictions for executive branch corruption
:>- The shredding of regulation that led to the S&L and banking scandals
:>- The shrinking of the American middle class
:>- The explosion of poverty
:>- The increased concentration of wealth in the upper class
:>- Iran/Contra
:>- The unconscionable support of genocide in El Salvador and Guatemala
:>- The shredding of environmental protection enforcement
:>- The creation of open-door policy for corporations wishing to buy
:> their way out of federal regulation
:>- "Morning in America" ads
:>
:>I'm certain that future generations will appreciate the irony in those
:>ads that you probably loved so much.
: You have been well-programmed... congratulations(?).
Nope. I wuz their. ($1)
Jefferson Glapski
news:jAOO5.58314$mu4....@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
> M1A1Hokie <now3...@codenet.net> wrote:
>
> : Ronald Reagan will go down in history as one of this country's
> : greatest presidents of all-time.
>
> You forget that people who weren't around to get all misty-eyed at
> his rambling telegenic musings will have only his record to examine.
> A record that consists of this:
>
> - Unprecedent growth in the federal debt
Due primarily to refusing to monetize the deficit. The monetary mess was
fixed under Reagan, but credit is due to Volcker and Greenspan.
> - A record number of convictions for executive branch corruption
> - The shredding of regulation that led to the S&L and banking scandals
Bullshit. First, banking remains a highly-regulated industry. Second,
S&Ls would not even EXIST if not for regulations that set up an entire
class of institutions. Third,
> - The shrinking of the American middle class
Measure strictly in terms of wealth, all quintile of Americans have been
getting richer, and what the hell is wrong with that?
> - The explosion of poverty
All quintiles of Americans got wealthier, in terms of actual real
dollars, under Reagan.
> - The increased concentration of wealth in the upper class
Who cares? Seems to me the collectization of agriculture in both the
USSR and China required millions of deaths to execute. Equalization of
wealth does not breed unity.
> - Iran/Contra
Granted.
> - The unconscionable support of genocide in El Salvador and Guatemala
Granted. However, the butchers in Cuba and Nicaraugua were not
supported. They are MUCH greater killers than those in El Salvador and
Guatemala. Guess what? Today El Salvador has become on the the 20 freest
countries on earth. Cuba remains the deadly cesspool where the left
sells their soul and tries to cleanse the blood off of it by screaming
El Salvador. El Salvador could have become free without the butchery of
Duarte and ARENA. The American left should turn off the Clash CD, and
look themselves in the mirror over Cuba and Nicaraugua.
> - The shredding of environmental protection enforcement
Bullshit. This has been an increasing cost under Reagan too. If the
restoration of freedom was actually important, why wouldn't the EPA be
eliminated? Why didn't James Watt continue to be employed?
> - The creation of open-door policy for corporations wishing to buy
> their way out of federal regulation
Could you please name the corporations that are no longer regulated by
the IRS? And how much did this cost? And where is the evidence, since
this is apparently a policy?
> - "Morning in America" ads
Not familiar with these, but ads don't add up to a legacy.
--
Your pla,
Jefferson N. Glapski
as...@hscmail.mcc.virginia.edu wrote "Jefferson Glapski is a steaming
pile of dogshit."
######### ######### #### ####
#### #### #### #### #### ####
#### #### #### #### ####
#### #### #### #### #### ####
#### #### #### #### #### ####
#### #### #### ####
#### #### #### #### ####
#### ######### #########
($1 to Carl Banks)
Mike Masin
>
> Jeffrey Davis <jeffk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> : > Czar Christopher I wrote:
> : >
> : > One of the reasons I want Bush to win Florida, frankly, is because I'd
> : > rather enjoy seeing a Republican president be so hobbled from day one.
> :
> : Bush isn't simply hobbled by a lack of mandate. Or by the poisonous
> : atmosphere that surrounds the question of fraud in the election in Florida.
> : Or by his laziness. Or his indifference to issues. Or willingness to play
> : fast-and-loose ethically. Or his dyslexia. Or his lack of curiosity. Or his
> : habit of bringing bad luck for the people near him. Or his past problems
> : like going AWOL, or his DUI, or his potential perjury in the Texas funeral
> : home case.
> :
> : He's hobbled by all of them.
>
> Pop some popcorn and pull up a chair, folks!
>
theme song will be played on a calliope. Send in the klowns oh don't
bother their here. As a die hard independent I could not, in my wildest
dreams, imagine a more entertaining political situation. For the record
my comments apply no matter who is certified as the next Prez.
Mike Masin
Vijay Ramanujan
now3...@codenet.net wrote:
> You have been well-programmed... congratulations(?).
Translation: you have no point, so even though the Czar has always
spoken his mind and has clearly put much thought into his positions, you
come back with a meaningless attack.
Vijay R.
M1A1Hokie
football analyst by ABC on Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:09:02 GMT for saying:
Actually, no.
The Czar's points are so full of holes that a proper treatise in
response would take upwards of 1,000 lines and some research, an
exercise in which I have no interest.
Thanks for playing,
Vijay Ramanujan
wrote:
> Vijay Ramanujan <vij...@citlink.net> was hired on as a college
> football analyst by ABC on Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:09:02 GMT for saying:
>
> >In article <3a0bc435....@news.earthlink.net>,
> >now3...@codenet.net wrote:
> >
> >> You have been well-programmed... congratulations(?).
> >
> >Translation: you have no point, so even though the Czar has always
> >spoken his mind and has clearly put much thought into his positions, you
> >come back with a meaningless attack.
> >
> >Vijay R.
>
> Actually, no.
>
> The Czar's points are so full of holes that a proper treatise in
> response would take upwards of 1,000 lines and some research, an
> exercise in which I have no interest.
If you have no interest, then why respond? Admit it: you tried for a
zinger and the zinger didn't zing.
Vijay R.
James Schrumpf
says...
>
>In article <3a0bc435....@news.earthlink.net>,
>now3...@codenet.net wrote:
>
>> You have been well-programmed... congratulations(?).
>
>Translation: you have no point, so even though the Czar has always
>spoken his mind and has clearly put much thought into his positions, you
>come back with a meaningless attack.
>
>Vijay R.
C'mon, give Bryan a break. He's already said that he was all of 16 in 1989,
which means he was 7 when Reagan was elected for his first term and all of 15
when he was done.
When I was 7 Kennedy was assassinated and at 15 the Vietnam War (excuse me,
police action) still had 4 years to go before that humiliating stumbling
retreat from the embassy roof in Saigon. I wouldn't call myself an astute
political observer at that time, and neither is Bryan for all his posturing.
He just doesn't realize it yet.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Schrumpf http://www.geocities.com/jaschrumpf
M1A1Hokie
>In article <3a0c8317...@news.earthlink.net>, now3...@codenet.net
>wrote:
>
>> Vijay Ramanujan <vij...@citlink.net> was hired on as a college
>> football analyst by ABC on Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:09:02 GMT for saying:
>>
>> >In article <3a0bc435....@news.earthlink.net>,
>> >now3...@codenet.net wrote:
>> >
>> >> You have been well-programmed... congratulations(?).
>> >
>> >Translation: you have no point, so even though the Czar has always
>> >spoken his mind and has clearly put much thought into his positions, you
>> >come back with a meaningless attack.
>> >
>> >Vijay R.
>>
>> Actually, no.
>>
>> The Czar's points are so full of holes that a proper treatise in
>> response would take upwards of 1,000 lines and some research, an
>> exercise in which I have no interest.
>
>If you have no interest, then why respond? Admit it: you tried for a
>zinger and the zinger didn't zing.
>
>Vijay R.
Well, for one thing, I'm rather tired of Reagan being consistently
torn down by left-wing bleeding-heart liberals with some desperate
need to show that he was an ineffective or corrupt President. He was
neither.
Reagan defeated the Soviets in the Cold War.
Reagan got the Berlin Wall down.
Reagan turned the country around economically, just as he said he
would. The effects did not take full effect until around 1992-1993
(just as he said it would take quite some time for trickle-down to
work), just in time for Clinton to take credit for something he had
absolutely nothing to do with.
Reagan instilled a pride in being American again, recovering the
country from the destruction unleashed upon it by Mr. Peanut.
Reagan did bad things, too.. Iran/Contra not the least of them... but
there are many things done behind closed doors by our government...
and many times we're probably better off not knowing what they are.
If you truly study Iran/Contra, you'll find, I believe, that the U.S.'
actions, while not saintly, were not wholly detrimental, either.
There are way too many people ready to castrate this country, to make
us feel that we should be ashamed for being what we are: the greatest
assemblage in the history of mankind. 99% of those fucks are
Democrats... sue me for not liking them, primarily for that reason.
Jim Weeks
>Vijay Ramanujan <vij...@citlink.net> was hired on as a college
>football analyst by ABC on Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:09:02 GMT for saying:
>
>>In article <3a0bc435....@news.earthlink.net>,
>>now3...@codenet.net wrote:
>>
>>> You have been well-programmed... congratulations(?).
>>
>>Translation: you have no point, so even though the Czar has always
>>spoken his mind and has clearly put much thought into his positions, you
>>come back with a meaningless attack.
>>
>>Vijay R.
>
>Actually, no.
>
>The Czar's points are so full of holes that a proper treatise in
>response would take upwards of 1,000 lines and some research, an
>exercise in which I have no interest.
>
>
paraphrasing..
"I'm taking my toys and going home"
Jim Weeks
Czar Christopher I
: Reagan defeated the Soviets in the Cold War.
No.
: Reagan got the Berlin Wall down.
No.
: Reagan turned the country around economically, just as he said he
: would. The effects did not take full effect until around 1992-1993
: (just as he said it would take quite some time for trickle-down to
: work), just in time for Clinton to take credit for something he had
: absolutely nothing to do with.
The Fed.
: Reagan instilled a pride in being American again, recovering the
: country from the destruction unleashed upon it by Mr. Peanut.
Not even close. Never was it so embarrassing to be American as it
was during the Reagan years. Our government was openly supporting
nun-killers, for God's sake! At least under Carter, our foreign
policy was something that others in the world could point to as
principled.
: There are way too many people ready to castrate this country, to make
: us feel that we should be ashamed for being what we are: the greatest
: assemblage in the history of mankind. 99% of those fucks are
: Democrats... sue me for not liking them, primarily for that reason.
Your point-of-view is narrow and somewhat frightening. I'll put it
this way: someone who loves his country enough to try to make it better
displays more pride than someone who uses his power for the personal
benefit of his cronies while repeating patriotic homilies. One of the
most devastating effects of Reagan's presidency is that he convinced
so many guys like you that he was sincere. If he was, he was mind-
numbingly stupid.
Andre Ervin
wrote:
> There are way too many people ready to castrate this country, to make
> us feel that we should be ashamed for being what we are: the greatest
> assemblage in the history of mankind. 99% of those fucks are
> Democrats... sue me for not liking them, primarily for that reason.
You know, Slick, I have major issues with the rest of what you wrote,
but this is just over the top. I think Republicans' ideas are not as
good for the country as Democrats', but I damn sure don't *hate* them
for it. (Insert obligatory "I pity Repubs 'cause they're cluefucks"
joke here.)
But being ashamed to be an American? Are you fscking *KIDDING* me??? I
can only be proud to be an American if I overlook all the misguided
things this country (and it's leaders) have done? If I (or others)
don't say anything about all the injustices in our system? Give me a
break. I'm not ashamed of my country, but it is *FAR* from perfect, and
we would be remiss as a people if we did nothing about it. Cripes, the
fact that we have this big election "mess" right now, and that people
like you and me can express frustration with the other political
parties, AND WITH THEIR OWN, that's the mark of a great country.
Happy Veteran's Day. Dammit.
--
dre
Vijay Ramanujan
> Well, for one thing, I'm rather tired of Reagan being consistently
> torn down by left-wing bleeding-heart liberals with some desperate
> need to show that he was an ineffective or corrupt President. He was
> neither.
I'm rather tired of Reagan being built up consistently by right-wing
conservatives with desperate need to pretend he was an effective and
honest President. His entire administration (top down) was thoroughly
corrupt (have you even read the details of Iran Contra?).
> Reagan defeated the Soviets in the Cold War.
Mikhail Gorbachev says hi.
> Reagan got the Berlin Wall down.
Even Reagan, when he called for its removal, acknowledged that there was
someone with more power in that arena than he. Mikhail Gorbachev.
> Reagan turned the country around economically, just as he said he
> would. The effects did not take full effect until around 1992-1993
> (just as he said it would take quite some time for trickle-down to
> work), just in time for Clinton to take credit for something he had
> absolutely nothing to do with.
Absolute nonsense. If we had been in a recession until 2065 you'd have
said it was the fruition of Reaganomics. If the expansion hit on Jan 21,
1981 you'd have said it was Reaganomics.
> Reagan instilled a pride in being American again, recovering the
> country from the destruction unleashed upon it by Mr. Peanut.
Pride. Yes. He did a great job of raising the country's confidence and
pride.
> Reagan did bad things, too.. Iran/Contra not the least of them... but
> there are many things done behind closed doors by our government...
> and many times we're probably better off not knowing what they are.
> If you truly study Iran/Contra, you'll find, I believe, that the U.S.'
> actions, while not saintly, were not wholly detrimental, either.
I have read it and studied it and I completely disagree. I don't
subscribe to the ideology that says that America has the right or
obligation to sacrifice the lives of countless thousands of innocent
foreigners in a crusade against a philosophy we disagree with. The
government we supported in Nicaragua was the remnant of a violent and
oppressive system. That they were fighting an equally bad government did
not justify the waste of lives and money. Ditto El Salvador.
> There are way too many people ready to castrate this country, to make
> us feel that we should be ashamed for being what we are: the greatest
> assemblage in the history of mankind. 99% of those fucks are
> Democrats... sue me for not liking them, primarily for that reason.
So, let me get this right: if I were to say something bad about America
- be it true or untrue or just an opinion - that would make me a fuck.
If so, then you espouse a jingoistic ideology I find repulsive and
dangerous.
Vijay R.
Mark
> M1A1Hokie <now3...@codenet.net> wrote:
>
> : Reagan defeated the Soviets in the Cold War.
>
> No.
This is open to interpretation, of course, but if anyone can take credit
for it, it is Reagan.
>
>
> : Reagan got the Berlin Wall down.
>
> No.
Ditto.
>
>
> : Reagan turned the country around economically, just as he said he
> : would. The effects did not take full effect until around 1992-1993
> : (just as he said it would take quite some time for trickle-down to
> : work), just in time for Clinton to take credit for something he had
> : absolutely nothing to do with.
>
> The Fed.
Without Reagan's "get the government off our backs" philosophy, without his
"give the people some of their money back" philosophy, the fed would have
had no tools to work with. How interesting it is that the economy was
picking up and the deficit dwindling by 1993, before Clinton had ever
submitted a budget proposal to Congress. Again, if there is credit to be
taken, Reagan is the one who has the greatest claim.
>
>
> : Reagan instilled a pride in being American again, recovering the
> : country from the destruction unleashed upon it by Mr. Peanut.
>
> Not even close. Never was it so embarrassing to be American as it
> was during the Reagan years. Our government was openly supporting
> nun-killers, for God's sake! At least under Carter, our foreign
> policy was something that others in the world could point to as
> principled.
This is entirely a matter of opinion. I am infinitely more embarrassed by
the actions of the current administration than I ever was by Reagan's.
I'll give you your nun-killer support in exchange for the current
baby-killer support. As for Carter's foreign policy, only those who could
decipher it, and those would be few, would call it principled.
>
>
> : There are way too many people ready to castrate this country, to make
> : us feel that we should be ashamed for being what we are: the greatest
> : assemblage in the history of mankind. 99% of those fucks are
> : Democrats... sue me for not liking them, primarily for that reason.
>
> Your point-of-view is narrow and somewhat frightening. I'll put it
> this way: someone who loves his country enough to try to make it better
> displays more pride than someone who uses his power for the personal
> benefit of his cronies while repeating patriotic homilies. One of the
> most devastating effects of Reagan's presidency is that he convinced
> so many guys like you that he was sincere. If he was, he was mind-
> numbingly stupid.
So, you think Reagan did not love his country and did not want to make it
better? I guess you think Democrats are the only ones who have these
traits. If Reagan was able to convince so many people of his sincerity
(which he did), convince them that his policies were good ones (which he
did), and also bolster national pride (which he did) without truly being
sincere, then he was far more intelligent than people give him credit for.
In fact, that would make him even smarter than Clinton. He was either
extraordinarily intelligent (and devious) or sincere about his beliefs.
How else could you explain the massive amount of support he garnered.
Mark
Jeffrey Davis
>
> Czar Christopher I wrote:
>
> >
> > : Reagan defeated the Soviets in the Cold War.
> >
> > No.
>
> This is open to interpretation, of course, but if anyone can take credit
> for it, it is Reagan.
And Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy,
Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush, as well as millions of other hard
working Americans, English, French, Italians, Germans, Poles, Czechs,
Bulgarians, Romanians, Russians, Ukrainians, Etc.
And, oh yeah. Lech Walesa says Hey.
--
Jeffrey Davis <jeffk...@earthlink.net>
The John Dortmunder of Lexington, Ky
bkrrrrr
>I'll give you your nun-killer support in exchange for the current
>baby-killer support.
Did i miss the baby-killing again? Damb! Was it on TV?
--
bkr
CF++++;TK++;TPI++;A++;
angel...@my-deja.com wrote: "This group is evil...there are mostly
bottom feeders and losers with no lives here...I will no longer be a
part of a board that has so many of Satan's Minions on it..."
Mark
> In article <3a0ceb3a...@news.earthlink.net>, now3...@codenet.net
> wrote:
>
> > Well, for one thing, I'm rather tired of Reagan being consistently
> > torn down by left-wing bleeding-heart liberals with some desperate
> > need to show that he was an ineffective or corrupt President. He was
> > neither.
>
> I'm rather tired of Reagan being built up consistently by right-wing
> conservatives with desperate need to pretend he was an effective and
> honest President. His entire administration (top down) was thoroughly
> corrupt (have you even read the details of Iran Contra?).
He was no more corrupt than some of his contemporaries and he was more
effective. "Thoroughly corrupt" is an exaggeration, by any standard.
>
>
> > Reagan defeated the Soviets in the Cold War.
>
> Mikhail Gorbachev says hi.
>
> > Reagan got the Berlin Wall down.
>
> Even Reagan, when he called for its removal, acknowledged that there was
> someone with more power in that arena than he. Mikhail Gorbachev.
First of all, the unstated comparison here is Reagan vs. other presidents.
If there was a Cold War, then Reagan gets credit for winning it. Second,
Gorbachev obviously had more influence on Soviet policy, by definition.
However, it was Reagan's influence and policies that instigated the fall of
the Wall. You admit as much yourself by saying Reagan called for its
removal. What other western leader had the support, influence, and power to
make such a statement? Reagan didn't attain that level by accident.
>
>
> > Reagan turned the country around economically, just as he said he
> > would. The effects did not take full effect until around 1992-1993
> > (just as he said it would take quite some time for trickle-down to
> > work), just in time for Clinton to take credit for something he had
> > absolutely nothing to do with.
>
> Absolute nonsense. If we had been in a recession until 2065 you'd have
> said it was the fruition of Reaganomics. If the expansion hit on Jan 21,
> 1981 you'd have said it was Reaganomics.
Stick to the facts. What the country needed in the '80's was what Reagan
offered. It did not need more futile tax and spend policies to rescue the
poor at the cost of sabotaging progress for others. It needed a shot in the
arm and an overall pro-entrepreneur philosophy. You can argue that it was
all coincidence, but the facts indicate otherwise. In any case, I think it
is entirely safe to say that Clinton deserves no credit whatsoever for our
current economic state.
Mark