hal wrote:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:59:54 -0800, dave wrote:

.... tHe_PC_JelLlLy BeAn!! .! !!! . wrote:
....just sayin'....
You heard it here first!

That would be a juicy final nail in the GOP coffin. Old Ev Dirksen must
be spinnin' in his grave.

The GOP running Palin again ????

BWWWHWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAA !!!!!!!!!!


Precisely the reaction heard from your party in 1978, when Reagan stated
his intention to run.

JG

John Galt wrote:


Precisely the reaction heard from your party in 1978, when Reagan stated
his intention to run.

JG

As a libertarian socialist I, by definition, am an NP.

At least Reagan could speak English. And his tenure was a disaster,
BTW. You are still paying off his blunders and plunders.

dave wrote:
John Galt wrote:


Precisely the reaction heard from your party in 1978, when Reagan
stated his intention to run.

JG

As a libertarian socialist I, by definition, am an NP.

At least Reagan could speak English. And his tenure was a disaster,
BTW. You are still paying off his blunders and plunders.

He was indeed a disaster for anyone who believes that larger government
represents some sort of solution to the ills of man.

As to your opinion of his tenure, the consensus of professional
historians and scholars differs from yours. I prefer to agree with the
more scholarly analysis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...tes_Presidents

JG

On Nov 12, 11:05*am, John Galt wrote:
dave wrote:
John Galt wrote:

Precisely the reaction heard from your party in 1978, when Reagan
stated his intention to run.

JG

As a libertarian socialist I, by definition, am an NP.

At least Reagan could speak English. *And his tenure was a disaster,
BTW. *You are still paying off his blunders and plunders.

He was indeed a disaster for anyone who believes that larger government
represents some sort of solution to the ills of man.

As to your opinion of his tenure, the consensus of professional
historians and scholars differs from yours. I prefer to agree with the
more scholarly analysis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...ted_States_Pre...

JG

He was certainly a disaster for anyone who thinks that a multitrillion
dollar national debt - in 1986 dollars - was a thing worth avoiding.
Likewise, a disaster for anyone who feels that a clean environment is
superior to a filthy one.

Yes, he faced down the Soviets using (some would say abusing) the
superior GDP of the US. At the time, a big deal. Historically, of
somewhat less importance, and not without long-term ramifications.

Bruce Jensen

On Nov 12, 12:27*pm, bpnjensen wrote:
On Nov 12, 11:05*am, John Galt wrote:



dave wrote:
John Galt wrote:

Precisely the reaction heard from your party in 1978, when Reagan
stated his intention to run.

JG

As a libertarian socialist I, by definition, am an NP.

At least Reagan could speak English. *And his tenure was a disaster,
BTW. *You are still paying off his blunders and plunders.

He was indeed a disaster for anyone who believes that larger government
represents some sort of solution to the ills of man.

As to your opinion of his tenure, the consensus of professional
historians and scholars differs from yours. I prefer to agree with the
more scholarly analysis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...ted_States_Pre...

JG

He was certainly a disaster for anyone who thinks that a multitrillion
dollar national debt - in 1986 dollars - was a thing worth avoiding.
Likewise, a disaster for anyone who feels that a clean environment is
superior to a filthy one.

- Yes, he faced down the Soviets using (some would say abusing) the
- superior GDP of the US. *At the time, a big deal. *Historically, of
- somewhat less importance, and not without long-term ramifications.
-
- Bruce Jensen

Using GDP as a Weapon of War -or- Using Guns,
Bullets and Nuclear Bombs in a War . . .

gee - i vote for 'gdp' ~ RHF

? Is a Superior GDP a 'bad' thing ?
-note- China [PRC] doesn't think so . . .

? Are Jobs, Products and Services 'bad' things ?
-note- China [PRC] doesn't think so . . .

? Are Small Businesses, Family Homes and
Personal Wealth 'bad' things ?
-note- China [PRC] doesn't think so . . .

On Nov 12, 11:05*am, John Galt wrote:
dave wrote:
John Galt wrote:

Precisely the reaction heard from your party in 1978, when Reagan
stated his intention to run.

JG

As a libertarian socialist I, by definition, am an NP.

At least Reagan could speak English. *And his tenure was a disaster,
BTW. *You are still paying off his blunders and plunders.

He was indeed a disaster for anyone who believes that larger government
represents some sort of solution to the ills of man.

As to your opinion of his tenure, the consensus of professional
historians and scholars differs from yours. I prefer to agree with the
more scholarly analysis:

Historical Rankings of United States Presidents
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...tes_Presidents
-
- JG

Interesting as to what "The Scholars Think";
and what "the ordinary people's opinion" was
of these US Presidents.

On Nov 13, 5:40*am, RHF wrote:
On Nov 12, 11:05*am, John Galt wrote:



dave wrote:
John Galt wrote:

Precisely the reaction heard from your party in 1978, when Reagan
stated his intention to run.

JG

As a libertarian socialist I, by definition, am an NP.

At least Reagan could speak English. *And his tenure was a disaster,
BTW. *You are still paying off his blunders and plunders.

He was indeed a disaster for anyone who believes that larger government
represents some sort of solution to the ills of man.

As to your opinion of his tenure, the consensus of professional
historians and scholars differs from yours. I prefer to agree with the
more scholarly analysis:

Historical Rankings of United States Presidents
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Pre...
-
- JG

Interesting as to what "The Scholars Think";
and what "the ordinary people's opinion" was
of these US Presidents.
*.

Real scholars do not use Wikipedia.

Hudley Pearse

On Nov 13, 3:05*am, John Galt wrote:

As to your opinion of his tenure, the consensus of professional
historians and scholars differs from yours. I prefer to agree with the
more scholarly analysis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...ted_States_Pre...

JG

Any fool/believer in voodoo economics can call themself an historian.

Hudley Pearse