|
|
Telamon wrote:
In article , longwave wrote: Telamon wrote: In article , John Barnard wrote: Go back and take a look at history, Telamon. Eastern Europeans have a history of standing up to the Russians. Budapest in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 come to mind and it was a shame that the USA decided to abandon those countries and do nothing. The Solidarity revolution was a Polish revolution which had NOTHING AT ALL to do with Reagan or the USA. Brenda Ann quite rightly pointed out that the Poles and the East Germans stood up to the Russians of their own accord. Poland, out of all the Eastern European block, has always had the stones to fight back a little and retain some measure of autonomy. I've always liked Reagan but he sure as hell didn't have anything to do with the Solidarity revolution. Sorry go back and read it yourself. We outspent Russia in the arms race bankrupting them. When Russia lost the arms race Gorby negotiated the current state of affairs with Reagan. That's why things changed. The Polish Solidarity was a help but not the reason. Besides Reagan gave aid and assistance to the Solidarity union and other opposition groups in eastern europe. Neither you nor anyone else can pull this revisionist bull**** on me. I saw this happen in real time. You saw what you wanted to see. No single president should get the credit for winning the arms race. We outspent the USSR for more than forty years. Every president since Truman contributed to the ultimate collapse of the USSR. Reagan happened to be president when the end came. How can you say that I saw what I wanted to see? No one knew how things were going to turn out. Stinking Liberals were calling Reagan an out of control cowboy "Ronald Ray Guns" because they though he would start WW3 confronting the Russians. Reagan built up the military and forced the Russians into bankruptcy trying to keep up. The eastern europeans saw their chance to throw off the yoke of communism with the Russians in their weakened state. I meant you see it now how you want to see it. There was never any guarantee that confronting the Russians would not start WW3. Reagan was fortunate to have a counterpart in the Soviet Union (Gorbechev) who was willing to negotiate honestly. If it had been a hard liner like Stalin, he would have laughed in Reagan's face, no matter how much we spent on defense. Reagan didn't just "happen to be there." He had a sense of destiny and a job to do that took guts facing down the Russians and the left wing in this country like Kerry that just wanted to give up and negotiate with the Russians from a weak position. You are right that it did not start with Reagan but he did finnish it. If Kennedy was not assassinated he might have done it but Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter didn't do it. Clinton would not have done it either. All of those presidents continued the nation's commitment to stand up against communism but they couldn't have caused the collapse of the USSR during their presidency because the Russians were still too strong to be bankrupted by an increase in our defense budget. Reagan came along at a time when the USSR was experiencing serious domestic problems both economic and political, mainly caused by the war in Afghanistan, which turned out to be their 'Vietnam'. Through will and conviction he challenged the Russians forcing them to focus on us in the arms race. It was world class poker game and Reagan didn't bluff. The Russians finally ran out of money with a economy that could not keep up with ours. Weakened from the effort they gave up the hold they had on eastern europe since WW2 and the cold war was basically ended. The Russian's finally ran out of money after decades of the cold war, not just the Reagan years. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Curmudgeon wrote: On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:46:59 -0400, dxAce wrote: David wrote: Your average American lives in a big fantasy construct and has a very inaccurate idea of what is really happening. This is the way they are nurtured and trained from a very early age. Luckily, I am wired differently and can see the machine. Yep, you Liberal's are just sooooo much smarter than anyone else. Where did he say he was smarter? He didn't, 'tard. I was making an observation. You do understand that, don't you, 'tard? |
I'm not a liberal. I am a wide-awake Patriot.
I don't if I'm smarter than you. But I did learn to observe objectively in High School from a really excellent old-school journalism teacher. If you watch TV for the news, you are brainwashed and should not be allowed to vote. On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:46:59 -0400, dxAce wrote: David wrote: Your average American lives in a big fantasy construct and has a very inaccurate idea of what is really happening. This is the way they are nurtured and trained from a very early age. Luckily, I am wired differently and can see the machine. Yep, you Liberal's are just sooooo much smarter than anyone else. Boggling! |
Curmudgeon wrote: On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 06:30:19 -0400, dxAce wrote: Curmudgeon wrote: On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:46:59 -0400, dxAce wrote: David wrote: Your average American lives in a big fantasy construct and has a very inaccurate idea of what is really happening. This is the way they are nurtured and trained from a very early age. Luckily, I am wired differently and can see the machine. Yep, you Liberal's are just sooooo much smarter than anyone else. Where did he say he was smarter? He didn't, 'tard. I was making an observation. You do understand that, don't you, 'tard? And you did understand this, didn't you? If he appears smarter than you to you it is probably because you are one of those average Americans he was talking about. Try not to think about it too much Stevie. Your thought capabilities are obviously limited. And you just keep on doing what you do best, not thinking at all! See ya, 'tard. |
Where has Bryant gone?
"dxAce" wrote in message ... Curmudgeon wrote: On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 06:30:19 -0400, dxAce wrote: Curmudgeon wrote: On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:46:59 -0400, dxAce wrote: David wrote: Your average American lives in a big fantasy construct and has a very inaccurate idea of what is really happening. This is the way they are nurtured and trained from a very early age. Luckily, I am wired differently and can see the machine. Yep, you Liberal's are just sooooo much smarter than anyone else. Where did he say he was smarter? He didn't, 'tard. I was making an observation. You do understand that, don't you, 'tard? And you did understand this, didn't you? If he appears smarter than you to you it is probably because you are one of those average Americans he was talking about. Try not to think about it too much Stevie. Your thought capabilities are obviously limited. And you just keep on doing what you do best, not thinking at all! See ya, 'tard. |
mrhangster wrote: Where has Bryant gone? My guess is he's on holiday before the summer session starts at his school. "dxAce" wrote in message ... Curmudgeon wrote: On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 06:30:19 -0400, dxAce wrote: Curmudgeon wrote: On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:46:59 -0400, dxAce wrote: David wrote: Your average American lives in a big fantasy construct and has a very inaccurate idea of what is really happening. This is the way they are nurtured and trained from a very early age. Luckily, I am wired differently and can see the machine. Yep, you Liberal's are just sooooo much smarter than anyone else. Where did he say he was smarter? He didn't, 'tard. I was making an observation. You do understand that, don't you, 'tard? And you did understand this, didn't you? If he appears smarter than you to you it is probably because you are one of those average Americans he was talking about. Try not to think about it too much Stevie. Your thought capabilities are obviously limited. And you just keep on doing what you do best, not thinking at all! See ya, 'tard. |
Curmudgeon wrote: On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 17:06:16 -0400, "mrhangster" wrote: Where has Bryant gone? After enduring weeks of off topic spam posted by the entities known as Steve Lare and Michael Bryant several complaints were sent to Stevie's service provider by several individuals in this newsgroup. The next day both Mikey and Stevie mysteriously stopped spamming the group. Steve posted a bunch of test messages as N8KDV to make sure his posting ability was still intact as did Mikey but the spam stopped. Stevie has since resumed posting but he now is much more respectful toward the users of this group because he knows that he will lose his internet access if he so much as posts anything that remotely resembles spam. Mikey, on the other hand never resumed spamming the group and stopped posting all together The general consensus is that Michael Bryant and Steve Lare were one in the same person. Steve knows that the masquerade is over and doesn't want any more problems so he has retired the Michael Bryant character. I am keeping an eye on Lare and if he steps out of line he will get another SPNAKING. Up your ass, cocksucker! My service might just be watching you, 'tard! |
dxAce wrote: Curmudgeon wrote: On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 17:06:16 -0400, "mrhangster" wrote: Where has Bryant gone? After enduring weeks of off topic spam posted by the entities known as Steve Lare and Michael Bryant several complaints were sent to Stevie's service provider by several individuals in this newsgroup. The next day both Mikey and Stevie mysteriously stopped spamming the group. Steve posted a bunch of test messages as N8KDV to make sure his posting ability was still intact as did Mikey but the spam stopped. Stevie has since resumed posting but he now is much more respectful toward the users of this group because he knows that he will lose his internet access if he so much as posts anything that remotely resembles spam. Mikey, on the other hand never resumed spamming the group and stopped posting all together The general consensus is that Michael Bryant and Steve Lare were one in the same person. Steve knows that the masquerade is over and doesn't want any more problems so he has retired the Michael Bryant character. I am keeping an eye on Lare and if he steps out of line he will get another SPNAKING. Up your ass, cocksucker! How was that for some 'respect' 'tard? |
In article ,
longwave wrote: Telamon wrote: In article , longwave wrote: Telamon wrote: In article , John Barnard wrote: Go back and take a look at history, Telamon. Eastern Europeans have a history of standing up to the Russians. Budapest in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 come to mind and it was a shame that the USA decided to abandon those countries and do nothing. The Solidarity revolution was a Polish revolution which had NOTHING AT ALL to do with Reagan or the USA. Brenda Ann quite rightly pointed out that the Poles and the East Germans stood up to the Russians of their own accord. Poland, out of all the Eastern European block, has always had the stones to fight back a little and retain some measure of autonomy. I've always liked Reagan but he sure as hell didn't have anything to do with the Solidarity revolution. Sorry go back and read it yourself. We outspent Russia in the arms race bankrupting them. When Russia lost the arms race Gorby negotiated the current state of affairs with Reagan. That's why things changed. The Polish Solidarity was a help but not the reason. Besides Reagan gave aid and assistance to the Solidarity union and other opposition groups in eastern europe. Neither you nor anyone else can pull this revisionist bull**** on me. I saw this happen in real time. You saw what you wanted to see. No single president should get the credit for winning the arms race. We outspent the USSR for more than forty years. Every president since Truman contributed to the ultimate collapse of the USSR. Reagan happened to be president when the end came. How can you say that I saw what I wanted to see? No one knew how things were going to turn out. Stinking Liberals were calling Reagan an out of control cowboy "Ronald Ray Guns" because they though he would start WW3 confronting the Russians. Reagan built up the military and forced the Russians into bankruptcy trying to keep up. The eastern europeans saw their chance to throw off the yoke of communism with the Russians in their weakened state. I meant you see it now how you want to see it. There was never any guarantee that confronting the Russians would not start WW3. Reagan was fortunate to have a counterpart in the Soviet Union (Gorbechev) who was willing to negotiate honestly. If it had been a hard liner like Stalin, he would have laughed in Reagan's face, no matter how much we spent on defense. I see things the way they are not how I want to see them no matter how strongly I feel about something. My emotions do not influence my internal view of reality to the point that I do not recognize the facts of a situation. The discussion now departs from the actual past but I would have to speculate that the outcome of Reagans efforts would remain unchanged if a hard liner like Stalin were the Soviet premier at the time because their economy could not keep up with ours. The Russians would fail and their economy collapse regardless of who was in charge. Reagan didn't just "happen to be there." He had a sense of destiny and a job to do that took guts facing down the Russians and the left wing in this country like Kerry that just wanted to give up and negotiate with the Russians from a weak position. You are right that it did not start with Reagan but he did finnish it. If Kennedy was not assassinated he might have done it but Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter didn't do it. Clinton would not have done it either. All of those presidents continued the nation's commitment to stand up against communism but they couldn't have caused the collapse of the USSR during their presidency because the Russians were still too strong to be bankrupted by an increase in our defense budget. Reagan came along at a time when the USSR was experiencing serious domestic problems both economic and political, mainly caused by the war in Afghanistan, which turned out to be their 'Vietnam'. Through will and conviction he challenged the Russians forcing them to focus on us in the arms race. It was world class poker game and Reagan didn't bluff. The Russians finally ran out of money with a economy that could not keep up with ours. Weakened from the effort they gave up the hold they had on eastern europe since WW2 and the cold war was basically ended. The Russian's finally ran out of money after decades of the cold war, not just the Reagan years. Let me put words in your mouth and say that the other presidents or someone else elected in Reagan's place would have accomplished the same thing he did if elected to his term and I believe you to be wrong. Someone else would not have done what he did because they do not have the optimism, conviction and just plain guts it took to face down an evil empire that had thousands of ballistic missiles pointed at us and issue a ultimatum to them that they must acquiesce to a verifiable nuclear reduction treaty or face an escalation that they could not afford. There is no higher stakes poker game than that and we all know who blinked first. Reagan faced great odds in his presidency and navigated this country through many great perils with an optimism and conviction that this is the greatest nation on earth and by the grace of God will preserver; thrive even, in the face of adversity. Reagan is a one of a kind. I have missed hearing from him this last decade and now he is gone forever. You are not likely to come across the sense of humor he had in any other politician. Not likely that you will ever have another president be such a father figure to this country who knows what he wants and how to get it driven by a deep sense of faith and belief in the principles that this country was founded on. He was solid as a rock and a true conservative. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Telamon wrote in message ...
[cut] I've always liked Reagan but he sure as hell didn't have anything to do with the Solidarity revolution. Sorry go back and read it yourself. We outspent Russia in the arms race bankrupting them. When Russia lost the arms race Gorby negotiated the current state of affairs with Reagan. That's why things changed. The Polish Solidarity was a help but not the reason. Besides Reagan gave aid and assistance to the Solidarity union and other opposition groups in eastern europe. Actually the funny thing is that both of you are right. CIA with help of Vaticano bank did sepnt enormous sum of money in order to help Solidarity. However, nobody has any idea what happened to this money. Solidarity leaders usually say that they never received any real help, and there is BIG suspicion that most of that help disappeared during the operation and only tiny sum finally reached people needing it. Saying that, i must say that many in Poland are now honouring the president Reagan. Not that he singlehandly won Cold War (the pope + Lech Walesa and few other people could disagree) but he was on the greatest factors in speeding the USSR collapse. |
"Curmudgeon" wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 17:06:16 -0400, "mrhangster" Michael Bryant and Steve Lare were one in the same person. Kinda new here arent ya? Not very bright either. |
"Reagan Chose Hilltop Burial Site Himself"
U.S. National - AP via YAHHO! News Fri Jun 11,10:34 PM ET "I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life." - Ronald W. Reagan * The burial and memorial site is located on the southwestern end of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, which was built on a hilltop that offers panoramic views of a farm valley and the distant Pacific Ocean. "The journey has not been just my own, It seems I have been guided by a force much larger than myself, a force made up of ideas and beliefs about what this country is and what it could be." - Ronald W. Reagan * The casket was to be buried west of the curved wall facing the Pacific Ocean. * The memorial site is open to visitors to the 100-acre presidential library and museum. ~ RHF .. .. = = = (RHF) wrote in message = = = . com... = = = (Diverd4777) wrote in message = = = ... In article 40c5d97b.13757896@chupacabra, Groom Lake writes: What about the betrayal of his fellow actors in the SAG when he snitched them out to the HUAC? - Point !! he was enamored of the left, until they tried to bully him; serious intimidation I recall Bad Move; But that's how they used to work he never liked anything but right center after that.. FO&A, The identification of Communist Party Members and Spy Cells within the Hollywood Community and the Movie Industry was the DUTY of Every American Citizen Who Loved their Country and wanted to Stop the Communist. These same Communist who supported the USSR and Stalin against their own country and wanted the Violent Overthrow of the US Government. Ronald W. Reagan 'did' the "Right Thing" as an American Citizen. Now Go Do... The Right Thing ~ RHF .. |
|
Ronald Reagan. The man who defeated Soviet Communism (no wonder liberals hate him). May he rest in peace. (snip) First of all, Reagan didn't defeat the USSR. Instead, he severely weakened our relationship with our European allies, and that was the real key to the events that followed. His endless rhetoric, his decision to place even more nuclear weapons in Europe, his attack on Libya, his rhetorical threats towards France following that attack on Libia, and a number of other questionable actions, convinced many in Europe the Russians were not all that bad in comparison. As a result, it was the efforts by European leaders to reach out to the Russians, such as decisions by France and Germany to help Russia build an oil pipeline to Europe and England's decision to increase trade with Russia, that truly caused Russian leaders to rethink their positions. As others have pointed out, there were certainly other factors influencing Russia's decision (declining economy. political unrest, and so on), but these alone would not have, and had not in the past, caused Russia to change. The key ingredient, missing in the past, was a shift in European thinking. And that shift was caused by a widespread rejection of Reagan's war mongering attitudes - attitudes that were a throw-back to the early days of the cold war and, like Reagan himself, very much out of place in the world at that time. Stewart |
In article . net,
"Dwight Stewart" wrote: Ronald Reagan. The man who defeated Soviet Communism (no wonder liberals hate him). May he rest in peace. (snip) First of all, Reagan didn't defeat the USSR. Snip If anyone is looking for proof of that an alternate universe exists here it is. The best that can be said about you is that at least you had the decency to wait until he was buried to denigrate him. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
"Telamon" wrote: (snip) The best that can be said about you is that at least you had the decency to wait until he was buried to denigrate him. The truth doesn't denigrate. I was there at the time to see that shift in European thinking. And, by leaving this country not long before Reagan took office and returning not long after he left, I was also able to more clearly see what eight years of his presidency had done to this country. I returned to see homeless people in the streets of even small towns (something I had rarely seen outside the larger cities before), violent crime like I had never seen before, stagnated wages for workers (most were earning no more than when I left), sharply increased prices for most everything, shocking corporate greed, jobs moving overseas, a growing immigration problem, a declining military, declining political freedoms, a country growing more politically divided then I had ever seen it before in my lifetime, and so on. In my opinion, anyone who actually thinks Reagan was good for this country doesn't really give a damn about this country. The same could probably be said of Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush Jr. Each have taken this country to a new low. Stewart |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message ink.net... First of all, Reagan didn't defeat the USSR. Instead, he severely weakened our relationship with our European allies, and that was the real key to the events that followed. His endless rhetoric, his decision to place even more nuclear weapons in Europe, his attack on Libya, his rhetorical threats towards France following that attack on Libia, and a number of other questionable actions, convinced many in Europe the Russians were not all that bad in comparison. As a result, it was the efforts by European leaders to reach out to the Russians, such as decisions by France and Germany to help Russia build an oil pipeline to Europe and England's decision to increase trade with Russia, that truly caused Russian leaders to rethink their positions. As others have pointed out, there were certainly other factors influencing Russia's decision (declining economy. political unrest, and so on), but these alone would not have, and had not in the past, caused Russia to change. The key ingredient, missing in the past, was a shift in European thinking. And that shift was caused by a widespread rejection of Reagan's war mongering attitudes - attitudes that were a throw-back to the early days of the cold war and, like Reagan himself, very much out of place in the world at that time. Stewart Surely you don't want to confuse the average right wing , slightly fascistic American with an intelligent evaluation of what really happened, especially if it happened out side the borders of the US and Hollywood TV :) Pete |
"-=jd=-" wrote in message ... You weren't the only person who witnessed events unfolding. Fortunately, there were many others who had a much better vantage point to see certain things happening. Things you were obviously blind to. Regardless of your opinion, intent or political leanings, nothing you can say or do can overcome all of the positive accomplishments and the enduring legacy of the man. Of course, even though glowing esteem for the man crosses all political boundaries, I guess there will always be the fringe minority clamoring for attention by either fabrication and/or distortion & spin in their attempts to re-write history as they would prefer it -=jd=- -- It was a time of right-wing lunacy, a time of selling out the country to multinationals, a time of the first feeble-minded president in our lifetime, the beginning of extreme right wing ideology taking control of the Republican party, which had until then been a fairly reasonable, middle-of-the-road party. The US and other countries are still reeping what was sowed by the Reaganites in the 80's. Above all, it was a time when form prevailed over substance, and the American population to a large extent fell for it. Many Americans still believe the lies about less governement, which, of course, is a euphamism for less government for the multinationals, but more government for YOU. Pete |
= = = "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
= = = link.net... Ronald Reagan. The man who defeated Soviet Communism (no wonder liberals hate him). May he rest in peace. (snip) First of all, Reagan didn't defeat the USSR. Instead, he severely weakened our relationship with our European allies, and that was the real key to the events that followed. His endless rhetoric, his decision to place even more nuclear weapons in Europe, his attack on Libya, his rhetorical threats towards France following that attack on Libia, and a number of other questionable actions, convinced many in Europe the Russians were not all that bad in comparison. As a result, it was the efforts by European leaders to reach out to the Russians, such as decisions by France and Germany to help Russia build an oil pipeline to Europe and England's decision to increase trade with Russia, that truly caused Russian leaders to rethink their positions. As others have pointed out, there were certainly other factors influencing Russia's decision (declining economy. political unrest, and so on), but these alone would not have, and had not in the past, caused Russia to change. The key ingredient, missing in the past, was a shift in European thinking. And that shift was caused by a widespread rejection of Reagan's war mongering attitudes - attitudes that were a throw-back to the early days of the cold war and, like Reagan himself, very much out of place in the world at that time. Stewart DS, So you are one "Democrat Party Apologist" and Revisionist for the Anti-American One World Vision of the OWLES. Remember that about 90% of American Citizens relatives turned their BackSides on Europe and other 'foreign' lands for the Promise and Dream of America. I Believe in the Promise and Dream of America and the Global Vision of President Ronald W Reagan for the USofA. Proud to Say: I Am An American ~ RHF .. |
= = = "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
= = = link.net... "Telamon" wrote: (snip) The best that can be said about you is that at least you had the decency to wait until he was buried to denigrate him. The truth doesn't denigrate. I was there at the time to see that shift in European thinking. And, by leaving this country not long before Reagan took office and returning not long after he left, I was also able to more clearly see what eight years of his presidency had done to this country. I returned to see homeless people in the streets of even small towns (something I had rarely seen outside the larger cities before), violent crime like I had never seen before, stagnated wages for workers (most were earning no more than when I left), sharply increased prices for most everything, shocking corporate greed, jobs moving overseas, a growing immigration problem, a declining military, declining political freedoms, a country growing more politically divided then I had ever seen it before in my lifetime, and so on. In my opinion, anyone who actually thinks Reagan was good for this country doesn't really give a damn about this country. The same could probably be said of Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush Jr. Each have taken this country to a new low. Stewart DS, Sounds like you should have stayed "Over There !" As for Me - I Am Glad to be 'right here' in America ~ RHF .. |
As the majority of Americans will agree, I think Pres Reagan was one of the best, if not the very best, President that America has ever had. On the other hand, I can see why so many liberals would hate him. The reason for this is that the liberals oppose all of the decent pro-American things that he stood for. One can't hate America and the ideals of this country without hating Pres Reagan. --James-- |
"-=jd=-" wrote:
You weren't the only person who witnessed events unfolding. Fortunately, there were many others who had a much better vantage point to see certain things happening. Things you were obviously blind to. (snip) I'm not blind to anything. For example, I was able to see you didn't dispute anything I said. Instead, you chose to ignore it all in favor of your own illusions about the man. (snip) Of course, even though glowing esteem for the man crosses all political boundaries, (snip) Polite words, said by the opposition solely to respect his passing, is not glowing esteem. Of course, considering the only ones here offering any resemblance of esteem towards Reagan is his long-time supporters, you should already know that. But, again, you chose to ignore that too in favor of your own illusions about the man. Stewart |
"RHF" wrote: Sounds like you should have stayed "Over There !" As for Me - I Am Glad to be 'right here' in America ~ RHF I'm also glad to be 'right here' in America. However, my employment with this government took me out of the country many times over the last few decades. And, since it gave me a relatively unique perspective of events around the world, I'm glad I had that opportunity to travel and work overseas for extended periods. Stewart |
"James Nipper" wrote in message ... As the majority of Americans will agree, I think Pres Reagan was one of the best, if not the very best, President that America has ever had. On the other hand, I can see why so many liberals would hate him. The reason for this is that the liberals oppose all of the decent pro-American things that he stood for. One can't hate America and the ideals of this country without hating Pres Reagan. --James-- We often wonder how Hitler managed to get into power and convince so many otherwise perfectly normal Germans. Well, this is exactly the kind of thinking that can do that, ie. if someone voices a different opinion, it's anti-American. That false path has been followed by many countries and civilizations before. Pete |
"RHF" wrote:
So you are one "Democrat Party Apologist" and Revisionist for the Anti-American One World Vision of the OWLES. My friend without a name, perhaps you didn't notice my earlier comment about Clinton in this discussion. I don't blindly follow any particular party's dogma. As I said before, both major political parties share some responsibility for the sad direction this country is now heading in. Perhaps you're simply too young to remember what this country was like before Reagan, and how much this country has declined in so many ways since (partly because of Reagan and partly because of the idiots in the White House since). Remember that about 90% of American Citizens relatives turned their BackSides on Europe and other 'foreign' lands for the Promise and Dream of America. And your point is? None of that changes my assessment of the political changes in Europe during the 80's. I Believe in the Promise and Dream of America and the Global Vision of President Ronald W Reagan for the USofA. Proud to Say: I Am An American ~ RHF You obviously have no idea what it is to be an American. Blind allegiance to a single political party is certainly not it. And neither is holding a man up like a god to worship. If you want a clue, try reading some of the writings of our forefathers. They were clearly concerned with the best interests of all Americans (liberals and conservatives, rich and poor, and so on), not just the biased interests of themselves and a few others. In reality, your views, on the surface, seem more akin to the Nazi followers of Adolf Hitler. I'm honestly sorry if that offends you, but it's true from my perspective. Stewart |
"Pete" wrote: We often wonder how Hitler managed to get into power and convince so many otherwise perfectly normal Germans. Well, this is exactly the kind of thinking that can do that, ie. if someone voices a different opinion, it's anti-American. That false path has been followed by many countries and civilizations before. Exactly, Pete. It's fanaticism devoid of all rational thought. In all honesty, I suspect if George Bush announced tomorrow that he was disbanding Congress and assuming all control of this country, the vast majority of Republicans would support him, would openly argue (even right here in this newsgroup) in defense of that, and would be willing, without hesitation, to go to war and kill Americans who opposed his takeover. Indeed, something very much like this may actually be the future of America - perhaps not with Bush, but a very real possibility with some Republican leader in the not so distant future. Stewart |
"-=jd=-" wrote: See? Spin can work both ways too! But the truth of it doesn't. Stewart |
= = = "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
= = = link.net... "-=jd=-" wrote: See? Spin can work both ways too! But the truth of it doesn't. Stewart DS, The Truth is all to apparent by your postings that you simply like "Bad Mouthing" the USofA. Again 'take-a-hike' to EuroLand, and Leave America for those Americans "Who Love Their Country". God Bless America ~ RHF .. |
"RHF" wrote: The Truth is all to apparent by your postings that you simply like "Bad Mouthing" the USofA. (snip) No, the truth is that you just can't see, or don't want to see, that I'm not "bad mouthing" the USA, but rather what has been done to it by recent occupants of the White House. By the way, the word is "too," not "to." Take care. Stewart |
In article . net,
"Dwight Stewart" wrote: "Telamon" wrote: (snip) The best that can be said about you is that at least you had the decency to wait until he was buried to denigrate him. The truth doesn't denigrate. I was there at the time to see that shift in European thinking. And, by leaving this country not long before Reagan took office and returning not long after he left, I was also able to more clearly see what eight years of his presidency had done to this country. I returned to see homeless people in the streets of even small towns (something I had rarely seen outside the larger cities before), violent crime like I had never seen before, stagnated wages for workers (most were earning no more than when I left), sharply increased prices for most everything, shocking corporate greed, jobs moving overseas, a growing immigration problem, a declining military, declining political freedoms, a country growing more politically divided then I had ever seen it before in my lifetime, and so on. In my opinion, anyone who actually thinks Reagan was good for this country doesn't really give a damn about this country. The same could probably be said of Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush Jr. Each have taken this country to a new low. I can only agree with your first sentence "The truth doesn't denigrate." Unfortunately for you and your last post that you sniped the contents of the world leaders of that time and current time do not agree with what you call truth. My best guess as to why you don't try to defend your last post because it is indefensible and that this post is just a continuation of a baseless rant. Again as with the last post by you I would argue that except for a very small group of far left wing looneys you are pretty much by yourself. Don't forget the second election of Reagan for president carried 48 out of 50 states. Don't forget the massive outpouring of affection for this man upon his death. Don't forget most of what you pose as factual is just BS. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
"Telamon" wrote:
(snip) My best guess as to why you don't try to defend your last post because it is indefensible... (snip) Since you didn't contradict anything said in that first post, there is nothing to defend. (snip) Don't forget the second election of Reagan for president carried 48 out of 50 states. (snip) In an election where only about half of the eligible voters in this country even participated. Don't forget the massive outpouring of affection for this man upon his death. From his supporters? Certainly. But, for the rest, you're confusing politeness with affection. Or do you truly believe most non-Republicans are just gushing with "affection for this man?" (snip) Don't forget most of what you pose as factual is just BS. Most? Well at least you do admit some of what I said is factual. In reality, it all is - even if that is difficult for you to admit to. Take care, Telamon. Perhaps we'll have another discussion in this newsgroup sometime in the future. Stewart |
= = = "Pete" wrote in message
= = = . rogers.com... "James Nipper" wrote in message ... As the majority of Americans will agree, I think Pres Reagan was one of the best, if not the very best, President that America has ever had. On the other hand, I can see why so many liberals would hate him. The reason for this is that the liberals oppose all of the decent pro-American things that he stood for. One can't hate America and the ideals of this country without hating Pres Reagan. --James-- We often wonder how Hitler managed to get into power and convince so many otherwise perfectly normal Germans. Well, this is exactly the kind of thinking that can do that, ie. if someone voices a different opinion, it's anti-American. That false path has been followed by many countries and civilizations before. Pete PETE, "if someone voices a different opinion, it's anti-American." NO - If someone voices an anti-american opinion, It Is Anti-American [.] ~ RHF .. |
DiverD,
"Just ask Jane Wyman" Since you Begged the Question... Here is the Answer :o) "America has lost a great president and a great, kind and gentle man." - Jane Wyman "First Wife Lauds Reagan" Long Beach Press Telegram Friday, June 11, 2004 http://www.presstelegram.com/Stories...208126,00.html PALM SPRINGS Jane Wyman, the first wife of Ronald Reagan, has released a statement through a friend praising the nation's 40th president. r e s p e c t ~ RHF .. .. = = = (Diverd4777) wrote in message = = = ... Yeah, as a person he was probably an OK Guy; (- Just ask Jane Wyman ) He was a B Movie actor / Lifeguard who had a good speech writer; Probably a decent human being, politics aside.. In article , (RHF) writes: DiverD, Say what you will. But that does not change the fact that anywhere from 2/3 to 3/4 of Americans in the last several years say: That they "Liked" Ronald W Reagan as a person and thought that he was a 'good' President and had respected him [.] |
In article . net,
"Dwight Stewart" wrote: Snip Most? Well at least you do admit some of what I said is factual. In reality, it all is - even if that is difficult for you to admit to. Take care, Telamon. Perhaps we'll have another discussion in this newsgroup sometime in the future. What's the point Dwight. You can't have a substantive discussion if basic fasts of a situation are not agree on. That you inhabit a parallel universe to the one I live in is all I take away from this "discussion." -- Telamon Ventura, California |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote:
Exactly, Pete. It's fanaticism devoid of all rational thought. In all honesty, I suspect if George Bush announced tomorrow that he was disbanding Congress and assuming all control of this country, the vast majority of Republicans would support him, would openly argue (even right here in this newsgroup) in defense of that, and would be willing, without hesitation, to go to war and kill Americans who opposed his takeover. Indeed, something very much like this may actually be the future of America - perhaps not with Bush, but a very real possibility with some Republican leader in the not so distant future. Notice it has been more than a week since I posted the above and not a single Republican in this newsgroup has denied any possibility of this, said it was a bad idea, or objected in any way. Stewart |
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote: Exactly, Pete. It's fanaticism devoid of all rational thought. In all honesty, I suspect if George Bush announced tomorrow that he was disbanding Congress and assuming all control of this country, the vast majority of Republicans would support him, would openly argue (even right here in this newsgroup) in defense of that, and would be willing, without hesitation, to go to war and kill Americans who opposed his takeover. Indeed, something very much like this may actually be the future of America - perhaps not with Bush, but a very real possibility with some Republican leader in the not so distant future. Notice it has been more than a week since I posted the above and not a single Republican in this newsgroup has denied any possibility of this, said it was a bad idea, or objected in any way. Stewart The idea is so silly we didn't think we needed to. |
Mark S. Holden wrote:
Dwight Stewart wrote: "Dwight Stewart" wrote: Exactly, Pete. It's fanaticism devoid of all rational thought. bla bla yap yap Notice it has been more than a week since I posted the above and not a single Republican in this newsgroup has denied any possibility of this, said it was a bad idea, or objected in any way. The idea is so silly we didn't think we needed to. I don't argue with my plants, either. But at least my plants know better than to assert that silence equals assent. -- Spammers are people who are too lazy and cowardly to rob liquor stores, but still want to make money by stealing instead of working. -- Morely Dotes, The Open Sourceror's Apprentice |
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 23:21:08 -0400, "Mark S. Holden"
wrote: Dwight Stewart wrote: "Dwight Stewart" wrote: Exactly, Pete. It's fanaticism devoid of all rational thought. In all honesty, I suspect if George Bush announced tomorrow that he was disbanding Congress and assuming all control of this country, the vast majority of Republicans would support him, would openly argue (even right here in this newsgroup) in defense of that, and would be willing, without hesitation, to go to war and kill Americans who opposed his takeover. Indeed, something very much like this may actually be the future of America - perhaps not with Bush, but a very real possibility with some Republican leader in the not so distant future. Notice it has been more than a week since I posted the above and not a single Republican in this newsgroup has denied any possibility of this, said it was a bad idea, or objected in any way. Stewart The idea is so silly we didn't think we needed to. Doesn't seem silly to me. It will happen. It's chilling. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com