Posted on 09/21/2005 4:54:29 PM PDT by goldstategop
Tremendous observations...
"He had to fight almost singlehanded to get his program through. He made mistakes but most of them were do to people giving him bad advise (like Stockman and Don Regan), or the Democrats in congress forcing him to adopt bad polices. If Reagan had been given the support Bush has - He NEVER would have raised taxes."
I concur.
And remember, Reagan never had the advantage of dealing with a GOP majority in BOTH Houses as has Dubya Bush. Imagine his further accomplishments if HE had??
GWB was accepted by most conservatives in 2000 - because thats the best we could do - the only alternate was McCrazy...
Yep...
We played the only card left to play in the deck.
Moreover, ANY debate over Ronald Reagan's accomplishments as compared to GWB's is...completely one-sided.
Nope, he hasn't. But he also hasn't strongly denounced ANY of that which BJ Bill did during his administration and has basically given tacit approval by not doing so. Doesn't it bother you in the least that Dubya's father, who lost the election to Clinton in '92, is now smilin' and winkin' right alongside him on their little global goodwill tour?
I would think this would at least set a little warning light blinking in your lucid moments, particularly since your posts indicate that you detest most of what Clinton has done to damage our country. Why not release Saddam Hussein from his prison cell and make it a trio?
Sure, we're policeman to the world.
We're spending hundreds of billions of dollars building schools and hospitals in third world countries while getting shot at for our troubles.
Is this really what our Military is for?
Is this what The Founders advised us to do?
Rome built roads for the barbarians, and then those barbarians followed the roads back to Rome.
Call it what you will, building roads for barbarians is a thankless job.
:-)
Another thing, criticism of policy isn't the same as criticism of our Nation, or of those who must carry out that policy.
Otherwise we could never criticise any policy, and that's not how things work in a Democracy.
People such as you, who have less than NO knowledge nor understanding of government and politics and the history of the presidency; that's what! You want President Bush to do and say what NO president has EVER done in the entire history of this nation. You've wanted him to go after Clinton verbally and legalistically, since before he even took the oath of office in '01! Whenever it was explained to you, that this was without precedent, you didn't care at all. And you're still carping on and on about it. GET OVER IT; EVEN THE CLINTONS AND CARTER NEVER DID IT !
President Bush the elder, though not 100% adhering to the unwritten dictum, of not speaking badly about the person who unsat you, has, upon occasion come out against Slick Willie; which you choose to forget and/or ignore.
Does it upset me that President Bush the younger has put Slick in co-charge of the Tsunami and Katrina relief programs? Yes, it does, but not nearly as much as it obviously does you.
You have the nerve to make smarmy comments about my, MY, "lucidity" and proceed to write the juvenile garbage you wrote? It is to laugh!
I shan't lower myself and join you in the gutter. But neither shall I forget this back and forth. ;^)
Reagan had some blind spots but don't blame him for Anthony Kennedy.
Kennedy followed Bork and Douglas Ginsberg. At the time, people thought he was a conservative. His work had always represented a conservative jurisprudence. Most conservatives thought he was a fine choice, though we were very disappointed that the Dems had stopped Bork.
At the time Reagan named O'Connor, Jesse Helms was the only critical voice around. The old tarheel usually had it right. Blame the Gipper for that one.
You crack me up, nopardons. You put on a really good show. You've got the prissy, aging debutante act down, girl! Did you do a Bette Davis huff-and-turn when you posted that? Heck, if I was a casting director looking for an old biddy to play the part of a condescending know-it-all, you'd be first up for an audition!
AUDITION SCRIPT: "Oh, but Papa, some of those lowly peasants are just EVER so dreadful on Free Republic! They actually DISAGREE with me, and they don't have the slightest CLUE about which wine to serve with fish!"
Nevermind I've been a realtor for twenty years, but thanks for your real easte acumen and grand revelation ("LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION.")...
Btw, I tried googling "Real easte values" - are they better than "real weste values"??
AUDITION SCRIPT: 'Oh, but Papa, some of those lowly peasants are just EVER so dreadful on Free Republic! They actually DISAGREE with me, and they don't have the slightest CLUE about which wine to serve with fish!'"
BULLSEYE! :-D
Excellent!
But you certainly would keep Freud in stitches, with all of your many obvious mental disorders.
And as far as script writing goes, especially at temping to sound something akin to any Bette Davis films, your post proves that you've never seen one. That was perhaps the lamest, completely incorrect stab at it, that has ever been tried. LOL
If you have been a realtor for the past 20 years and don't know that what you stated as "fact", isn't, then I guess you're just a liar.
Real estate prices has NOT doubled, everywhere in this country, since 9/11. In some places it's been doubling every single year; in other places, it hasn't doubled yet.
As with all of your other posts, you just say whatever you feel like saying, whether it is factual or not. That makes your posts worthless.
I'd wager it a "fact" that your martini glass is empty at this very moment, and you buy your olives at Costco or Sam's by the 4 liter jug.
Oh, and there is no Sam's where I live and I don't shop at Costco. But thanks for sharing your delusions.
"Almost NEVER"??
Lol, what's that mean??
It means that if I have 3-8 very small glasses of wine, over the span of a year, that's a lot for me. I almost NEVER drink alcoholic beverages. Some years I imbide none; zip, zero, nada, bupkiss.
And before you go there, I'll also tell you that I have NEVER, NOT EVER, partaken of an illegal substance,nor am I on medication of any kind.
Those few who indulge in claiming that I'm a drunk, are the ones who 1) are incapable of refuting what I say 2) have nothing whatsoever of value to post 3) are probably rather heavy drinkers themselves 4) post to an anti-FR site.
It means that if I have 3-8 very small glasses of wine, over the span of a year, that's a lot for me. I almost NEVER drink alcoholic beverages. Some years I imbide none; zip, zero, nada, bupkiss....
And before you go there, I'll also tell you that I have NEVER, NOT EVER, partaken of an illegal substance,nor am I on medication of any kind."
Then you have NO excuse whatsoever for your habitually incoherent rants and moonbat ravings...
That being said, your still entertain the hell outta me (come on -- have a martini with me [shaken or stirred?]) :-)
"That being said, yourSIC ( the contraction for you are is YOU'RE;or did you perchance really mean YOU? ) still entertain the hell outta me................"
My posts are coherent, cogent, and factual. Where you see "moonbat ravings", almost everyone else sees interesting, well thought out, and well written prose. Your own bias clouds your perceptions.
If I can help it, I will NEVER be in the same state as you; let alone acquiesce to having a drink of any kind with you. It's bad enough that I live in the same country and post to the same forum as you do.
But please, do carry on and drink yourself into oblivion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.