The ..2012.... Political thread
-
I'm STILL waiting for somebody on the "right" side of the issues to address the well-researched assertions made about Reagan. Line by line.
-
Describe 'well researched'
-
I give up. Answer this ONE issue: Do you acknowledge that the federal deficit TRIPLED on Reagan's watch? If so, how do you feel about that?
-
audi:
I give up. Answer this ONE issue: Do you acknowledge that the federal deficit TRIPLED on Reagan's watch? If so, how do you feel about that?
Yeah - and Clinton nearly double that, and Obama has put us past 10 tril and half way to 20 tril...if you look at a graph, you'll see that it's one steady climb from 1980 through now, with only a small dip during the first part George W's first term...the climb started when we had to dig ourselves out of trouble from the Carter Admin (dude should've stuck with selling peanuts)
-
Does the word "surplus" mean anything to you? Anything?
-
knock knock, anybody there? that's why they're called "ditto heads" they can't think..just follow. I challenged the right wingers on this thread to tell me why they are republican and one of them(who posts regularly) said that he didn't need to explain it ...but he 'knows' when he goes into a voting booth. Scarey and stunning and dangerous really if the right wing has done such great things (other than making the rich richer) I would think they would be defending all those 'wonderful things' but they got nothing.
-
mustangsally10:
knock knock, anybody there? that's why they're called "ditto heads" they can't think..just follow. I challenged the right wingers on this thread to tell me why they are republican and one of them(who posts regularly) said that he didn't need to explain it ...but he 'knows' when he goes into a voting booth. Scarey and stunning and dangerous really if the right wing has done such great things (other than making the rich richer) I would think they would be defending all those 'wonderful things' but they got nothing.
For what - when rational people who want to actually discuss politics want to discuss...well...politics, I'm sure others will show up...Until then, it's going to be predominantly the political thread's fab four sharing fantasy utopian baloney...you're not even democratic, you're a far left extreme high school putz who sounds cool sitting behind a computer typing whatever half thought you have...so why don't you discuss what the right has achieved...but cause thus far, you have proven you cannot (and it's not because of lack of achievements - but I'm done spoon feeding you, fool)
-
And, yet, another response that's not an actual answer.
-
Exactly, they don't even know what they're about or why they support the republican party...ditto heads
-
rich n:
mustangsally10:
knock knock, anybody there? that's why they're called "ditto heads" they can't think..just follow. I challenged the right wingers on this thread to tell me why they are republican and one of them(who posts regularly) said that he didn't need to explain it ...but he 'knows' when he goes into a voting booth. Scarey and stunning and dangerous really if the right wing has done such great things (other than making the rich richer) I would think they would be defending all those 'wonderful things' but they got nothing.
For what - when rational people who want to actually discuss politics want to discuss...well...politics, I'm sure others will show up...Until then, it's going to be predominantly the political thread's fab four sharing fantasy utopian baloney...you're not even democratic, you're a far left extreme high school putz who sounds cool sitting behind a computer typing whatever half thought you have...so why don't you discuss what the right has achieved...but cause thus far, you have proven you cannot (and it's not because of lack of achievements - but I'm done spoon feeding you, fool)
and what are those achievements?
-
audi:
rich n:
audi:
Those irrefutable facts mean nothing to conservatives.
The funny thing is I'm actually more or less in the center and see a lot of fault on both sides of the isle...but to the extremist on the left, I appear to be as hard core 'right' as they get...and I'm not sure how slinging mud at Reagan disputes the news I posted (and the Reagan stuff was indeed some type of retaliatory lob in response to my Obama sharing British nuclear secrets with Russia)
If the agreement with Britain is accurate, then -- to me -- that is typical, hypocritical U.S. tactics. What gets me about so-called conservatives is that you guys rarely address hard-core facts that are presented before you. It's baffling that Reagan gets a metaphoriacal blow-job from all the Republican talking heads --- and, yet, look at those reckless facts about his Presidency.
And one of those facts is......both he and Tip O'Neil were able to compromise in order to put a band aid on social security in the 1980s. Point being, neither got 100% of what their ideaology demanded. Tell me about the "reckless facts" about FDR while you're at it too....
-
I guess I can pretend that a point was just made.
-
SurSteven:
Can anyone name the names of all of the men who signed the constitution? ...and also, their wive's names? The Constitution was designed to cover all men and all women...and everyone equally. That's the important thing. Would you have it any other way?
The Constitution was not designed to cover women (or slaves for that matter). That is why it was amended much later on Thirty-nine of the fifty-five delegates, who attended the Constitutional Convention, signed the United States Constitution (as witnesses) on September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. No delegate from Rhode Island signed the document, since the state declined to send a representative.[1] In addition to the 39 delegates, the convention's secretary William Jackson also signed the document, not as a delegate, but in attestation of the document's signing. Several notable politicians of the time did not attend the convention, including Thomas Jefferson and John Adams (both of whom were overseas working as diplomats), as well as Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry (who considered the previous system of government acceptable).[1] Jonathan Dayton at the age of 26 was the youngest signer whereas Benjamin Franklin at the age of 81 was the oldest.[1] [edit] SignatoriesOrder Name State represented 1 Washington, GeorgeGeorge Washington Virginia 2 Read, GeorgeGeorge Read [a] Delaware 3 Bedford, Jr., GunningGunning Bedford, Jr. Delaware 4 Dickinson, JohnJohn Dickinson Delaware 5 Bassett, RichardRichard Bassett Delaware 6 Broom, JacobJacob Broom Delaware 7 McHenry, JamesJames McHenry Maryland 8 Jenifer, Daniel of St. ThomasDaniel of St. Thomas Jenifer Maryland 9 Carroll, DanielDaniel Carroll Maryland 10 Blair, JohnJohn Blair Virginia 11 Madison, Jr., JamesJames Madison, Jr. Virginia 12 Blount, WilliamWilliam Blount North Carolina 13 Spaight, Richard DobbsRichard Dobbs Spaight North Carolina 14 Williamson, HughHugh Williamson North Carolina 15 Rutledge, JohnJohn Rutledge South Carolina 16 Pinckney, Charles CotesworthCharles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina 17 Pinckney, CharlesCharles Pinckney South Carolina 18 Butler, PiercePierce Butler South Carolina 19 Few, WilliamWilliam Few Georgia 20 Baldwin, AbrahamAbraham Baldwin Georgia 21 Langdon, JohnJohn Langdon New Hampshire 22 Gilman, NicholasNicholas Gilman New Hampshire 23 Gorham, NathanielNathaniel Gorham Massachusetts 24 King, RufusRufus King Massachusetts 25 Johnson, William SamuelWilliam Samuel Johnson Connecticut 26 Sherman, RogerRoger Sherman [a][c] Connecticut 27 Hamilton, AlexanderAlexander Hamilton New York 28 Livingston, WilliamWilliam Livingston New Jersey 29 Brearley, DavidDavid Brearley New Jersey 30 Paterson, WilliamWilliam Paterson New Jersey 31 Dayton, JonathanJonathan Dayton New Jersey 32 Franklin, BenjaminBenjamin Franklin [a] Pennsylvania 33 Mifflin, ThomasThomas Mifflin Pennsylvania 34 Morris, RobertRobert Morris [a] Pennsylvania 35 Clymer, GeorgeGeorge Clymer [a] Pennsylvania 36 FitzSimons, ThomasThomas FitzSimons Pennsylvania 37 Ingersoll, JaredJared Ingersoll Pennsylvania 38 Wilson, JamesJames Wilson [a] Pennsylvania 39 Morris, GouverneurGouverneur Morris Pennsylvania****
-
audi:
I guess I can pretend that a point was just made.
No need to pretend....let me help you out. Despite the extreme left notion that Reagan was the "boogie man", not everything he did was decidedly "wrong". Not everything that O'Neil, then speaker of the house (and as extreme left as you could get at the time), was a "sell out". Neither was an "us" or "them" pure politician as apparently exists today. You mentioned earlier that you weren't around at the time of the holocaust, correct?? FDR was...and he did what exactly on the holocaust?? This was the saint democrat purists wheel out (literally btw) when convenient to arguments. He wasn't a saint. Nor should those coming after him regard him to be. He did many things that broke the Constituion as well, yet no current extreme left democrat will admit to that. Point being, both democrats and republicans are not right/wrong/left/right....you need both to govern, like it or not.
-
Democratic constituents acknowledge the sins of their political leaders all the time. That's what makes them not hypocrites. From my observation, Republicans seemingly, barely acknowledge that the George W. Bush era was a fiscal travesty -- not to mention a global embarrassment.
-
on Reagan's BD some of his legacy... Reagan "homelessness is a choice" http://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/23/us/reagan-on-homelessness-many-choose-to-live-in-the-streets.html Reagan did not acknowledge the AIDS crisis...silence = death http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-06-08/opinion/17428849_1_aids-in-san-francisco-aids-research-education-cases Under Reagan the US becomes a debtor nation for the first time in it's history http://www.historycentral.com/dates/1984.html
-
The U.S. homeless crisis, ignoring the obvious, exploding AIDS epidemic and the Iran Contra scandal are the shame of his Presidency. And, sadly, he was much more of a puppet than what the mainstream press has reported. But, somehow, it benefits Sarah "I'm Only In It For The Money" Palin and other round-the-clock, unpatriotic Obama-bashers to champion the great Reagan... ...because they know their followers are too uneducated on the facts. And too undisciplined to learn the facts.
-
audi:
Democratic constituents acknowledge the sins of their political leaders all the time. That's what makes them not hypocrites. From my observation, Republicans seemingly, barely acknowledge that the George W. Bush era was a fiscal travesty -- not to mention a global embarrassment.
I'm confused... when did FDR acknowledge that the US could've step in before 6,000,000 people were being massacred at the time and chose not to? Oh, he died in office. Nothing was acknowledged about his deterioration healthwise. And nothing was acknowledged about Reagan's health either. One was a democrat. Another a republican. What is indeed the difference given that the extreme left and extreme right hold fast to their either/or positions as both are guilty of the same behaviors?? Hmmm. what about succesive democrats...?? No democrats bothered to acknowledged that travestry either. Clinton was in office during Bosnia and Rwandi. That's okay too?? So fiscal issues need to be acknowledged yet human massacres are not??
-
All terrible. Definitely. But my focus was mainly from Clinton to the present.
-
audi:
All terrible. Definitely. But my focus was mainly from Clinton to the present.
Fair enough. My point is that both republicans and democrats screw up. When we elect a president we ask them to make the best decisions at the time. And that isn't always easy whether they are democrat or republican. I've voted both ways btw.