On 9/1/15 2:17 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 12:53:04 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/1/15 12:49 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 11:55:57 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/1/15 11:51 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 06:22:11 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On about this day in 1983, the Soviet Union shot down a Korean airliner,
killing 269 on board. Sixty two of them were Americans. President
Ronald Reagan was on a 25-day vacation at the time it happened and
according to his diary, he was upset he would have to cut his vacation
short by 3 days.

From his diary:

"We were due to return to Wash. on Labor Day but realized we couldn't
wait so we left on Fri. It was heartbreaking, I had really looked
forward to those last 3 days."
9/2/1983

Reagan didn't want to return to the White House, and he didn't address
the nation for four days. He took no action against the Soviet Union,
but today's teabaggers think the world feared him.


What was he supposed to do, nuke them?
The response was similar to what we did about MH17.
Our hands are not clean either. Remember Iran Air 665.



You miss the point...as usual.
Reagan also didn't do anything of significance after the Marine barracks
in Lebanon was blown up.

But today's teabaggers think the world feared him.


Again, should we have nuked someone?
They did fire almost a million pounds of 16" ammo into the area where
they thought the terrorists were. It was the largest naval bombardment
since the end of WWII.

Did you see the interview of the former soviet spy on 60 minutes?
He seemed to think the soviets were afraid of Reagan. I am not sure
why they wouldn't be. The man was a cowboy, living in an earlier age
with his finger on the button.


Again, you missed the point. I'm not commenting on what we "should have
done," or "might have done." I am only commenting on the fact that
today's teabaggers think Saint Reagan easily committed troops to new
misadventures when, in fact, he did not.


That was a good thing. What's your point?



It's a good thing that today's teabaggers are ignorant, ill-informed,
and stupid? Well, I suppose if you support Republican candidates, it is
a good thing, because the teabaggers are ignorant enough to support your
candidates.

On 9/1/2015 2:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2015 13:09:48 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Is your hate for the 'righties' here based on their politics or the number of lies
and tax evasion in which you've been caught?

===

I think his disdain for the white middle class in general is based on
the fact that he never really felt accepted into it, on the contrary
in fact. It's funny how that works when you don't really work for a
living, don't pay your taxes and don't repay your debts. Some would
consider him a grifter.


He grew up in New Haven Ct. Look at the culture. Look at the
demographics. His daddy was probably the only working class slob he knew.

On 9/1/2015 5:13 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 15:59:55 -0400, Justan Olphart
wrote:

On 9/1/2015 2:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2015 13:09:48 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Is your hate for the 'righties' here based on their politics or the number of lies
and tax evasion in which you've been caught?

===

I think his disdain for the white middle class in general is based on
the fact that he never really felt accepted into it, on the contrary
in fact. It's funny how that works when you don't really work for a
living, don't pay your taxes and don't repay your debts. Some would
consider him a grifter.


He grew up in New Haven Ct. Look at the culture. Look at the
demographics. His daddy was probably the only working class slob he knew.

===

That's possible but I think there's more to it. He's never explained
the half brother as far as I know. Were his mother and father
divorced, and he lived with his mother and new husband? Something in
his background caused a few screws to come loose.


Betcha at least one of the boys doesn't know who his father is.

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 9/1/15 2:17 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 12:53:04 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/1/15 12:49 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 11:55:57 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/1/15 11:51 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 06:22:11 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On about this day in 1983, the Soviet Union shot down a Korean airliner,
killing 269 on board. Sixty two of them were Americans. President
Ronald Reagan was on a 25-day vacation at the time it happened and
according to his diary, he was upset he would have to cut his vacation
short by 3 days.

From his diary:

"We were due to return to Wash. on Labor Day but realized we couldn't
wait so we left on Fri. It was heartbreaking, I had really looked
forward to those last 3 days."
9/2/1983

Reagan didn't want to return to the White House, and he didn't address
the nation for four days. He took no action against the Soviet Union,
but today's teabaggers think the world feared him.


What was he supposed to do, nuke them?
The response was similar to what we did about MH17.
Our hands are not clean either. Remember Iran Air 665.



You miss the point...as usual.
Reagan also didn't do anything of significance after the Marine barracks
in Lebanon was blown up.

But today's teabaggers think the world feared him.


Again, should we have nuked someone?
They did fire almost a million pounds of 16" ammo into the area where
they thought the terrorists were. It was the largest naval bombardment
since the end of WWII.

Did you see the interview of the former soviet spy on 60 minutes?
He seemed to think the soviets were afraid of Reagan. I am not sure
why they wouldn't be. The man was a cowboy, living in an earlier age
with his finger on the button.


Again, you missed the point. I'm not commenting on what we "should have
done," or "might have done." I am only commenting on the fact that
today's teabaggers think Saint Reagan easily committed troops to new
misadventures when, in fact, he did not.


That was a good thing. What's your point?



It's a good thing that today's teabaggers are ignorant, ill-informed, and
stupid? Well, I suppose if you support Republican candidates, it is a
good thing, because the teabaggers are ignorant enough to support your candidates.

And what was your point?

On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 15:59:55 -0400, Justan Olphart
wrote:

On 9/1/2015 2:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2015 13:09:48 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Is your hate for the 'righties' here based on their politics or the number of lies
and tax evasion in which you've been caught?

===

I think his disdain for the white middle class in general is based on
the fact that he never really felt accepted into it, on the contrary
in fact. It's funny how that works when you don't really work for a
living, don't pay your taxes and don't repay your debts. Some would
consider him a grifter.


He grew up in New Haven Ct. Look at the culture. Look at the
demographics. His daddy was probably the only working class slob he knew.

===

That's possible but I think there's more to it. He's never explained
the half brother as far as I know. Were his mother and father
divorced, and he lived with his mother and new husband? Something in
his background caused a few screws to come loose.

On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 16:24:27 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote:

On 9/1/2015 5:13 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 15:59:55 -0400, Justan Olphart
wrote:

On 9/1/2015 2:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2015 13:09:48 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Is your hate for the 'righties' here based on their politics or the number of lies
and tax evasion in which you've been caught?

===

I think his disdain for the white middle class in general is based on
the fact that he never really felt accepted into it, on the contrary
in fact. It's funny how that works when you don't really work for a
living, don't pay your taxes and don't repay your debts. Some would
consider him a grifter.


He grew up in New Haven Ct. Look at the culture. Look at the
demographics. His daddy was probably the only working class slob he knew.

===

That's possible but I think there's more to it. He's never explained
the half brother as far as I know. Were his mother and father
divorced, and he lived with his mother and new husband? Something in
his background caused a few screws to come loose.


Betcha at least one of the boys doesn't know who his father is.

He's the guy that got the fireboat welcome for crossing the Atlantic in an outboard.
Should be real easy to find out.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 15:19:40 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/1/15 2:17 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 12:53:04 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/1/15 12:49 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 11:55:57 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/1/15 11:51 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 06:22:11 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On about this day in 1983, the Soviet Union shot down a Korean airliner,
killing 269 on board. Sixty two of them were Americans. President
Ronald Reagan was on a 25-day vacation at the time it happened and
according to his diary, he was upset he would have to cut his vacation
short by 3 days.

From his diary:

"We were due to return to Wash. on Labor Day but realized we couldn't
wait so we left on Fri. It was heartbreaking, I had really looked
forward to those last 3 days."
9/2/1983

Reagan didn't want to return to the White House, and he didn't address
the nation for four days. He took no action against the Soviet Union,
but today's teabaggers think the world feared him.


What was he supposed to do, nuke them?
The response was similar to what we did about MH17.
Our hands are not clean either. Remember Iran Air 665.



You miss the point...as usual.
Reagan also didn't do anything of significance after the Marine barracks
in Lebanon was blown up.

But today's teabaggers think the world feared him.


Again, should we have nuked someone?
They did fire almost a million pounds of 16" ammo into the area where
they thought the terrorists were. It was the largest naval bombardment
since the end of WWII.

Did you see the interview of the former soviet spy on 60 minutes?
He seemed to think the soviets were afraid of Reagan. I am not sure
why they wouldn't be. The man was a cowboy, living in an earlier age
with his finger on the button.


Again, you missed the point. I'm not commenting on what we "should have
done," or "might have done." I am only commenting on the fact that
today's teabaggers think Saint Reagan easily committed troops to new
misadventures when, in fact, he did not.


That was a good thing. What's your point?



It's a good thing that today's teabaggers are ignorant, ill-informed,
and stupid? Well, I suppose if you support Republican candidates, it is
a good thing, because the teabaggers are ignorant enough to support your
candidates.

You are not making any sense.
We all understand you hate anyone who isn't a socialist democrat but
your logic here is pretty fuzzy. You are criticizing Reagan because he
didn't send more troops into Lebanon?
I agree they should not have been there in the first place but it was
a multinational force, sent by the UN.
If the teabaggers have any opinion at all it is the US should not be
cannon fodder for the UN.

On 9/2/15 2:01 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 15:19:40 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/1/15 2:17 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 12:53:04 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/1/15 12:49 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 11:55:57 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/1/15 11:51 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 06:22:11 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On about this day in 1983, the Soviet Union shot down a Korean airliner,
killing 269 on board. Sixty two of them were Americans. President
Ronald Reagan was on a 25-day vacation at the time it happened and
according to his diary, he was upset he would have to cut his vacation
short by 3 days.

From his diary:

"We were due to return to Wash. on Labor Day but realized we couldn't
wait so we left on Fri. It was heartbreaking, I had really looked
forward to those last 3 days."
9/2/1983

Reagan didn't want to return to the White House, and he didn't address
the nation for four days. He took no action against the Soviet Union,
but today's teabaggers think the world feared him.


What was he supposed to do, nuke them?
The response was similar to what we did about MH17.
Our hands are not clean either. Remember Iran Air 665.



You miss the point...as usual.
Reagan also didn't do anything of significance after the Marine barracks
in Lebanon was blown up.

But today's teabaggers think the world feared him.


Again, should we have nuked someone?
They did fire almost a million pounds of 16" ammo into the area where
they thought the terrorists were. It was the largest naval bombardment
since the end of WWII.

Did you see the interview of the former soviet spy on 60 minutes?
He seemed to think the soviets were afraid of Reagan. I am not sure
why they wouldn't be. The man was a cowboy, living in an earlier age
with his finger on the button.


Again, you missed the point. I'm not commenting on what we "should have
done," or "might have done." I am only commenting on the fact that
today's teabaggers think Saint Reagan easily committed troops to new
misadventures when, in fact, he did not.


That was a good thing. What's your point?



It's a good thing that today's teabaggers are ignorant, ill-informed,
and stupid? Well, I suppose if you support Republican candidates, it is
a good thing, because the teabaggers are ignorant enough to support your
candidates.

You are not making any sense.
We all understand you hate anyone who isn't a socialist democrat but
your logic here is pretty fuzzy. You are criticizing Reagan because he
didn't send more troops into Lebanon?
I agree they should not have been there in the first place but it was
a multinational force, sent by the UN.
If the teabaggers have any opinion at all it is the US should not be
cannon fodder for the UN.



D'oh. No, I am poking fun at teabaggers for believing the myth that the
world "feared" Reagan, and I cited a couple of examples of how "untough"
he was after two incidents in which hundreds of Americans were killed.
I'm not criticizing Reagan for his inaction, even for his "more horrific
than Benghazi" intel failures in Lebanon.

Gee, I wonder what percentage of teabaggers support the Trumpster...

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 06:50:18 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/2/15 2:01 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 15:19:40 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/1/15 2:17 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 12:53:04 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/1/15 12:49 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 11:55:57 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/1/15 11:51 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 06:22:11 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On about this day in 1983, the Soviet Union shot down a Korean airliner,
killing 269 on board. Sixty two of them were Americans. President
Ronald Reagan was on a 25-day vacation at the time it happened and
according to his diary, he was upset he would have to cut his vacation
short by 3 days.

From his diary:

"We were due to return to Wash. on Labor Day but realized we couldn't
wait so we left on Fri. It was heartbreaking, I had really looked
forward to those last 3 days."
9/2/1983

Reagan didn't want to return to the White House, and he didn't address
the nation for four days. He took no action against the Soviet Union,
but today's teabaggers think the world feared him.


What was he supposed to do, nuke them?
The response was similar to what we did about MH17.
Our hands are not clean either. Remember Iran Air 665.



You miss the point...as usual.
Reagan also didn't do anything of significance after the Marine barracks
in Lebanon was blown up.

But today's teabaggers think the world feared him.


Again, should we have nuked someone?
They did fire almost a million pounds of 16" ammo into the area where
they thought the terrorists were. It was the largest naval bombardment
since the end of WWII.

Did you see the interview of the former soviet spy on 60 minutes?
He seemed to think the soviets were afraid of Reagan. I am not sure
why they wouldn't be. The man was a cowboy, living in an earlier age
with his finger on the button.


Again, you missed the point. I'm not commenting on what we "should have
done," or "might have done." I am only commenting on the fact that
today's teabaggers think Saint Reagan easily committed troops to new
misadventures when, in fact, he did not.


That was a good thing. What's your point?



It's a good thing that today's teabaggers are ignorant, ill-informed,
and stupid? Well, I suppose if you support Republican candidates, it is
a good thing, because the teabaggers are ignorant enough to support your
candidates.

You are not making any sense.
We all understand you hate anyone who isn't a socialist democrat but
your logic here is pretty fuzzy. You are criticizing Reagan because he
didn't send more troops into Lebanon?
I agree they should not have been there in the first place but it was
a multinational force, sent by the UN.
If the teabaggers have any opinion at all it is the US should not be
cannon fodder for the UN.



D'oh. No, I am poking fun at teabaggers for believing the myth that the
world "feared" Reagan, and I cited a couple of examples of how "untough"
he was after two incidents in which hundreds of Americans were killed.
I'm not criticizing Reagan for his inaction, even for his "more horrific
than Benghazi" intel failures in Lebanon.


You are just trolling.

Gee, I wonder what percentage of teabaggers support the Trumpster...

23%