OT Enough of the Gipper already (the TRUE legacy)
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message

Remember what your mother taught you? If you can't say something
nice.....

Remember the Olympia Dukakis line from Steel Magnolias? "If you can't say
something
nice..... come sit by me."

OT Enough of the Gipper already (the TRUE legacy)
 

John Gaquin wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message

Here is some of the true legacy of RR. The right is putting him on a
pedestal higher than all, because of what?

Enough With Reagan Already
The Gipper's true legacy? Making the GOP as it is today: nasty,
brutish and shortsighted. Good riddance

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Wednesday, June 16, 2004

Mark Morford is no more a legitimate source than Rush Limbaugh, or Al
Franken, or Hannity, or Richard Ben Veniste. They all overload with bombast
to target their particular audience, without regard to rational thought.



You're such chuckle-buck, Gawkin...it must be interesting to be as
disconnected from reality as you are...

OT Enough of the Gipper already (the TRUE legacy)
 

you also won't hear the same level of deprecating speech from those on
the right, who have every reason to say those things, but still have
the class and decency not to.

Yes, the era of brotherly love and tolerance espoused by Rush Limbaugh, Ann
Coulter, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, etc, etc, etc, etc, will be considered
by historians a golden moment in the growth of the human mind and spirit.

Wake up. Your conservative talk radio industry is making billions of dollars a
year
in an attempt to bring about a "dark age"
of inquisition in America. Tens of millions of increasingly angry and alienated
people are hanging on their every greasy word.

We liberals are not saints, either, but the right wingers either have no clue
what restraint, class and decency consist of or no justification to claim those
principles and standards as a core value of neo-conservatism.

OT Enough of the Gipper already (the TRUE legacy)
 

On 17 Jun 2004 14:07:27 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Yes, the era of brotherly love and tolerance espoused by Rush Limbaugh, Ann
Coulter, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, etc, etc, etc, etc, will be considered
by historians a golden moment in the growth of the human mind and spirit.

Wake up. Your conservative talk radio industry is making billions of dollars a
year
in an attempt to bring about a "dark age"
of inquisition in America. Tens of millions of increasingly angry and alienated
people are hanging on their every greasy word.

We liberals are not saints, either, but the right wingers either have no clue
what restraint, class and decency consist of or no justification to claim those
principles and standards as a core value of neo-conservatism.

thank you

bb

OT Enough of the Gipper already (the TRUE legacy)
 

Harry Krause wrote in message ...
John Gaquin wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message

Here is some of the true legacy of RR. The right is putting him on a
pedestal higher than all, because of what?

Enough With Reagan Already
The Gipper's true legacy? Making the GOP as it is today: nasty,
brutish and shortsighted. Good riddance

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Wednesday, June 16, 2004

Mark Morford is no more a legitimate source than Rush Limbaugh, or Al
Franken, or Hannity, or Richard Ben Veniste. They all overload with bombast
to target their particular audience, without regard to rational thought.



You're such chuckle-buck, Gawkin...it must be interesting to be as
disconnected from reality as you are...

Forgot to put Harry on that list.

OT Enough of the Gipper already (the TRUE legacy)
 

On 17 Jun 2004 14:07:27 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

you also won't hear the same level of deprecating speech from those on
the right, who have every reason to say those things, but still have
the class and decency not to.

Yes, the era of brotherly love and tolerance espoused by Rush Limbaugh, Ann
Coulter, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, etc, etc, etc, etc, will be considered
by historians a golden moment in the growth of the human mind and spirit.

Wake up. Your conservative talk radio industry is making billions of dollars a
year
in an attempt to bring about a "dark age"

Compared to all the failed attempts at liberal radio, which can't seem
to find more than a half dozen or so listeners?

of inquisition in America. Tens of millions of increasingly angry and alienated
people are hanging on their every greasy word.

Do you ever wonder why those people are angry Chuck? Those people are
sick and tired of what liberals and the so-called "enlightened" people
are doing to this country. Starting with the whole "politically
correct" movement, all the way through entitlement programs for the
undeserving, the relentless demonization of the rich and successful,
and the support of programs which promote one person's superficial
attributes over another's, along with government expanding its role to
intervene in more and more aspects of people's lives and lifestyles,
while taking more and more money out of our pockets.
Talk-radio is an outlet for people to vent those frustrations. You
guys on the left should take heed. Your ideologies are not popular
with the majority of Americans.



We liberals are not saints, either, but the right wingers either have no clue
what restraint, class and decency consist of or no justification to claim those
principles and standards as a core value of neo-conservatism.

I can't comment on some of the others, but I do listen to Hannity
regularly. I have NEVER EVER heard him make an ad-hominem attack
against anyone. He DOES attack the issues, and will cut liberals to
shreds for their double standards and disingenuous positions. He says
with quite regularity that liberals are not bad people, they're just
misguided. That's about as close to an ad-hominem attack as he gets.

Compare that to several obvious liberal columnists who made comments
about Reagan such as "he should be turning a shade of dark brown right
about now" , and other baseless, groundless and purely ad-hominem and
mean spirited comments.

Dave

OT Enough of the Gipper already (the TRUE legacy)
 

Do you ever wonder why those people are angry Chuck? Those people are
sick and tired of what liberals and the so-called "enlightened" people
are doing to this country. Starting with the whole "politically
correct" movement, all the way through entitlement programs for the
undeserving, the relentless demonization of the rich and successful,
and the support of programs which promote one person's superficial
attributes over another's, along with government expanding its role to
intervene in more and more aspects of people's lives and lifestyles,
while taking more and more money out of our pockets.
Talk-radio is an outlet for people to vent those frustrations. You
guys on the left should take heed. Your ideologies are not popular
with the majority of Americans.

It isn't supposed to be a popularity contest.

Coupled with your comment about the number of listeners to conservative hate
radio, just who appears to be pandering to the crowd here?

"Support of programs that promote one person's superficial attributes over
anothers?"

Opposed to programs that
supress the non-Anglo, non- Protestants with messages about how the country was
founded on Christianity and all others should put up with it or "go home"?

"The government expanding its role to intervene in more people's lives"? You
wouldn't be referring to the current government, expanding at a record pace and
at record expense, and justifying increasing intrusion into the private affairs
of ordinary law abiding citizens as "security" measures, would you?


"Taking more and more money out of your pocket" Dave, I wish I had something
for sale that you wanted to buy. I'd make a fricking fortune and you'd be broke
for the rest of your life. Here's why:

Our national costs, just like our personal budget costs, are dictated by the
amount of money we spend every month---- not by the amount of money we decide
we're going to set aside to pay bills during any particular pay cycle.
Everytime I see an ad for something being sold "No payments until 2006!" I
think of our current fiscal management. There are a lot of rubes on the street
who imagine that if there are no payments due until 2006, or what not, that it
is the same as being free.

This is going to break your heart, but the Bush Tax Cut Emperor is stark,
raving, naked. Periodski.

The current Congress is spending money at an unsustainable pace. We are piling
up a huge debt. Meantime, we make everybody feel temporarily OK about it all by
reducing the amount of taxes being collected. It's like the family that decides
to ignore the pile of bills on payday, go on a weekend spending spree instead,
and then fantasize that they are well off because of all the new stuff they
just bought with additional credit.

The big lie is that reducing taxes has reduced the cost of government. No, it
temporarily reduced the apparent immediate price of government, but has not
affected the actual cost of government which is as high or higher now, (with
one party in charge), than it has ever been. The ballooning deficit will
eventually take *more* money out of the average guy's pocket than the phoney
tax cut put into it, by far. Bush has not vetoed even one cent of spending, as
far as I know, in 3 and 1/2 years. Yes it's true that Congress writes the
checks, but he has to sign them.

You guys want to truly act conservative, rather than simply disguise yourselves
as conservatives?

CUT
FEDERAL
SPENDING

Once you have done that, you can cut taxes. Until you do that, you're simply
jerking off to a better grade of pornography-
still nothing but self indulgent, phoney pretense.

The current "conservative" government has failed in the primary expectation of
a conservative administration; reduce the size of the government and associated
expenses.

OT Enough of the Gipper already (the TRUE legacy)
 

Dave Hall wrote:
I can't comment on some of the others, but I do listen to Hannity
regularly. I have NEVER EVER heard him make an ad-hominem attack
against anyone.

Proof that Dave Hall is basically a retard.

Hannity all but foams at the mouth, snapping like a rapid poodle.

If you genuinely believe he does not make "ad hominem" attacks then you
clearly have both very poor judgement *and* the dimmest grasp of what
"ad hominem" means.


... He DOES attack the issues, and will cut liberals to
shreds for their double standards and disingenuous positions.

Whereas his own double standards and "disingenuous positions" (or as we
smarter & more honest folk call them, "lies") tend to get glossed over
and ignored.

But hey, at he's least not a drug addict. BTW did he ever serve in the
military?

DSK

OT Enough of the Gipper already (the TRUE legacy)
 

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:31:23 -0400, DSK wrote:


BTW did he ever serve in the
military?


Nope.

http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHG...20Chickenhawks

http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html

OT Enough of the Gipper already (the TRUE legacy)
 

On 17 Jun 2004 19:22:05 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Do you ever wonder why those people are angry Chuck? Those people are
sick and tired of what liberals and the so-called "enlightened" people
are doing to this country. Starting with the whole "politically
correct" movement, all the way through entitlement programs for the
undeserving, the relentless demonization of the rich and successful,
and the support of programs which promote one person's superficial
attributes over another's, along with government expanding its role to
intervene in more and more aspects of people's lives and lifestyles,
while taking more and more money out of our pockets.
Talk-radio is an outlet for people to vent those frustrations. You
guys on the left should take heed. Your ideologies are not popular
with the majority of Americans.

It isn't supposed to be a popularity contest.

Uh, yes it is. Ultimately is you want a population of happy people,
you need to do things to make them such. Doing things that **** them
off is counterproductive.



Coupled with your comment about the number of listeners to conservative hate
radio, just who appears to be pandering to the crowd here?

I still chuckle at your use of the word "hate" to describe an opposing
viewpoint. That, more than anything else, establishes your bias, and
truly underscores the duplicity and hypocrisy of those on the left,
who claim to champion such concepts as diversity and tolerance, except
when those "diverse" viewpoints are opposed to theirs.



"Support of programs that promote one person's superficial attributes over
anothers?"

Opposed to programs that
supress the non-Anglo, non- Protestants with messages about how the country was
founded on Christianity and all others should put up with it or "go home"?

Two points:
1. You don't correct prejudice by counter prejudice.

2. This country was founded by, and made up of, a majority of
Christians. That makes them the majority. Since majority rules apply
here, there is a certain amount of "deal with it" associated with
those who wish to do things differently. Yes, they are more than
welcome to practice their own unique rituals and customs. But don't
expect the majority to give up or modify their customs or traditions
to accommodate those who cannot deal with it. The door swings both
ways.



"The government expanding its role to intervene in more people's lives"? You
wouldn't be referring to the current government, expanding at a record pace and
at record expense, and justifying increasing intrusion into the private affairs
of ordinary law abiding citizens as "security" measures, would you?

No, I was thinking more along the lines of jetski bans, no wake zones,
excessive deed restrictions, seatbelt laws, and any other law which
tries to exclude certain segments of the population from partaking in
activities which have arbitrarily been determined to be "unacceptable"
by a statistical few, but politically powerful individuals, without a
clear tangible benefit being demonstrated to the majority.



"Taking more and more money out of your pocket" Dave, I wish I had something
for sale that you wanted to buy. I'd make a fricking fortune and you'd be broke
for the rest of your life. Here's why:

Our national costs, just like our personal budget costs, are dictated by the
amount of money we spend every month---- not by the amount of money we decide
we're going to set aside to pay bills during any particular pay cycle.
Everytime I see an ad for something being sold "No payments until 2006!" I
think of our current fiscal management. There are a lot of rubes on the street
who imagine that if there are no payments due until 2006, or what not, that it
is the same as being free.

No, actually I look at deferred payment as the ability to keep my
money in interest bearing investments a little longer, thereby
reducing the cost of the item. Of course, most smart people understand
the scam. The "no payments" expires and then huge interest payments
start accruing. The hope (from the financiers) is that the buyers will
have spent that money and now are forced to pay the interest. I
typically do not have that problem, as I earmark the cash and set it
aside in a bank CD or some other such account until I need to make the
full payment. Many times the store will cut you a deal if you pay
cash. Whichever saves me the most money is the one I go for.


This is going to break your heart, but the Bush Tax Cut Emperor is stark,
raving, naked. Periodski.

No, I got the cash in my hand to prove it.


The current Congress is spending money at an unsustainable pace.

Well duh! We are at war after all.....


We are piling up a huge debt

Yea, so? I have yet to see any evidence how the national debt affect
the personal finances of individuals. Look at the 80's during and
after Reagan. Reagan's policies reduced interest rates, created jobs,
and generally improved the economy. At the same time, he ran up a huge
national debt. But ask any working person whether they were personally
better off before or after Reagan and see what you'll hear. The
national debt is a non-issue.





Meantime, we make everybody feel temporarily OK about it all by
reducing the amount of taxes being collected.

That temporary euphoria is what leads to improved confidence, which
leads to increased spending, which stimulates the economy. Now if we
could only get the biased media to stop focusing on the all the
downsides of the economic indicators and give equal time to the
positive ones, we would help the economic growth instead of killing it
by scaring investors and spenders alike. I know the democrats will do
anything, including squashing the economic recovery, to re-gain
political power. But this should show you just how desperate they are,
and how the welfare of this country is secondary to their political
aspirations.

It's like the family that decides
to ignore the pile of bills on payday, go on a weekend spending spree instead,
and then fantasize that they are well off because of all the new stuff they
just bought with additional credit.

No, it's more like taking a tax windfall to buy a new car, while
their neighbors pile up more debt. The two are not related.



The big lie is that reducing taxes has reduced the cost of government. No, it
temporarily reduced the apparent immediate price of government, but has not
affected the actual cost of government which is as high or higher now, (with
one party in charge), than it has ever been.

Again, we are at war. That WILL increase government spending. We're
not exactly spending money on more entitlement programs (Except that
flawed medicare prescription plan)

The ballooning deficit will
eventually take *more* money out of the average guy's pocket than the phoney
tax cut put into it, by far.

Only if taxes are raised again. I doubt that the people will allow
someone to remain in office who would do such a thing. I know I
wouldn't vote for them. The guy who raises taxes is committing
political suicide.


Bush has not vetoed even one cent of spending, as
far as I know, in 3 and 1/2 years. Yes it's true that Congress writes the
checks, but he has to sign them.

That does bother me to an extent.



You guys want to truly act conservative, rather than simply disguise yourselves
as conservatives?

CUT
FEDERAL
SPENDING

Once the war is over, I'm all for that. But we need to spend whatever
we need to squash the terrorist threat, or there may not be an America
like we have now to worry about.


Once you have done that, you can cut taxes. Until you do that, you're simply
jerking off to a better grade of pornography-
still nothing but self indulgent, phoney pretense.

The current "conservative" government has failed in the primary expectation of
a conservative administration; reduce the size of the government and associated
expenses.

What would have them reduce at a time of war? What parts of
government, that isn't directly involved in terrorism or the war, have
expanded?

Dave