[quote]bigflamer wrote:
A rising tide does lift all boats
http://www.reaganlegacy.org/record/Cato/SUPPLY-SIDE%20TAX%20CUTS%20AND%20THE%20TRUTH%20ABOUT%20THE%20REAGAN%20ECONOMIC%20RECORD.htm
Quite simply; Reagan kicked ass.
[/quote]
Great graphic!
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
A rising tide does lift all boats
http://www.reaganlegacy.org/record/Cato/SUPPLY-SIDE%20TAX%20CUTS%20AND%20THE%20TRUTH%20ABOUT%20THE%20REAGAN%20ECONOMIC%20RECORD.htm
Quite simply; Reagan kicked ass.
Great graphic![/quote]
Thanks. That’s a pretty good site with alot more info in it on the Reagan record.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
A rising tide does lift all boats
http://www.reaganlegacy.org/record/Cato/SUPPLY-SIDE%20TAX%20CUTS%20AND%20THE%20TRUTH%20ABOUT%20THE%20REAGAN%20ECONOMIC%20RECORD.htm
Quite simply; Reagan kicked ass.
Great graphic![/quote]
Could you elaborate on that?
Could you give us your interpretation of that graphic steveo?
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
A rising tide does lift all boats
http://www.reaganlegacy.org/record/Cato/SUPPLY-SIDE%20TAX%20CUTS%20AND%20THE%20TRUTH%20ABOUT%20THE%20REAGAN%20ECONOMIC%20RECORD.htm
Quite simply; Reagan kicked ass.
Great graphic!
Could you elaborate on that?
Could you give us your interpretation of that graphic steveo?[/quote]
Nope, I think it speaks for itself!
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
A rising tide does lift all boats
http://www.reaganlegacy.org/record/Cato/SUPPLY-SIDE%20TAX%20CUTS%20AND%20THE%20TRUTH%20ABOUT%20THE%20REAGAN%20ECONOMIC%20RECORD.htm
Quite simply; Reagan kicked ass.
Great graphic!
Could you elaborate on that?
Could you give us your interpretation of that graphic steveo?
Nope, I think it speaks for itself!
[/quote]
Spoken like a true Reagen supporter.
Here’s what I think
Click on the link!
It’s sure to elaborate in a blink
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
A rising tide does lift all boats
http://www.reaganlegacy.org/record/Cato/SUPPLY-SIDE%20TAX%20CUTS%20AND%20THE%20TRUTH%20ABOUT%20THE%20REAGAN%20ECONOMIC%20RECORD.htm
Quite simply; Reagan kicked ass.
Great graphic!
Could you elaborate on that?
Could you give us your interpretation of that graphic steveo?[/quote]
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
Didn’t Ronald Reagan illegally sell arms to America’s enemies, send the proceeds to a terrorist organization, and then lie about it twice to the American public?
“After the arms sales were revealed in November 1986, President Reagan appeared on national television and denied that they had occurred. But a week later, on November 13, he returned to the airwaves to affirm that weapons were indeed transferred to Iran. He denied that they were part of an exchange for hostages. Later, faced with undeniable evidence of his involvement in the scandal, Reagan expressed regret regarding the situation on national television on Wednesday, March 4, 1987. In his speech, Reagan stated that his previous assertions that the US did not trade arms for hostages were incorrect.”
Yes…a far cry from “I did not have sex with that woman,” or "what exactly do you mean by “is?” Remember ol’ Billy boy?
Reagan took responsiblity and put things right. He wasn’t afraid to own up to something and tell the American people either. Great leaders do that, you know…
[/quote]
I don’t follow your logic at all…I agree that what Reagan did was a far cry from what Clinton did. I consider selling weapons to our enemies treasonous while lying about one’s personal sexual history is simply immoral.
But in the end both of these characters lied to our faces until they were faced with too much evidence to deny, and then turned around and admitted they lied. Don’t really see any difference between the two there…
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
…
I don’t follow your logic at all…I agree that what Reagan did was a far cry from what Clinton did. I consider selling weapons to our enemies treasonous while lying about one’s personal sexual history is simply immoral.
…[/quote]
I don’t give a shit about what Clinton did with his sex life but never forget that Clinton OK’d the sale of equipment the Chinese are using to target the US with their nukes.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
…
I don’t follow your logic at all…I agree that what Reagan did was a far cry from what Clinton did. I consider selling weapons to our enemies treasonous while lying about one’s personal sexual history is simply immoral.
…
I don’t give a shit about what Clinton did with his sex life but never forget that Clinton OK’d the sale of equipment the Chinese are using to target the US with their nukes.[/quote]
China reportedly has under 400 nukes, the US has like 11,000 or something.
[quote]Meddyg Stigg wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
…
I don’t follow your logic at all…I agree that what Reagan did was a far cry from what Clinton did. I consider selling weapons to our enemies treasonous while lying about one’s personal sexual history is simply immoral.
…
I don’t give a shit about what Clinton did with his sex life but never forget that Clinton OK’d the sale of equipment the Chinese are using to target the US with their nukes.
China reportedly has under 400 nukes, the US has like 11,000 or something.[/quote]
So they can kill us 2 times and we can kill them 10 times.
I would rather Clinton did not approve the sale of the technolgy that lets them hit where they aim.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Meddyg Stigg wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
…
I don’t follow your logic at all…I agree that what Reagan did was a far cry from what Clinton did. I consider selling weapons to our enemies treasonous while lying about one’s personal sexual history is simply immoral.
…
I don’t give a shit about what Clinton did with his sex life but never forget that Clinton OK’d the sale of equipment the Chinese are using to target the US with their nukes.
China reportedly has under 400 nukes, the US has like 11,000 or something.
So they can kill us 2 times and we can kill them 10 times.
I would rather Clinton did not approve the sale of the technolgy that lets them hit where they aim.[/quote]
If they were interested in nuking someone, they’d have made more. China is too busy strengthening its economy. If they attacked anyone, the west would not buy their goods and their economy would collapse.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I would rather Clinton did not approve the sale of the technolgy that lets them hit where they aim.[/quote]
Is this the stuff they using for their own space launches?
Anyway, I do find it hard to believe that the Chinese don’t have enough manpower and scientists to figure things out if they don’t want to.
Anyway, I think moriarty gave a good indication as to why Ronnie will be rotting in hell.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Meddyg Stigg wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
…
I don’t follow your logic at all…I agree that what Reagan did was a far cry from what Clinton did. I consider selling weapons to our enemies treasonous while lying about one’s personal sexual history is simply immoral.
…
I don’t give a shit about what Clinton did with his sex life but never forget that Clinton OK’d the sale of equipment the Chinese are using to target the US with their nukes.
China reportedly has under 400 nukes, the US has like 11,000 or something.
So they can kill us 2 times and we can kill them 10 times.
I would rather Clinton did not approve the sale of the technolgy that lets them hit where they aim.[/quote]
Whereas I’m quite pleased as it means they probably won’t accidently hit the UK!
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I would rather Clinton did not approve the sale of the technolgy that lets them hit where they aim.
Is this the stuff they using for their own space launches?
Anyway, I do find it hard to believe that the Chinese don’t have enough manpower and scientists to figure things out if they don’t want to.
…[/quote]
Same stuff. The Chinese are still too busy stealing technology and intellectual property to develop high end stuff.
I recently read an article about how a huge percentage of research done in their universities is fradulent and/or plagarized.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
…
I don’t follow your logic at all…I agree that what Reagan did was a far cry from what Clinton did. I consider selling weapons to our enemies treasonous while lying about one’s personal sexual history is simply immoral.
…
I don’t give a shit about what Clinton did with his sex life but never forget that Clinton OK’d the sale of equipment the Chinese are using to target the US with their nukes.[/quote]
I agree about not giving a shit about Clinton’s sex life…I don’t know why Clinton was brought up at all with regard to Reagan’s treasonous actions. I only referenced his sex life because steveo specifically referred to that.
Reagan was the best GOP president in my lifetime but that is not saying much when you think about it.
Clinton benefited from a GOP house of represenatives more than the Dems would like to admit.
Image what Reagan could have accomplished if the house and senate were in GOP control.
Besides Reagan, you’d have to throw in their FDR (despite jumpstarting socialism, he did lead the U.S. through the 2nd worst time in history [2nd to the Civil War]), and Teddy Roosevelt as the greatest in the last century.
Keep in mind that U.S. Presidents are judged historically by a ‘single great act.’ (Abe Lincoln preserving the Union, G Washington being the 1st President and choosing NOT to be a King, James Monroe for the Monroe Doctrine, etc…)
To nitpick the minutae of a Presidency fails to grasp in totality the real legacy of each particular U.S. President. Reagan will ALWAYS be known for the dissolution of the Soviet Union, FDR for helping ‘win’ WW2, etc. Unfortunately, Bill Clinton, who was a very bright President, served in a time when there were no ‘single great historical’ events. However, if he had killed Mr. Osama, he may have indeed preserved a legacy that didn’t include blow jobs from a fat chick. (But on the good side, Clinton did sign the Welfare Reform Act…amen to that)…that’s all folks…
Keep history in perspective; the Chinese believe that the last 500 years of domination by the ‘West’ (U.S. and Europe) is but a mere historical hiccup. They have the manpower and brain power to DOMINATE the world’s economy and military. I think many Americans are too friggin’ fat and happy and don’t realize that this freight train called ‘China’ will soon bulldoze over the U.S. (Heck, look at academic performances at ALL the top U.S. universities…it is DOMINATED by Asian students…esp. those of Chinese dissent).
In 50 years, China will again become the dominant civilization of the world (as it was prior to the rebirth of Europe)…
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
Didn’t Ronald Reagan illegally sell arms to America’s enemies, send the proceeds to a terrorist organization, and then lie about it twice to the American public?
“After the arms sales were revealed in November 1986, President Reagan appeared on national television and denied that they had occurred. But a week later, on November 13, he returned to the airwaves to affirm that weapons were indeed transferred to Iran. He denied that they were part of an exchange for hostages. Later, faced with undeniable evidence of his involvement in the scandal, Reagan expressed regret regarding the situation on national television on Wednesday, March 4, 1987. In his speech, Reagan stated that his previous assertions that the US did not trade arms for hostages were incorrect.”
Yes…a far cry from “I did not have sex with that woman,” or "what exactly do you mean by “is?” Remember ol’ Billy boy?
Reagan took responsiblity and put things right. He wasn’t afraid to own up to something and tell the American people either. Great leaders do that, you know…
I don’t follow your logic at all…I agree that what Reagan did was a far cry from what Clinton did. I consider selling weapons to our enemies treasonous while lying about one’s personal sexual history is simply immoral.
But in the end both of these characters lied to our faces until they were faced with too much evidence to deny, and then turned around and admitted they lied. Don’t really see any difference between the two there…[/quote]
bill clinton lied under oath as the Chief Executive for Enforcing laws.
Stevo, If GWB had 1/10 the ability to communicate that Reagan had, the democratic party would have gone the way of the Whigs.
Does anyone think that Reagan would have let slide the opportunity to trumpet the saddam tapes/wmd finds?
I’d have loved to have seen the Gipper read the saddam tapes.
That would have done old helen thomas in.
JeffR