Presidental Straw Poll

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Do you have any idea how dangerous it is for you to stake your future and that of this nation on one man? One man who is pretty much in the average lifespan range right now?

You are displaying for Ron Paul the very same personality cult symptoms that Obama’s fanatics are suffering from. I hate to see you doing this to yourself man.[/quote]

And your solution is to put it in the hands of the very same people who gave us medicare part D?

Ron Paul is in great health, looks like he is on the campaign trail, is liked by people on both sides of the isle. That is who I will be supporting(now if he gives his support to another candidate then I will vote for them). I need someone with honesty and Gingrich isn’t that guy.[/quote]

See I’m like halfawy between you two, I think Ron Paul IS electable, but I think he has some disadvantages, i.e. his age. BUT I would love to see Ron Paul endorse some younger candidate who he has faith in and then even become his VP candidate or something similar. I would easily vote for a younger, better spoken, more energetic candidate IF Ron Paul had endorsed him strongly or even better yet was standing behind him. The thing I will NOT do however is allow the republican party to ignore the tea party and shove another McCain, Romney, Huckanee, Juliani smorgesboard in my face and tell me, hey look at all these choices you have. Sorry all those choices suck.

V

82

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
<<< (now if he gives his support to another candidate then I will vote for them) >>>[/quote]
Listen to yourself brother. You have surrendered your mind and your will to Ron Paul. This has nothing to do with him and everything to do with you.[/quote]

I don’t think so trib, John has a political authority, I myself view Ron Paul as my political authority. I am smart enough to understand and comprehend complex issues, but I have learned a lot about small governemnt from Ron Paul, so he holds a place in my brain as “teacher” if you will, and those people deserve respect. My following and probably Johns, is born out of gratitude, respect and trust. Thats the kind of man I can get behind, so if he is going to lead, I’ll gladly follow him. If he doesn’t want to lead, thats ok too, I will have to do more work, but it is work I will do.

V

83

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Listen to me when I say this, if the GOP puts someone in who the Tea Partiers don’t fully endorse as a small government conservative, this country will get another 4 years of Obama.
V[/quote]

^THAT is what worries me. And yet, as much as I like Paul, I too really wonder if he’s broadly electable.

Let me throw this out there: I know Gingrich has many problems (personal issues + some of his political stances I’m not so hot on), but look: he’s pretty much 90% true small gov Conservative; he really believes in the Constitution, is extremely knowlegeable, highly intelligent, quick on his feet, tons of experience, and is well-known. [/quote]
Gingrich would literally brutalize Obama in a debate too. I mean mop bucket and stretcher, but I don’t know how electable he is either. Paul has no chance. Nada zip zilch zero. Believe it. Forgetting every other potential issue he brings to the table he is TOO DAMN OLD. That matters.[/quote]

Trib, what do you think are the obstacles to his electability?

84

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
ZEB wrote:

I never said that you’re a liar, you are the one who has resorted to personal insults not me. But I do think that you are mistaken. You keep omitting those pesky little things called facts. And we both know that you were too young to remember anything from that era and have not read enough to know in detail regarding that era, otherwise we all would have read it by now. Isn’t that right?

… I have a set of facts and have also lived through that era. I have not read anything that has logically contradicted what I lived through and saw, up close and personal. You certainly bring nothing to the argument that has any substance.

Yeah, I’m “mistaken” that among people I knew very many remained vocal Reagan supporters, he had by no means dropped off of their radar to being not even a blip, and my saying that this was the case doesn’t qualify as presenting a fact that this was true.[/quote]

How many people did you know? 10, 20, 100? What does that mean? I also knew many who wanted Reagan to become President, I wanted Reagan to become President. But, as I’ve repeatedly stated, 2 1/2 years out many were worried about his viability because of his challenge to Ford, his age and his being so conservative. You’re point that he challenged Ford in 76’ so therefore he must have been immediately viable makes no sense and in fact it was because he challenged Ford is one of the reasons that made him less viable. I know you realize that politicians fall in and out of favor all the time. One example of this is LBJ who won the largest popular vote landslide in history defeating Barry Goldwater (another great conservative). However, Johnson was so unpopular three years later that he didn’t even run for reelection. We both know that because someone is up one year doesn’t necessarily mean that he will be up a couple of years later. There are countless examples of this.

[quote]You also claim we “both know” that I was too young at the time to be able to know what I said that I know from that time.

Yet you’re not calling me a liar. Right.[/quote]

You’ve had several chances to clear up that age question, but as yet you’ve not done it. If you posted that you were a certain age at the time and had clear recollection I would have gladly accepted that as fact, but you didn’t. Also, why do you take such offense to me trusting my own personal experiences and knowledge of that time over yours? I don’t get it.

One more personal attack. This topic really makes you mad, but for the life of me I don’t know why.

I listed Newsweek as only one of the magazines that I read to stay informed at the time. I also listed US News And World Report, and the Wall Street Journal. In addition to that I was actively involved in politics at the time sorry that roils you. Does this irritate you because of your own lack of involvement at the time? But that begs the question, were you old enough to be involved at the time?

Bill, sorry you feel that way. But, keep in mind it was you who made a big deal of my post to another person. I have no idea why you took the strange position that you did. Should I be offended because you are questioning something that I actually lived? I don’t get all the emotion you’re bringing to this. You’re personally offended because I trust my memory and knowledge of the facts at that time over your own? I’ve laid out my facts and explained my position clearly. You’ve posted nothing to refute those things. If you do I will in fact acknowledge it.

Am I supposed to judge you by our little disagreement? Certainly not, I’ll chalk it off to a bad day on your part. I do think that you’re more right than wrong in many of your positions on this forum, I just don’t happen to agree with you on this one point.

85

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
<<< (now if he gives his support to another candidate then I will vote for them) >>>[/quote]
Listen to yourself brother. You have surrendered your mind and your will to Ron Paul. This has nothing to do with him and everything to do with you.[/quote]

Well said.

If someone says they are for ron paul and votes for obama, they don’t believe in anything ron paul says he stands for.

Go right down the list of ron paul talking points. You won’t find obama on many (any) of them.

If ron paulie’s vote for obama, they are throwing a temper tantrum.

Is this temper tantrum worth another four years of obama?

I say, absolutely not.

JeffR

86

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Listen to me when I say this, if the GOP puts someone in who the Tea Partiers don’t fully endorse as a small government conservative, this country will get another 4 years of Obama.
V[/quote]

^THAT is what worries me. And yet, as much as I like Paul, I too really wonder if he’s broadly electable.

Let me throw this out there: I know Gingrich has many problems (personal issues + some of his political stances I’m not so hot on), but look: he’s pretty much 90% true small gov Conservative; he really believes in the Constitution, is extremely knowlegeable, highly intelligent, quick on his feet, tons of experience, and is well-known. [/quote]

Katz:

I’d vote for Gingrich in a second. I encourage everyone to listen to the man.

Read his books.

The question is only: Has obama become so toxic to everyone that people could look past the personal issues of Gingrich?

JeffR

87

[quote]Jeff R wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
<<< (now if he gives his support to another candidate then I will vote for them) >>>[/quote]
Listen to yourself brother. You have surrendered your mind and your will to Ron Paul. This has nothing to do with him and everything to do with you.[/quote]

Well said.

If someone says they are for ron paul and votes for obama, they don’t believe in anything ron paul says he stands for.

Go right down the list of ron paul talking points. You won’t find obama on many (any) of them.

If ron paulie’s vote for obama, they are throwing a temper tantrum.

Is this temper tantrum worth another four years of obama?

I say, absolutely not.

JeffR[/quote]

It’s not a temper tantrum Jeff, it’s a statement, Small gavernemnt conservatives are taking the party back. Our convictions are very very strong. If the conservatives that make up the rest of the GOP the ones who love them some Romney, or Huckabee, or Palin, or Rudi, etc… if they don’t understand how deep our convictions lie then it will be them who is choosing Obama not us, we are stating it pretty clearly, over and over and over. You WILL GET OBAMA AGAIN IF YOU DO NOT PUT A TRUE CONSERVATIVE ON THE GOP TICKET. Period, end of story. We will glady turn the GOP into a third party if they do not change course and go back to being REAL conservatives.

Nobody is throwing a tantrum, nothing has been decided yet, throwing a tantrum would be something someone does after the fact. We are making statements and we are going to stick to them, the ball is in your court. And if you come with some Gingrich, you are going to have to sell him pretty hard to make me believe he is going to stick to his guns on all the issues.

V

88

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]Jeff R wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
<<< (now if he gives his support to another candidate then I will vote for them) >>>[/quote]
Listen to yourself brother. You have surrendered your mind and your will to Ron Paul. This has nothing to do with him and everything to do with you.[/quote]

Well said.

If someone says they are for ron paul and votes for obama, they don’t believe in anything ron paul says he stands for.

Go right down the list of ron paul talking points. You won’t find obama on many (any) of them.

If ron paulie’s vote for obama, they are throwing a temper tantrum.

Is this temper tantrum worth another four years of obama?

I say, absolutely not.

JeffR[/quote]

It’s not a temper tantrum Jeff, it’s a statement, Small gavernemnt conservatives are taking the party back. Our convictions are very very strong. If the conservatives that make up the rest of the GOP the ones who love them some Romney, or Huckabee, or Palin, or Rudi, etc… if they don’t understand how deep our convictions lie then it will be them who is choosing Obama not us, we are stating it pretty clearly, over and over and over. You WILL GET OBAMA AGAIN IF YOU DO NOT PUT A TRUE CONSERVATIVE ON THE GOP TICKET. Period, end of story. We will glady turn the GOP into a third party if they do not change course and go back to being REAL conservatives.

Nobody is throwing a tantrum, nothing has been decided yet, throwing a tantrum would be something someone does after the fact. We are making statements and we are going to stick to them, the ball is in your court. And if you come with some Gingrich, you are going to have to sell him pretty hard to make me believe he is going to stick to his guns on all the issues.

V[/quote]

I think this is the reason so many Conservatives have looked back and not liked what Bush did. He had the ability to decrease the size of Government, but chose not to. He wanted to help the little people like Obama, but Bush did not want to go as far as Obama by using redistribution of wealth. I am tired of Republicans not going after the isues that we want them to go after. I got a questionaire from the Republican Party and all the issues they had on there was just crap. There was not a place I could put other like decrease the budget of the US government. That is when I became a little disenfranchised with the Republican Party.

89

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Listen to me when I say this, if the GOP puts someone in who the Tea Partiers don’t fully endorse as a small government conservative, this country will get another 4 years of Obama.
V[/quote]

^THAT is what worries me. And yet, as much as I like Paul, I too really wonder if he’s broadly electable.

Let me throw this out there: I know Gingrich has many problems (personal issues + some of his political stances I’m not so hot on), but look: he’s pretty much 90% true small gov Conservative; he really believes in the Constitution, is extremely knowlegeable, highly intelligent, quick on his feet, tons of experience, and is well-known. [/quote]
Gingrich would literally brutalize Obama in a debate too. I mean mop bucket and stretcher, but I don’t know how electable he is either. Paul has no chance. Nada zip zilch zero. Believe it. Forgetting every other potential issue he brings to the table he is TOO DAMN OLD. That matters.[/quote]

Trib, what do you think are the obstacles to his electability?
[/quote]

Have you seen the guy debate? I like RP, and I know he is passionate but to the general public he probably comes across as someone who can’t keep their composure and is a little off his rocker. He’s nothing like any president before him (which I like about him) but people will be uneasy and uncomfortable electing someone like him into office. I don’t even think his age is the biggest issue.

90

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Listen to me when I say this, if the GOP puts someone in who the Tea Partiers don’t fully endorse as a small government conservative, this country will get another 4 years of Obama.
V[/quote]

^THAT is what worries me. And yet, as much as I like Paul, I too really wonder if he’s broadly electable.

Let me throw this out there: I know Gingrich has many problems (personal issues + some of his political stances I’m not so hot on), but look: he’s pretty much 90% true small gov Conservative; he really believes in the Constitution, is extremely knowlegeable, highly intelligent, quick on his feet, tons of experience, and is well-known. [/quote]
Gingrich would literally brutalize Obama in a debate too. I mean mop bucket and stretcher, but I don’t know how electable he is either. Paul has no chance. Nada zip zilch zero. Believe it. Forgetting every other potential issue he brings to the table he is TOO DAMN OLD. That matters.[/quote]

Trib, what do you think are the obstacles to his electability?
[/quote]

Have you seen the guy debate? I like RP, and I know he is passionate but to the general public he probably comes across as someone who can’t keep their composure and is a little off his rocker. He’s nothing like any president before him (which I like about him) but people will be uneasy and uncomfortable electing someone like him into office. I don’t even think his age is the biggest issue.[/quote]

You mean Ron Paul - I agree. Sorry, I should have been clearer - I meant Gingrich.

91

[quote]Jeff R wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Listen to me when I say this, if the GOP puts someone in who the Tea Partiers don’t fully endorse as a small government conservative, this country will get another 4 years of Obama.
V[/quote]

^THAT is what worries me. And yet, as much as I like Paul, I too really wonder if he’s broadly electable.

Let me throw this out there: I know Gingrich has many problems (personal issues + some of his political stances I’m not so hot on), but look: he’s pretty much 90% true small gov Conservative; he really believes in the Constitution, is extremely knowlegeable, highly intelligent, quick on his feet, tons of experience, and is well-known. [/quote]

Katz:

I’d vote for Gingrich in a second. I encourage everyone to listen to the man.

Read his books.

The question is only: Has obama become so toxic to everyone that people could look past the personal issues of Gingrich?

JeffR
[/quote]

I hate to say it, but I’m leaning towards yes at this point. I just can’t at the moment see who else has everything in “one package” so to speak. And I just don’t think that this is a “dark horse” moment.

92

[quote]Vegita wrote:
<<< You WILL GET OBAMA AGAIN IF YOU DO NOT PUT A TRUE CONSERVATIVE ON THE GOP TICKET. >>>
V[/quote]
I could not agree with this more and I defy you to call my conservative credentials into question, but it is just plain creepy how some of you guys put the fate of this nation on the shoulders of Ron Paul. It isn’t even fair to him. The time to stop this assault on freedom was 50 years ago. No man or movement will turn this ship back now. It will take a transformation in the citizenry, not in DC.

93

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
<<< Trib, what do you think are the obstacles to his electability?
[/quote]
3 marriages and the tacky way his last one ended will be fodder for the media. His meteoric rise and just as dramatic fall as speaker of the house comes quickly to mind. A reprimand for ehtics violations by a congress controlled by his own party, the crash n burn nature of his approval as speaker, subsequent resignation and everything surrounding that will provide a bottomless goldmine for the left wing media.

He is brilliant, conservative, a true historical/constitutional scholar, invincible debater and most of the time unwavering. BUT, he has a 4 car train of baggage in his past.

94

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]Jeff R wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
<<< (now if he gives his support to another candidate then I will vote for them) >>>[/quote]
Listen to yourself brother. You have surrendered your mind and your will to Ron Paul. This has nothing to do with him and everything to do with you.[/quote]

Well said.

If someone says they are for ron paul and votes for obama, they don’t believe in anything ron paul says he stands for.

Go right down the list of ron paul talking points. You won’t find obama on many (any) of them.

If ron paulie’s vote for obama, they are throwing a temper tantrum.

Is this temper tantrum worth another four years of obama?

I say, absolutely not.

JeffR[/quote]

It’s not a temper tantrum Jeff, it’s a statement, Small gavernemnt conservatives are taking the party back. Our convictions are very very strong. If the conservatives that make up the rest of the GOP the ones who love them some Romney, or Huckabee, or Palin, or Rudi, etc… if they don’t understand how deep our convictions lie then it will be them who is choosing Obama not us, we are stating it pretty clearly, over and over and over. You WILL GET OBAMA AGAIN IF YOU DO NOT PUT A TRUE CONSERVATIVE ON THE GOP TICKET. Period, end of story. We will glady turn the GOP into a third party if they do not change course and go back to being REAL conservatives.

Nobody is throwing a tantrum, nothing has been decided yet, throwing a tantrum would be something someone does after the fact. We are making statements and we are going to stick to them, the ball is in your court. And if you come with some Gingrich, you are going to have to sell him pretty hard to make me believe he is going to stick to his guns on all the issues.

V[/quote]

V,

I understand what you are saying. BUT, I disagree with your approach. To me, ANY Conservative is infinitely preferrable to what we have now.

Politics is the art of the possible. ron paul isn’t possible.

You know what happens when a third party siphons votes? See 1992.

Gingrich MIGHT be possible. If you haven’t, check the man out.

It’s the baggage that is his problem. It isn’t credentials/ability.

By the way, if you vote for obama, you don’t really believe anything ron paul says.

Finally, I know plenty of ron paulie’s who took their ball and went home as he was marginalized during the last election.

JeffR

95

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
<<< Trib, what do you think are the obstacles to his electability?
[/quote]
3 marriages and the tacky way his last one ended will be fodder for the media. His meteoric rise and just as dramatic fall as speaker of the house comes quickly to mind. A reprimand for ehtics violations by a congress controlled by his own party, the crash n burn nature of his approval as speaker, subsequent resignation and everything surrounding that will provide a bottomless goldmine for the left wing media.

He is brilliant, conservative, a true historical/constitutional scholar, invincible debater and most of the time unwavering. BUT, he has a 4 car train of baggage in his past.[/quote]

Yep. All true.

The question is: Will the lefty media types have the same power in 2012 as they had in 2008?

Will people start to realize that the MSM did a piss poor job of vetting obama?

Will the guaranteed 75 front page NYT articles detailing Gingrich’s personal life pack the same punch in 2012?

How badly do we want the most qualified candidate?

JeffR

96

I’m right with you. Gingrich has also been very involved with the Tea Party.

I just hope the John S/Vegita types don’t vote for obama in protest. I hope they realize that a Gingrich vote is a major repudiation of leftist policies.

I don’t want to get my hopes up. But, I just think Gingrich is head and shoulders above the current candidates in both ability/experience.

It’s the baggage I’m not sure he can overcome.

It does make me smile to imagine him debating obama.

Wow.

JeffR

97

[quote]Jeff R wrote:

I’m right with you. Gingrich has also been very involved with the Tea Party.

I just hope the John S/Vegita types don’t vote for obama in protest. I hope they realize that a Gingrich vote is a major repudiation of leftist policies.

I don’t want to get my hopes up. But, I just think Gingrich is head and shoulders above the current candidates in both ability/experience.

It’s the baggage I’m not sure he can overcome.

It does make me smile to imagine him debating obama.

Wow.

JeffR
[/quote]

Ok but Jeff and Trib, What if they don’t nominate out of the GOP barn, a Gingrich? What if Romney is the one the GOP throws thier weight behind? Are you guys still going to just hold your nose and vote for ANY republican even one who is a strong supporter of government (albeit state not federal) run healthcare? I don’t think a Romney or any other typical GOP insider is going to put the brakes on fast enough or hard enough to stop us from going off the cliff.

SO, my only option personally and I think there are many like me, is to say it’s all or nothing right now. AND the only way we CAN get someone in power is if the GOP nominates a true small government conservative. If they do this, The GOP will CRUSH the dems, I have no doubt about it. I don’t care if it’s Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Andrew Napolitano, etc… But it cannot be someone from the GOP who has voted time and time again for bigger governemnt with a republican flavor to it.

I would rather fly off the cliff with my hands off the steering wheel both arms extended out the open top of my convertable with a dual middle finger salute, than to pretend like some half measure republican who will just lie in his campaign to get elected and then do nothing to shrink government is going to save the day. It’s just not going to happen. fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can’t get fooled again.

V

98

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:
<<< You WILL GET OBAMA AGAIN IF YOU DO NOT PUT A TRUE CONSERVATIVE ON THE GOP TICKET. >>>
V[/quote]
I could not agree with this more and I defy you to call my conservative credentials into question, but it is just plain creepy how some of you guys put the fate of this nation on the shoulders of Ron Paul. It isn’t even fair to him. The time to stop this assault on freedom was 50 years ago. No man or movement will turn this ship back now. It will take a transformation in the citizenry, not in DC.[/quote]

I don’t want to put it all on Ron Paul, if he runs, I think he is the best candidate, I will support and vote for him if I am able. Like I said and John said, just show me someone else who I can vote for and tell me why. I’m not going to put my head in the sand. But they better not have a voting record that is pro big governemnt. They better not have instituted state run healcare in the state they govern. Those people do NOT believe in true conservatism. If they really believed in it, they would not have voted to make government bigger. There are a lot of “republicans” who think government has the answers, it’s just that THEY the Republicans know how to do it and the Democrats don’t. No that is wrong, neither can make that work, the only thing that can work is LESS governemnt period. A candidate needs to be presented that can say they stand for those principles and they either need to be really green, or they need to be Ron Paul, there simply isn’t anyone who has been part of the political landscape for the past 30 years who can say they have lived and acted based on those conservative principles.

V

99

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]Jeff R wrote:

I’m right with you. Gingrich has also been very involved with the Tea Party.

I just hope the John S/Vegita types don’t vote for obama in protest. I hope they realize that a Gingrich vote is a major repudiation of leftist policies.

I don’t want to get my hopes up. But, I just think Gingrich is head and shoulders above the current candidates in both ability/experience.

It’s the baggage I’m not sure he can overcome.

It does make me smile to imagine him debating obama.

Wow.

JeffR
[/quote]

Ok but Jeff and Trib, What if they don’t nominate out of the GOP barn, a Gingrich? What if Romney is the one the GOP throws thier weight behind? Are you guys still going to just hold your nose and vote for ANY republican even one who is a strong supporter of government (albeit state not federal) run healthcare? I don’t think a Romney or any other typical GOP insider is going to put the brakes on fast enough or hard enough to stop us from going off the cliff.

SO, my only option personally and I think there are many like me, is to say it’s all or nothing right now. AND the only way we CAN get someone in power is if the GOP nominates a true small government conservative. If they do this, The GOP will CRUSH the dems, I have no doubt about it. I don’t care if it’s Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Andrew Napolitano, etc… But it cannot be someone from the GOP who has voted time and time again for bigger governemnt with a republican flavor to it.

I would rather fly off the cliff with my hands off the steering wheel both arms extended out the open top of my convertable with a dual middle finger salute, than to pretend like some half measure republican who will just lie in his campaign to get elected and then do nothing to shrink government is going to save the day. It’s just not going to happen. fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can’t get fooled again.

V[/quote]

This.

100

A bad day on my part that you, by a statement having equivalent meaning, accuse me of being a liar immediately after, in the same post, claiming you weren’t doing so?

All over the fact that you refuse to admit that your “not even a blip on the radar” was overstating the matter?

Aside from the fact that I can think of eight different people that I discussed politics with who still supported Reagan at the time, which rules out that he had (allegedly) dropped off the radar at that point, there are also his CPAC speeches in 1977 and 1978 – the time you claim he was off the radar – his near-constant radio addresses, and his active fund-raising as well as support of other candidates across the country. He was very actively working throughout that period towards the 1980 election and people knew it and very many continued to believe in him and absolutely took him seriously for 1980. Perhaps not among your insider friends, but among people in general, absolutely.

I did a brief web search to see if I could find straw poll results from those years (I could not) but I quickly found a comment from a Republican stating that at that time the Republican establishment favored Bush but the conservative base still favored Reagan; a comment from a “progressive” stating that Reagan had the support of the religious right at that time; and an article on Reagan’s activities during that period which makes clear he hadn’t dropped off the radar.

But that’s not the main point: it was entirely out of line for you to have asserted “we both know you weren’t old enough” (paraphrase from earlier post) to in fact know what I said I knew from personal experience: specifically, what many people I knew were saying at the time. That is calling me a liar, all because you won’t grant even so little as that you overstated the matter and should have said instead that the establishment didn’t favor Reagan at that time rather than claiming he “wasn’t even a blip on the radar.”

And rather than acknowledge that you were wrong to call me a liar in that manner, you write the below, with continued implication that I’m lying, and say you’re sorry that I feel as I do.

That isn’t a manner of discourse that I prefer to engage in. You are free to call anyone a liar that you wish, but there shouldn’t be a surprise if it’s taken rather negatively when the assertion is unwarranted and false.

(EDIT: I used overly strong language originally, for which I apologize.)

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Bill, sorry you feel that way. But, keep in mind it was you who made a big deal of my post to another person. I have no idea why you took the strange position that you did. Should I be offended because you are questioning something that I actually lived? I don’t get all the emotion you’re bringing to this. You’re personally offended because I trust my memory and knowledge of the facts at that time over your own? I’ve laid out my facts and explained my position clearly. You’ve posted nothing to refute those things. If you do I will in fact acknowledge it.

… You’ve had several chances to clear up that age question, but as yet you’ve not done it.

… But that begs the question, were you old enough to be involved at the time? [/quote]