Obama/Reagan -- a study...

[Iriemon]

Just exume his body. Most of his disciples wouldn't know the difference. : )

 

[Yukon]

They could insert a recorded message in the rotting corpse that says " Axis of evil, axis of evil..."

Just exume his body. Most of his disciples wouldn't know the difference. : )

 

[Sinatra]

,,,

 

[midcan5]

Ronnie is this reincarnated figure, who like Elvis or Marilyn became a greater myth in death.

Ronald Reagan(The Mis-Comunicator)

 

[Sinatra]

Classic Reagan...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQFAYy5Ocfg&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Iriemon]

The point being that by taking an biased source for clips of an unrepresentative sample you can somehow make some point?

What do you say we do a statistically meaningful examination and look at voters with advanced education degrees and compare the percentage that voted Obama vs. McCain?

one could do the same do a statistically meaningful examination and look at voters with advanced education degrees, with people throughout history who've voted for fascist governments and/or for racist and genocidal policies. do not ever underestimate the gullibility and stupidity of educated people with eduaxcational degrees---advanced or otherwise.

Sure it would be interesting to see it.

But your point is PC's video of "Obama voters" is more significant that the fact that people with advanced degrees voted for Obama by a 3:2 margin in determining whether only ignorant people supported him?

The Bell Curve is a controversial, best-selling 1994 book by the late Harvard psychologist Richard J. Herrnstein and American Enterprise Institute political scientist Charles Murray

eugenics anyone?

The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,[10] drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin. From its inception eugenics was supported by prominent people, including Margaret Sanger, H. G. Wells, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, William Keith Kellogg, Winston Churchill, and Sidney Webb.[11][12][13] Its most infamous proponent and practitioner was however Adolf Hitler who praised and incorporated Eugenic ideas in Mein Kampf, and emulated Eugenic legislation for the sterilization of "defectives" that had been pioneered in the United States.[14]

-Eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fascinating. And it has what to do with Obama supporters?

 

[garyd]

People with advanced degrees support support Obama 3/2? Is that the best he can do among a group of people probably 80% of whom work for the government at one level or the other? I would think that a man supporting more government jobs would get at least 80% of that crowd.

 

[edthecynic]

As stated.. you like to have your beliefs that have nothing to do with facts... you would rather have your hype and myth

Reagan hero worship is all about hype and myth.

As stated over and over and over and over again.. the long list of Reagan's accomplishments are irrefutable... Whether you like them or not... the fact that he accomplished much during his two terms is not myth

Oh... and of course your Obama "hero worship" is not myth but based on accomplishment and fact

What a partisan hack

My favorite exaggeration in the "Myth of St Ronnie" is:

Trick Lib Question of Reagan
March 28, 2008

CALLER: Ronald Reagan, why did he never respond to the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: By the way, to answer the guy's question, "Why didn't Reagan respond?" He did. It's one of the most underreported aspects in world history. Amir Taheri wrote about it on April 18th, 2007, in a publication called Gulf News. Basically, Reagan sunk Iran's navy, if I could just sum this up. We sunk Iran's navy. The attacks from Lebanon came from Iran, as they still do to this day. We sunk Iran's navy, but we didn't talk about it much then because that would have made us look mean, and the mullahs didn't talk about it because they didn't want the world to know their navy had been sunk, but it happened.
END TRANSCRIPT

Operation Praying Mantis was an April 18, 1988 attack by U.S. naval forces in retaliation for the Iranian mining of the Persian Gulf and the subsequent damage to an American warship.

In short, Iran lost one major warship and a smaller gunboat.

 

[Sinatra]

Classic Reagan...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQFAYy5Ocfg&feature=related

,,,

 

[Cecilie1200]

Reagan hero worship is all about hype and myth.

As stated over and over and over and over again.. the long list of Reagan's accomplishments are irrefutable... Whether you like them or not... the fact that he accomplished much during his two terms is not myth

Oh... and of course your Obama "hero worship" is not myth but based on accomplishment and fact

What a partisan hack

My favorite exaggeration in the "Myth of St Ronnie" is:

Trick Lib Question of Reagan
March 28, 2008

CALLER: Ronald Reagan, why did he never respond to the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: By the way, to answer the guy's question, "Why didn't Reagan respond?" He did. It's one of the most underreported aspects in world history. Amir Taheri wrote about it on April 18th, 2007, in a publication called Gulf News. Basically, Reagan sunk Iran's navy, if I could just sum this up. We sunk Iran's navy. The attacks from Lebanon came from Iran, as they still do to this day. We sunk Iran's navy, but we didn't talk about it much then because that would have made us look mean, and the mullahs didn't talk about it because they didn't want the world to know their navy had been sunk, but it happened.
END TRANSCRIPT

Operation Praying Mantis was an April 18, 1988 attack by U.S. naval forces in retaliation for the Iranian mining of the Persian Gulf and the subsequent damage to an American warship.

In short, Iran lost one major warship and a smaller gunboat.

I find it very illuminating that you 1) made it clear who was being cited in your first quote, but cited no source for your second one, and 2) neglected to give us the REST of the story on the second one as told by your source (which was Wikipedia, by the way).

Rush said that Reagan "basically sunk Iran's navy", and you tell us that we "merely" sunk two ships. (It's also interesting that while you cite Wikipedia for causes, you switch over to your own words for damage.) In fact, Wikipedia states that there were 2 Iranian frigates, 1 gunboat, 6 speedboats, 2 fighters, and 2 platforms involved in the fight. One of the frigates was sunk, as was the gunboat and three of the speedboats, and the other frigate and the two platforms were damaged. So it is quite true that Iran's navy in that engagement WAS "basically sunk".

In addition, while these losses may seem small by the standards of the American Navy, it should be blindingly obvious that Iran was not remotely comparable to the US in naval strength. These losses constituted a large proportion of their navy, and this battle is credited with breaking Iran's power in the area and forcing them to seek a cease-fire with Iraq. So while Rush may have generalized quite a bit, he is guilty neither of lying nor of being incorrect on this score.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Obama is much brighter than Reagan. .

On what do you base that statement? I've tried finding test scores that would give some indication as to how bright Obama is and I can't find them. Same now with Ronald Reagan. I've seen estimates of each individual's IQ but I have yet to find a satisfactory basis for those estimates.

 

[Sinatra]

Obama is much brighter than Reagan. .

On what do you base that statement? I've tried finding test scores that would give some indication as to how bright Obama is and I can't find them.

It is absolute myth.

Reagan had the posthumous publishing of his handwritten letters on a wide array of subjects - a volume that shows considerable insight into the questions of his time (and many remain quite applicable to today). This publication did much to dispel the myth of Reagan as a simpleton - at least by those who actually have an interest in non-biased study of American history. He was in fact, quite the opposite. What shook so many was Reagan's near total lack of ego. He was disinterested in the approval of the media or his political opposition. Some mistook this for ignorance - a telling insight into their own need for recognition.

Reagan's considerable success was not mere fate - it was the rare meeting of the right man at the right time. He knew what he wished to do, and worked in a seemingly effortless manner to achieve that desire. And while he did not succeed on all counts - such a thing does not exist in politics, he did far more than most, and has left a political standard by which all succeeding presidents have yet to fully measure up to.

 

[Iriemon]

People with advanced degrees support support Obama 3/2? Is that the best he can do among a group of people probably 80% of whom work for the government at one level or the other? I would think that a man supporting more government jobs would get at least 80% of that crowd.

It's a lot more relevant that a video of a few select people that supposedly represent the intellegence of Obama voters. Just my opinion.

Do you have proof that 80% of those with graduate degrees work for the government?

I didn't think so.

 

[garyd]

Where else would they work. Sure some work for phamaceuticals. But the majority of degrees advanced and otherwise tend to be in education. And the overwhelming majority aren't in the hard sciences or engineering which would make up most of those working in the private sector.

 

[edthecynic]

Reagan hero worship is all about hype and myth.

As stated over and over and over and over again.. the long list of Reagan's accomplishments are irrefutable... Whether you like them or not... the fact that he accomplished much during his two terms is not myth

Oh... and of course your Obama "hero worship" is not myth but based on accomplishment and fact

What a partisan hack

My favorite exaggeration in the "Myth of St Ronnie" is:

Trick Lib Question of Reagan
March 28, 2008

CALLER: Ronald Reagan, why did he never respond to the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: By the way, to answer the guy's question, "Why didn't Reagan respond?" He did. It's one of the most underreported aspects in world history. Amir Taheri wrote about it on April 18th, 2007, in a publication called Gulf News. Basically, Reagan sunk Iran's navy, if I could just sum this up. We sunk Iran's navy. The attacks from Lebanon came from Iran, as they still do to this day. We sunk Iran's navy, but we didn't talk about it much then because that would have made us look mean, and the mullahs didn't talk about it because they didn't want the world to know their navy had been sunk, but it happened.
END TRANSCRIPT

Operation Praying Mantis was an April 18, 1988 attack by U.S. naval forces in retaliation for the Iranian mining of the Persian Gulf and the subsequent damage to an American warship.

In short, Iran lost one major warship and a smaller gunboat.

I find it very illuminating that you 1) made it clear who was being cited in your first quote, but cited no source for your second one, and 2) neglected to give us the REST of the story on the second one as told by your source (which was Wikipedia, by the way).

Rush said that Reagan "basically sunk Iran's navy", and you tell us that we "merely" sunk two ships. (It's also interesting that while you cite Wikipedia for causes, you switch over to your own words for damage.) In fact, Wikipedia states that there were 2 Iranian frigates, 1 gunboat, 6 speedboats, 2 fighters, and 2 platforms involved in the fight. One of the frigates was sunk, as was the gunboat and three of the speedboats, and the other frigate and the two platforms were damaged. So it is quite true that Iran's navy in that engagement WAS "basically sunk".

In addition, while these losses may seem small by the standards of the American Navy, it should be blindingly obvious that Iran was not remotely comparable to the US in naval strength. These losses constituted a large proportion of their navy, and this battle is credited with breaking Iran's power in the area and forcing them to seek a cease-fire with Iraq. So while Rush may have generalized quite a bit, he is guilty neither of lying nor of being incorrect on this score.

I couldn't help but notice you failed to address the fact that this had absolutely nothing to do with the bombing of the Marine barracks as Stuttering LimpBoy FALSELY claimed even though I highlighted it, but you only could rationalize that any loss, no matter how small, "basically" sunk Iran's navy.
He is guilty of both lying and exaggerating.
A Cynic finds it very illuminating that CON$ have to lie and exaggerate to make 9/11 Reagan look good.

 

[Iriemon]

It's a lot more relevant that a video of a few select people that supposedly represent the intellegence of Obama voters. Just my opinion.

Do you have proof that 80% of those with graduate degrees work for the government?

I didn't think so.

Where else would they work. Sure some work for phamaceuticals. But the majority of degrees advanced and otherwise tend to be in education. And the overwhelming majority aren't in the hard sciences or engineering which would make up most of those working in the private sector.

That's your proof?

I didn't think you had any.

 

[Yukon]

Reagan was a sick man for many years. He was stricken with mental disease, I believe, mid-way through his first term as President.

 

[Sinatra]

Obama is much brighter than Reagan. .

On what do you base that statement? I've tried finding test scores that would give some indication as to how bright Obama is and I can't find them.

It is absolute myth.

Reagan had the posthumous publishing of his handwritten letters on a wide array of subjects - a volume that shows considerable insight into the questions of his time (and many remain quite applicable to today). This publication did much to dispel the myth of Reagan as a simpleton - at least by those who actually have an interest in non-biased study of American history. He was in fact, quite the opposite. What shook so many was Reagan's near total lack of ego. He was disinterested in the approval of the media or his political opposition. Some mistook this for ignorance - a telling insight into their own need for recognition.

Reagan's considerable success was not mere fate - it was the rare meeting of the right man at the right time. He knew what he wished to do, and worked in a seemingly effortless manner to achieve that desire. And while he did not succeed on all counts - such a thing does not exist in politics, he did far more than most, and has left a political standard by which all succeeding presidents have yet to fully measure up to.

,,,

 

[Cecilie1200]

As stated over and over and over and over again.. the long list of Reagan's accomplishments are irrefutable... Whether you like them or not... the fact that he accomplished much during his two terms is not myth

Oh... and of course your Obama "hero worship" is not myth but based on accomplishment and fact

What a partisan hack

My favorite exaggeration in the "Myth of St Ronnie" is:

I find it very illuminating that you 1) made it clear who was being cited in your first quote, but cited no source for your second one, and 2) neglected to give us the REST of the story on the second one as told by your source (which was Wikipedia, by the way).

Rush said that Reagan "basically sunk Iran's navy", and you tell us that we "merely" sunk two ships. (It's also interesting that while you cite Wikipedia for causes, you switch over to your own words for damage.) In fact, Wikipedia states that there were 2 Iranian frigates, 1 gunboat, 6 speedboats, 2 fighters, and 2 platforms involved in the fight. One of the frigates was sunk, as was the gunboat and three of the speedboats, and the other frigate and the two platforms were damaged. So it is quite true that Iran's navy in that engagement WAS "basically sunk".

In addition, while these losses may seem small by the standards of the American Navy, it should be blindingly obvious that Iran was not remotely comparable to the US in naval strength. These losses constituted a large proportion of their navy, and this battle is credited with breaking Iran's power in the area and forcing them to seek a cease-fire with Iraq. So while Rush may have generalized quite a bit, he is guilty neither of lying nor of being incorrect on this score.

I couldn't help but notice you failed to address the fact that this had absolutely nothing to do with the bombing of the Marine barracks as Stuttering LimpBoy FALSELY claimed even though I highlighted it, but you only could rationalize that any loss, no matter how small, "basically" sunk Iran's navy.
He is guilty of both lying and exaggerating.
A Cynic finds it very illuminating that CON$ have to lie and exaggerate to make 9/11 Reagan look good.

I'm glad you mentioned that, actually. You don't really think international diplomacy is a bunch of isolated point-counterpoints, do you? What happened with Operation Praying Mantis was, in fact, part of a long story. And yes, the US's eventual breaking of Iran's power, resulting in a cease-fire with Iraq, most certainly WAS related to Iranian-backed and -motivated attacks, of which the Marine barracks bombing was one.

And I don't have to "rationalize" anything with the word "basically", because that is the EXACT word he used. And since he did, he was correct. As I said, and you ignored, they were only "small losses" if you think on the scale of America's Navy. Try to stop being so America-centric and consider just how small Iran's navy was before losing those ships.

A conservative finds it very illuminating that liberals have to lie, bullshit, and distort and then try to hide it by pretending to be a cynic.

And by the way: Stuttering LimpBoy? That brilliantly clever junior high witticism just put you on my "I'm sorry, I mistook you for an adult" ignore list. FLUSH!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The point being that by taking an biased source for clips of an unrepresentative sample you can somehow make some point?

What do you say we do a statistically meaningful examination and look at voters with advanced education degrees and compare the percentage that voted Obama vs. McCain?

one could do the same do a statistically meaningful examination and look at voters with advanced education degrees, with people throughout history who've voted for fascist governments and/or for racist and genocidal policies. do not ever underestimate the gullibility and stupidity of educated people with eduaxcational degrees---advanced or otherwise.

Sure it would be interesting to see it.

But your point is PC's video of "Obama voters" is more significant that the fact that people with advanced degrees voted for Obama by a 3:2 margin in determining whether only ignorant people supported him?

eugenics anyone?

The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,[10] drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin. From its inception eugenics was supported by prominent people, including Margaret Sanger, H. G. Wells, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, William Keith Kellogg, Winston Churchill, and Sidney Webb.[11][12][13] Its most infamous proponent and practitioner was however Adolf Hitler who praised and incorporated Eugenic ideas in Mein Kampf, and emulated Eugenic legislation for the sterilization of "defectives" that had been pioneered in the United States.[14]

-Eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fascinating. And it has what to do with Obama supporters?

I didn't waste any time watching some moonbat video...I only commented on the substance/content of the post.

If you could follow along you'd see that what I posted has to do with the inane idea that somehow intelligent people are smart.

intelligent people do stupid fucked up things.