Reagan Speaks Thru Obama?

[Dr Grump]

Correct. Obama couldn't lift a nail in Reagan's heel. I don't even like Reagan that much. I think his cuts across the board were wrong. My biggest problem with him was what he did with census, something Obama seems ready to worsen.

Pretty hard to judge somebody on four weeks work compared to eight years worth...

you just did.....

Did I?

 

[Modbert]

yeah, we'll listen to a lib moron like you tell us who was more of a conservative

Which part of increasing the national debt by $1 trillion was Conservative? Or increasing the size of the Government, is that Conservative?

How about having the CIA give training to Osama Bin Laden among many Afghani Freedom Fighters, giving "aid" (money for weapons) to Saddam Hussein, and giving weapons to Iran in secret to go kill Iraqis? Is that Conservative?

He ignored a Conservative foundation; not raising taxes.

The number of workers on the federal payroll rose by 61,000 under Reagan (and fell 373,000 under Clinton).

Reagan was no Conservative, and the best thing he probably did was save Social Security in 1983.

So again, you can believe what you want but the facts tell the real story.

 

[DiveCon]

yeah, we'll listen to a lib moron like you tell us who was more of a conservative

Which part of increasing the national debt by $1 trillion was Conservative? Or increasing the size of the Government, is that Conservative?

How about having the CIA give training to Osama Bin Laden among many Afghani Freedom Fighters, giving "aid" (money for weapons) to Saddam Hussein, and giving weapons to Iran in secret to go kill Iraqis? Is that Conservative?

He ignored a Conservative foundation; not raising taxes.

The number of workers on the federal payroll rose by 61,000 under Reagan (and fell 373,000 under Clinton).

Reagan was no Conservative, and the best thing he probably did was save Social Security in 1983.

So again, you can believe what you want but the facts tell the real story.

democrat controled congress

yeah, the facts say you are a ******* moron

 

[Modbert]

democrat controled congress

yeah, the facts say you are a ******* moron

Really now Divey?

97th Congress (1981-1983):

Senate (53 Republicans, 46 Democrats, 1 Independent)

House (244 Democrats, 191 Republicans)

Looks like you failed so far.

98th Congress (1983-1985):

Senate (55 Republicans, 45 Democrats)

House (272 Democrats, 163 Republicans)

99th Congress (1985-1987):

Senate (53 Republicans, 47 Democrats)

House (253 Democrats, 182 Republicans)

100th Congress (1987-1989):

Democrats controlled both houses

So what does that all tell us? Republicans controlled the senate for the majority of Reagan's term.

Besides, Republicans had control during Clinton's term but Clinton was still a Liberal President.

So what does that tell us about Reagan? He was a failure when it came to bipartisanship or you're talking out of your ass?

 

[DiveCon]

democrat controled congress

yeah, the facts say you are a ******* moron

Really now Divey?

97th Congress (1981-1983):

Senate (53 Republicans, 46 Democrats, 1 Independent)

House (244 Democrats, 191 Republicans)

Looks like you failed so far.

98th Congress (1983-1985):

Senate (55 Republicans, 45 Democrats)

House (272 Democrats, 163 Republicans)

99th Congress (1985-1987):

Senate (53 Republicans, 47 Democrats)

House (253 Democrats, 182 Republicans)

100th Congress (1987-1989):

Democrats controlled both houses

So what does that all tell us? Republicans controlled the senate for the majority of Reagan's term.

Besides, Republicans had control during Clinton's term but Clinton was still a Liberal President.

So what does that tell us about Reagan? He was a failure when it came to bipartisanship or you're talking out of your ass?

yeah house was ALWAYS democrats you ******* moron
just exactly what i said
they controled congress
they were able to filibuster anything in the senate they didnt want

 

[Modbert]

yeah house was ALWAYS democrats you ******* moron
just exactly what i said
they controled congress
they were able to filibuster anything in the senate they didnt want

You said Congress, not the House. The Senate is included in Congress.

And Democrats couldn't filibuster anything they wanted, there were more Republicans then Democrats for all but of Reagan's last two years.

Stop trying to say you didn't say certain things when it's right there.

Especially since according to your logic; Republicans currently control the Senate.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Obama isn't worthy to be Reagan's butler!

Raygun doesn't deserve to be said in the same sentence as Obama..

yea right here Grump.....you are also comparing the two.....then you posted this.....


"Pretty hard to judge somebody on four weeks work compared to eight years worth..."

so you did the same thing.....

 

[Terry]

Agreed. I'm expecting a 'Hallelujah' around the corner! We'll see, I think his desire to make many dependent on the state, will come out. I hope I'm wrong, but the month of 'change' has cemented the persistence of the message...

I hear you but I cannot watch it. I'm watching HBO "Taking Chance" tonight at 8pm. Its suppose to be really good movie.

I read and posted about this way back when. Lowdown:

BLACKFIVE: Taking Chance Home

The post made me cry for nearly an hour and made me buy the book.

Sorry I missed that thread. I watched it. It was ok, they did put in a few political references which I didn't care for. It was short, and I noticed from reading the orginal story line that the movie had a few things backwards. IT was a lot better then watching OBAMA. How did you like watching Obama tonight?

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, Pavlovian response from the regular Conservatives, some grudging respect from the conservatives. It was a good speech.

 

[DiveCon]

yeah house was ALWAYS democrats you ******* moron
just exactly what i said
they controled congress
they were able to filibuster anything in the senate they didnt want

You said Congress, not the House. The Senate is included in Congress.

And Democrats couldn't filibuster anything they wanted, there were more Republicans then Democrats for all but of Reagan's last two years.

Stop trying to say you didn't say certain things when it's right there.

Especially since according to your logic; Republicans currently control the Senate.

yes, moron, i said congress, and i was still correect
since NOTHING could be done without DEMOCRATS allowing it

 

[Sinatra]

yeah house was ALWAYS democrats you ******* moron
just exactly what i said
they controled congress
they were able to filibuster anything in the senate they didnt want

You said Congress, not the House. The Senate is included in Congress.

Democrats couldn't filibuster anything they wanted, there were more Republicans then Democrats for all but of Reagan's last two years.And Stop trying to say you didn't say certain things when it's right there.

Especially since according to your logic; Republicans currently control the Senate.

Not sure what mix of numbers you are basing that on, but if you are speaking strictly on combined numbers of Dems vs numbers of Reps in the House and Senate, cleary there were far more Democrats than Republicans - your own numbers listed prove that out.

Congressional Democrats consistently battled Reagan over both domestic and foreign policy issues. In 1981 they were successful in blocking Reagan's attempts for a second round of budget cuts. In 1985 an even more brutal legislative battle between Reagan and House Democrats ensued regarding a tax reform bill. Reagan sent his proposals to the House which were then bogged down in committee. Then the Dems sent the President a 1362 page version that Reagan hoped to move on to the Senate where it could be drastically revised - hoping that the Democrats would not fillibuster. House Republicans then attempted to propose their own version but the Democrate leadership killed it entirely. This required from Reagan enough support for the idea of the bill to have it actually move to the Senate. House Republicans were so opposed to the Democrat proposed bill though that they refused to vote for it and thus move it to the Senate - much to the chagrin of Reagan. Tip O'Neal later admitted this was the very strategy they were hoping for - divide the Republicans and force their version of the bill to the President. They had the numbers in the House to do just that, and a strong enough minority vote in the Senate to have support the strategy. In the end, the House Democrats version was the more dominant final bill. They simply stated that NO tax reform bill would be passed unless Reagan compromised - which Reagan finally was forced to do, resulting in a bill that while simplifying the tax code, also added some tax increases as well as increased domestic spending.

Reagan was up against this scenario time and again, and while he had his share of successes, the overwhelmingly Democrat controlled House was a constant battle for him, and when the Democrats took back the Senate during the last two years of his Presidency, this battle only intensified.

You appear to not entirely understand your own history, so I am happy to remedy that deficit for you. If you have any further questions regarding Reagan, or American history in general, please don't hesitate to ask.

Take care.

 

[Annie]

I hear you but I cannot watch it. I'm watching HBO "Taking Chance" tonight at 8pm. Its suppose to be really good movie.

I read and posted about this way back when. Lowdown:

BLACKFIVE: Taking Chance Home

The post made me cry for nearly an hour and made me buy the book.

Sorry I missed that thread. I watched it. It was ok, they did put in a few political references which I didn't care for. It was short, and I noticed from reading the orginal story line that the movie had a few things backwards. IT was a lot better then watching OBAMA. How did you like watching Obama tonight?

I fell asleep to the clapping! Mind you, that was with closed captioning, no volume.

 

[Diuretic]

Obama is a leader, he isn't following a script. He came along at exactly the right time. Okay, he's a running dog of the capitalist classes but I can forgive him that tendency . He's not a bumbling fool. He's not a crook. He's not a brain-dead idiot. He's the right man for the times. In four years he will be re-elected by a grateful American public and hailed by the (most of) rest of the world for saving our collective capitalist arse.

 

[DiveCon]

Obama is a leader, he isn't following a script. He came along at exactly the right time. Okay, he's a running dog of the capitalist classes but I can forgive him that tendency . He's not a bumbling fool. He's not a crook. He's not a brain-dead idiot. He's the right man for the times. In four years he will be re-elected by a grateful American public and hailed by the (most of) rest of the world for saving our collective capitalist arse.

i wouldnt count on half of what you said being correct
hes from Chicago after all


btw, as to "following a script", have you ever heard him when there is no teleprompter?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Obama is a leader, he isn't following a script. He came along at exactly the right time. Okay, he's a running dog of the capitalist classes but I can forgive him that tendency . He's not a bumbling fool. He's not a crook. He's not a brain-dead idiot. He's the right man for the times. In four years he will be re-elected by a grateful American public and hailed by the (most of) rest of the world for saving our collective capitalist arse.

i dont know Di.....you and many of his followers are putting an awful lot of faith in this guy......anybody can make great speeches of hope and CHANGE.....lets wait about a year or so and then see what this guy has done.....you may not have this opinion a year or two from now.....i dont agree with a lot of the social things he proposes,but i do hope he gets the economy going and creates 10 million ******* jobs.....the more people who are working, the better it is for the countries health.....until then.....its just the usual rhetoric that we have heard before.....

 

[DiveCon]

Obama is a leader, he isn't following a script. He came along at exactly the right time. Okay, he's a running dog of the capitalist classes but I can forgive him that tendency . He's not a bumbling fool. He's not a crook. He's not a brain-dead idiot. He's the right man for the times. In four years he will be re-elected by a grateful American public and hailed by the (most of) rest of the world for saving our collective capitalist arse.

i dont know Di.....you and many of his followers are putting an awful lot of faith in this guy......anybody can make great speeches of hope and CHANGE.....lets wait about a year or so and then see what this guy has done.....you may not have this opinion a year or two from now.....i dont agree with a lot of the social things he proposes,but i do hope he gets the economy going and creates 10 million ******* jobs.....the more people who are working, the better it is for the countries health.....until then.....its just the usual rhetoric that we have heard before.....

when you know that the things he is proposing to do already dont work, then how can one have hope that they will work when time after time it has been done and fails

sorry, but i dont look for anything to do what they claim it will
and i fully expect we will be hearing they NEED to pass yet another porkulus bill in the bery near future to do what they already claim this last one would do

 

[Epsilon Delta]

As long as he doesn't commit terrorist attrocities in Central America like your good buddy Reagan here, Obama can be as "Reaganesque" as he'd like.

 

[DiveCon]

As long as he doesn't commit terrorist attrocities in Central America like your good buddy Reagan here, Obama can be as "Reaganesque" as he'd like.

too bad you're too ******* stupid to know WHO was commiting those atrocities
it wasnt those Reagan was supporting

 

[Epsilon Delta]

As long as he doesn't commit terrorist attrocities in Central America like your good buddy Reagan here, Obama can be as "Reaganesque" as he'd like.

too bad you're too ******* stupid to know WHO was commiting those atrocities
it wasnt those Reagan was supporting

What the **** do YOU know, buddy? That's what I'm wondering. I'm wondering which avenue you're trying to squirm into here, the avenue of "Reagan didn't support the terrorists!" (denial) or "The contras weren't terrorists!" (stupidity). Which one is it?

 

[DiveCon]

As long as he doesn't commit terrorist attrocities in Central America like your good buddy Reagan here, Obama can be as "Reaganesque" as he'd like.

too bad you're too ******* stupid to know WHO was commiting those atrocities
it wasnt those Reagan was supporting

What the **** do YOU know, buddy? That's what I'm wondering. I'm wondering which avenue you're trying to squirm into here, the avenue of "Reagan didn't support the terrorists!" (denial) or "The contras weren't terrorists!" (stupidity). Which one is it?

and you're a ******* IDIOT if you think the Contras were terrorists