What a great man.... HAPPY 100th Ronald Reagan, you are truly missed.

[Foxfyre]

How is this crony capitalism?

Immelt cozies up to Obama, supports and helps to push his policies so as to get preferred statis for any contracts to be doled out by the administration over any other company that might provide the same service or product. It's very simple, GE stands to make billions off of Cap & Trade and Obama's EPA can implement these policies without congress’s approval it's not the free market, and it’s part of whats wrong with our BIG government too much power.

So I am sure you had the same problem as when Cheney held secret meetings with Oil companies..right?

Nope because there is ZERO evidence that any oil company received any government benefit from those meetings. They were held sans press coverage so that the participants could speak freely in a brain storming session. The execs were called in to provide training and input for the Administration in advance of developing an energy policy which frankly sucked and none of the oil companies liked.

And you do know that Halliburton is not an oil company yes?

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, perhaps we can drag this train back onto the tracks?

From the Washington Examiner:

“Americans are utopian moralists, who press hard to institutionalize virtue, to destroy evil people, and eliminate wicked institutions and practices,” Seymour Martin Lipset wrote in the late 1990s, citing polls showing that “An astounding 98% of young Americans have reported being proud of their nationality...75% of adult Americans continue to say they are proud to be Americans. The corresponding percentages for other countries are...Britain 54%, West Germany 20% and France 35%.”
Read more at the Washington Examiner: Why we love Reagan, JFK, but not Carter, Nixon | Noemie Emery | Op Eds | Washington Examiner

In the same article, there are historical notations that I got in college years ago. I wonder if they are still being taught these days?

Namely. . . .

Exceptionalism American-style began in 1630, 136 years before the American nation, in the words of John Winthrop, that “He hath taken us to be His, after a most strict and particular manner, which will make him more jealous of our love and obedience...we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill...so that if we deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word throughout the world.”

". . . .Americans, British and Greeks have a right to feel special, as they (along with the Hebrews, who also felt themselves chosen), did more to move the human ball forward than any other four people on earth. . . . .

. . . .the “city upon a hill” would be brought up again (and again, and again) by Reagan and Kennedy, and between them would come the founders. . . .

The greatest leaders are not those that accomplish the most. It is those who inspire the most, those who make us proud of great accomplishments and inspire us to reach for even greater ones.

Reagan had that ability and that is why he is so beloved by those of us who understand it.

 

[traveler52]

1. United States National Debt as of September 30, 1980 (Reagan assuming office in January 1981). 907.7 Billion Dollars.

2. United States National Debt as of September 30, 1988 (Bush assuming office in January 1990). 2,602 Billion Dollars.

3. United States National Debt as of September 30, 1992 (Clinton assuming office in January 1993). 4,064 Billion Dollars.

4. 243 Marines killed in Lebanon after the Ronnie ignored Joint Chiefs of Staff. He then did a cut and run.

5. Lied about "Arms For Hostages".

6. Support Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein, after sending Rummy to make a handshake deal. This support included the technology used by Saddam to develope Mustand Gas used against Iraqi Kurds.

7. Lies about Iran/Contra.

8. In charge on of the most morally corrupt administrations in U.S. History.

9. Suffered from alzheimer's well into his second term.

10. "Catsup is a vegetable".

Great Man my ass.

Lying, low life, crap eating P.O.S.

The Rectum lacked the necessary qualifications to be called an Intelligent Form.

 

[Kaiser Soze]

10 Things Conservatives Don’t Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan

Tomorrow will mark the 100th anniversary of President Reagan’s birth, and all week, conservatives have been trying to outdo each others’ remembrances of the great conservative icon. Senate Republicans spent much of Thursday singing Reagan’s praise from the Senate floor, while conservative publications have been running non-stop commemorations. Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee and former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich are hoping to make a few bucks off the Gipper’s centennial.

But Reagan was not the man conservatives claim he was. This image of Reagan as a conservative superhero is myth, created to untie the various factions of the right behind a common leader. In reality, Reagan was no conservative ideologue or flawless commander-in-chief. Reagan regularly strayed from conservative dogma — he raised taxes eleven times as president while tripling the deficit — and he often ended up on the wrong side of history, like when he vetoed an Anti-Apartheid bill.

ThinkProgress has compiled a list of the top 10 things conservatives rarely mention when talking about President Reagan:

1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.
Reduced to comply with board rules on Copywrite material-Meister
ThinkProgress 10 Things Conservatives Don’t Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan

 

[Sallow]

Immelt cozies up to Obama, supports and helps to push his policies so as to get preferred statis for any contracts to be doled out by the administration over any other company that might provide the same service or product. It's very simple, GE stands to make billions off of Cap & Trade and Obama's EPA can implement these policies without congress’s approval it's not the free market, and it’s part of whats wrong with our BIG government too much power.

So I am sure you had the same problem as when Cheney held secret meetings with Oil companies..right?

Nope because there is ZERO evidence that any oil company received any government benefit from those meetings. They were held sans press coverage so that the participants could speak freely in a brain storming session. The execs were called in to provide training and input for the Administration in advance of developing an energy policy which frankly sucked and none of the oil companies liked.

And you do know that Halliburton is not an oil company yes?

You're kidding right?

During the Bush Administration, Oil Companies, made more profit then any other commercial enterprise at any time during human history..combined.

It's completely ludicrious to come up with the notion there wasn't any connection.

 

[Foxfyre]

So I am sure you had the same problem as when Cheney held secret meetings with Oil companies..right?

Nope because there is ZERO evidence that any oil company received any government benefit from those meetings. They were held sans press coverage so that the participants could speak freely in a brain storming session. The execs were called in to provide training and input for the Administration in advance of developing an energy policy which frankly sucked and none of the oil companies liked.

And you do know that Halliburton is not an oil company yes?

You're kidding right?

During the Bush Administration, Oil Companies, made more profit then any other commercial enterprise at any time during human history..combined.

It's completely ludicrious to come up with the notion there wasn't any connection.

A lot of us did very well in the Bush administration. I personally was very much in favor of an oil-friendly Administration because it meant more opportunity, choices, options, and prosperity for all of us. I happen to know however, that the Oil Companies were NOT happy with a number of the Bush policies including parts of his energy policy.

And again. Halliburton is not an oil company.

 

[Kaiser Soze]

So I am sure you had the same problem as when Cheney held secret meetings with Oil companies..right?

Nope because there is ZERO evidence that any oil company received any government benefit from those meetings. They were held sans press coverage so that the participants could speak freely in a brain storming session. The execs were called in to provide training and input for the Administration in advance of developing an energy policy which frankly sucked and none of the oil companies liked.

And you do know that Halliburton is not an oil company yes?

You're kidding right?

During the Bush Administration, Oil Companies, made more profit then any other commercial enterprise at any time during human history..combined.

It's completely ludicrious to come up with the notion there wasn't any connection.

Ludicrous is an apt description. The Cheney Energy Task Force meetings were highly effective in ensuring that oil company profits would reach astronomical proportions. From "Armed Madhouse", by Greg Palast:

More important, back in early 2001, the initial Baker-CFR report (another participant tipped me) was handed directly to Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney met secretly with CFR task force members (including Ken Lay) to go over the maps of Iraq's oil fields. That, apparently, sealed it. Cheney took the CFR/Baker recommendations as his own plan for dissecting Iraq, I'm told, beginning with the none-too-thinly-veiled take-out-Saddam "assessment."

And whose plan was it? I knew the membership of the Baker-CFR group was Big Oil and its retainers. But I was curious to know who put up the cash for drafting the extravagant report that was so protective of OPEC and Saudi interests. This document was, after all, the outline on which the Bush administration drew its grand design for energy, from Iraq to California to Venezuela. According to Jaffe, the cost of this exercise in Imperialism Lite was funded by "the generous support of Khalid al-Turki" of Saudi Arabia.

 

[Sallow]

Nope because there is ZERO evidence that any oil company received any government benefit from those meetings. They were held sans press coverage so that the participants could speak freely in a brain storming session. The execs were called in to provide training and input for the Administration in advance of developing an energy policy which frankly sucked and none of the oil companies liked.

And you do know that Halliburton is not an oil company yes?

You're kidding right?

During the Bush Administration, Oil Companies, made more profit then any other commercial enterprise at any time during human history..combined.

It's completely ludicrious to come up with the notion there wasn't any connection.

A lot of us did very well in the Bush administration. I personally was very much in favor of an oil-friendly Administration because it meant more opportunity, choices, options, and prosperity for all of us. I happen to know however, that the Oil Companies were NOT happy with a number of the Bush policies including parts of his energy policy.

And again. Halliburton is not an oil company.

Changing the goal posts doesn't help your argument.

And I am well aware of what Halliburton does.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sources gentlemen? I'm sure your quotations are from objective, non partisan sources, but let's see them just to keep things above board here.

 

[Kaiser Soze]

Sources gentlemen? I'm sure your quotations are from objective, non partisan sources, but let's see them just to keep things above board here.

The source is a book called "Armed Madhouse", whose author is Greg Palast. Read it yourself if you want to determine its credibility. I'm not interested in your opinion of the source.

 

[Sallow]

Sources gentlemen? I'm sure your quotations are from objective, non partisan sources, but let's see them just to keep things above board here.

First you admit I was right..then want sources?

For..what, exactly?

 

[sangha]

Sources gentlemen? I'm sure your quotations are from objective, non partisan sources, but let's see them just to keep things above board here.

First you admit I was right..then want sources?

For..what, exactly?

So she can attack the source instead of addressing the substance

Just like she keeps insisting that Halliburton is not an oil company, even though she knows it services the oil industry and benefits from policies that are "pro-oil"

 

[Foxfyre]

Sources gentlemen? I'm sure your quotations are from objective, non partisan sources, but let's see them just to keep things above board here.

The source is a book called "Armed Madhouse", whose author is Greg Palast. Read it yourself if you want to determine its credibility. I'm not interested in your opinion of the source.

Well if you're not interested in my opinion of your sources, then you obviously aren't interested in my opinion of your opinion. But do have a nice day.

 

[Kaiser Soze]

That's correct. Your opinion is completely irrelevant to me.

FACTS are what matter.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's correct. Your opinion is completely irrelevant to me.

FACTS are what matter.

Oh for me too. Which is why I don't think I would look to Greg Palast, darling of Air America and the left and who is getting rich with his Greg Palast Investigative Fund - who I don't believe has ever written anything complimentary about anybody on the right nor 'investigated' anybody on the left - I don't think I would look to him for believable 'facts' unless strongly counter balanced with a more objective source.

But you don't care about my opinion and that's cool. I'm just setting the record as straight as I can here in case people who REALLY care about facts are reading along.

 

[Kaiser Soze]

That's correct. Your opinion is completely irrelevant to me.

FACTS are what matter.

Oh for me too. Which is why I don't think I would look to Greg Palast, darling of Air America and the left and who is getting rich with his Greg Palast Investigative Fund - who I don't believe has ever written anything complimentary about anybody on the right nor 'investigated' anybody on the left - I don't think I would look to him for believable 'facts' unless strongly counter balanced with a more objective source.

But you don't care about my opinion and that's cool. I'm just setting the record as straight as I can here in case people who REALLY care about facts are reading along.

You've set no record straight other than the record that says you and your ilk are ignorant and partisan-blind. That's it.

 

[jgarden]

"He only works three to three and a half hours a day. He doesn't do his homework. He doesn't read his briefing papers. It's sinful that this man is President of the United States."
-- Tip O'Neill exasperated after meeting with Reagan, 31 Oct 1983

"If we told Reagan to walk outside, turn around three times, pick up an acorn and throw it out into the crowd, we'd be lucky to get a question from him asking, 'Why?' "
-- Unnamed White House source on Reagan's personality.

"Poor dear, there's nothing between his ears."
-- British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, New York Times article after a Moscow summit (6/2/88)

"I don't think he's read the report in detail. It's five-and-a-half pages, double-spaced."
-- Larry Speakes (former acting spokesman for the White House under President Ronald Reagan) explaining why Reagan didn't know about a recent truck bombing in Beirut. 5 Oct 1984

"There are times when you really need him to do some work, and all he wants to do is tell stories about his movie days."
-- Anonymous White House aide. 31 Aug 1980

"He knows less about the budget than any president in my lifetime. He can't even carry on a conversation about the budget. It's an absolute and utter disgrace."
-- House Speaker Tip O'Neill after a meeting with Reagan. 23 Nov 1980

"An amiable dunce."
-- Clark Gifford (former Defense Secretary)
"... that incoherent cretin."
-- Andre Faulds (British Labour Party member), discussing Reagan in Parliament.

"Mr. Reagan's ignorance about the Soviet Union and his air-headed rhetoric on the issues of foreign policy and arms control have reached the limit of tolerance and have become and embarrassment to the US and a danger to world peace."
-- The Chicago Tribune telling the truth in endorsing (!) Reagan for re-election. 28 Oct 1984

"What do you do when your President ignores all the palpable, relevant facts and wanders in circles?"
-- David Stockman (ex Reagan Cabinet member), explaining what briefings with Reagan were like. 12 April 1986

"When you meet the President you ask yourself, 'How did it ever occur to anyone that he should be Governor, much less President?' "
-- Henry Kissenger expressing his thoughts to a group of scholars at the Library of Congress. 18 April 1986

"His answers to any questions about young men being killed for some vague and perhaps non-existent reason in Central America has been to smile, nod, wave a hand and walk on. And America applauds, thus proving that senility is a communicable disease."
-- Columnist Jimmy Breslin

"Stupefyingly incredible."
-- British Labour Party member Denis Healy's reaction to Reagan "explaining" trading weapons for hostages with Iran. 14 Nov 1986

"If he knew about it, then he has willfully broken the law; if he didn't know about it, then he is failing to do his job. After all, we expect the President to know about the foreign policy activities being run directly out of the White House."
-- Sen. John Glenn concisely summarizing Reagan's complicity in Iran-Contra. 25 Nov 1986

"So shockingly dumb that by his very presence in the office he numbs an entire country."
-- Columnist Jimmy Breslin

http://www.myfreedompost.com/2009/05/my-favorite-all-time-ronald-reagan.html

Tip O'Neill (Majority Leader, House of Representatives)

Margaret Thatcher (British Prime Minister)

Larry Speakes (acting spokesman for the White House under President Ronald Reagan, 1981 to 1987)

Clark Gifford (former Defense Secretary)

Andre Faulds (British Labour Party member)

The Chicago Tribune (endorsed Reagan for re-election)

David Stockman (ex Reagan Cabinet member)

Henry Kissenger (political scientist, diplomat, and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize; served as National Security Advisor and later concurrently as Secretary of State in the administrations of Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford)

Columnist Jimmy Breslin (The New York Herald Tribune, The Daily News, Newsday)

Denis Healy (British Labour Party)

Sen. John Glenn

Ronald Reagan's public image as a wise, folksy "father-figure," which conservatives cling to, is one thing, BUT the experiences of those who knew him, including his own aides and colleagues, is quite another!

 

[The Infidel]

So I am sure you had the same problem as when Cheney held secret meetings with Oil companies..right?

Nope because there is ZERO evidence that any oil company received any government benefit from those meetings. They were held sans press coverage so that the participants could speak freely in a brain storming session. The execs were called in to provide training and input for the Administration in advance of developing an energy policy which frankly sucked and none of the oil companies liked.

And you do know that Halliburton is not an oil company yes?

You're kidding right?

During the Bush Administration, Oil Companies, made more profit then any other commercial enterprise at any time during human history..combined.

It's completely ludicrious to come up with the notion there wasn't any connection.

Could it be because the gov't got out of their way for a short while?


Oh, and one more FACT you like to leave out... other businesses made record profits as well.

Look it up... its the truth.

Just sayin'

 

[The Infidel]

Sources gentlemen? I'm sure your quotations are from objective, non partisan sources, but let's see them just to keep things above board here.

First you admit I was right..then want sources?

For..what, exactly?

So she can attack the source instead of addressing the substance

Just like she keeps insisting that Halliburton is not an oil company, even though she knows it services the oil industry and benefits from policies that are "pro-oil"

Still NOT an oil company silly.

 

[Meister]

Sounds a lot like sour grapes. Do you lefties remember Jimmy Carter?

You would really have a field day with turning up stupidity with that one.