Ronald Reagan dies

RandFan said:
Rhetoric, AKA bull$hit.
A thoughtful and detailed rebuttal that has cut the feet from under my argument.

you are the man......

oops, I forgot to ask. Do you support rickyboys Idea of selective application of basic principles of liberty justice and equality...or is that too hard a question?
 
The Fool said:

A thoughtful and detailed rebuttal that has cut the feet from under my argument.

you are the man......

oops, I forgot to ask. Do you support rickyboys Idea of selective application of basic principles of liberty justice and equality...or is that too hard a question?

Any application by human beings is susceptible to such vagaries, Fool... but someone as "principled"* and "intelligent"* as yourself must surely already know that.

Of course, when it's people posting on the internet, such ideas are called opinions. You get a lot of those in free societies where people aren't so quick to bow down to some know-it-all sanctimonious prick who thinks he's got all the answers but couldn't reason his way out of a paper bag.





* By Australian standards.
 
Jocko said:
Fool, i know you lack the intelligence to appreciate the irony of your post, so I'll explain it.



In other words, Rik holds the wrong opinions. Some advocate of freedom you are. Your opinion of the situation is valid, opposing viewpoints are wrong by definition - your definition.

If this was an attempt to illustrate the point you are trying to make, then the mere existence of your post in an American-hosted forum puts the lie to your little foot-stomping tirade.



See above.



Funny how you quote the very man you poke fun at for his inability to turn a phrase. It sounded better coming from him - it meant something then.


When I go through periods of posting random rubbish I find soaking my head in sea water helps, you may wish to give it a try.....

Its nice to see rick still has his pom pom girls near by....
so tell me, are you on the list of people who truly ruly really love america? Maybe rickyboy will pm you the answer along with your next original Idea........
 
You know, I've heard Rik called everything now from a Neocon to a Nazi. Frankly, if you knew the man, you'd realize just how false those statements are.

More later. After reading more of this thread, I need to wash my hands.
 
The Fool said:
A thoughtful and detailed rebuttal that has cut the feet from under my argument.
I would have provided something more substantive had there been more substance to rebut. When someone stands up and declares that he or she can fly whenever I'm not looking I don't launch into laws of physics. Bull$hit fits the bill just fine.
 
The Fool said:
Do you support rickyboys Idea of selective application of basic principles of liberty justice and equality...or is that too hard a question?
Have you stopped beating your wife? Some skeptics forum. We still delight in our fallacies don't we?
 
a_unique_person said:
Here's another, Lebensraum = Start a war over oil. Dubya continuing the Reagan 'New Conservatism'.
Claim based on presumptions and theory. And considering the fact that the resolution proffered by America and agreed to unanimously by the U.N. (your beloved U.N. I might add) calls for complete Iraqi autonomy it is a very poor theory.

When all is said and done we will not have enlarged our holdings of oil by a single drop.
 
RandFan said:
No, I'm getting a woody thinking about Reagan getting all that national attention and just how much it just pisses you off. :D

Let's see,
  • Ted Kennedy praises Reagan.
  • John Kerry praises Reagan.
  • Jimmy Carter praises Reagan.
  • Gorbachev Praises Reagan.
  • Clinton praises Reagan.
Clinton is upset because he didn't get to speak at Reagans funeral.
Yeah, and both Reagan and Carter praised Bin Laden.

It is in the nature of politics that everybody gets praised by everybody else at some time. Especially at their funerals.
 
The Fool said:

Thats interesting Rik...You claim to love your country yet you are a traitor. You stand by applauding as you watch your constitutional freedoms thrown in the gutter.

Shameful....how dare you critisize someone when you piss on the concept of liberty and justice that your nation is founded on...

Line up with the rest of the neocons rik, you are about to be assigned to the garbage bin of history....

Alright Fool,

You want to raise that old argument again? Ok. Please list for me the articles of the US Constitution which have been "thrown in the gutter". List for me the liberties and justice and how I have "pissed" upon them.

If you cannot do this (which I suspect is the case) then you need not reply. If you can substantiate your claims then please do so.

The last time you (or Shemp...you guys are like clones) accused the Bush admin of trashing the Constitution I reminded you (or him) that the President took an oath to uphold said document. If you can detail how he "trashed" the document he has sworn to uphold, then do so. I'll help you impeach him myself. Thing is, you can't. You're full of hype. (which is a nice way of saying what I'm really thinking) You tell us lurid tales of the crimes of ghastly strawmen.....your stories do not scare me.

Make your point,...or get off the pot.

-z
 
UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Bush Sets Religious Litmus Test For Judges
http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/BushSetsReligiousLitmusTestForJudges_08-02.html

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal judge Tuesday declared the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional, saying the measure infringes on a woman's right to choose.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040601/D82UBRD80.html

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL FAITH-BASED INITIATIVE LAW AND THE RELATED DISTORTION OF WHAT DISCRIMINATION MEANS
http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/unconst-faith-based.html

The U.S. Constitution leaves no doubts regarding the distribution of powers, Byrd made clear: "Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war and to call forth the militia 'to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.' Nowhere in the Constitution is it written that the President has the authority to call forth the militia to preempt a perceived threat.
http://www.rense.com/general30/unconst.htm

Bush stance on marriage unconstitutional
http://www.beaconnewspaper.com/news...nce.On.Marriage.Unconstitutional-587331.shtml

Faith-Based Charities Unconstitutional, says the father of the Constitution and Bill of Rights
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/faith.htm


Bush's Tribunals Under Fire
David Cole, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, says Bush's executive order is unprecedented for two reasons: Tribunals will be used when America has not declared war, and they are not limited to terrorists who are members of al-Qaida.
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,48443,00.html

BUSH FAVORS KEEPING UNCONSTITUTIONAL GUN BAN
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=31370

Pryor Appointment May Be Unconstitutional
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40429-2004Mar8.html

Real Conservatives Honor Free Speech
But Bush Administration stifles dissent
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/weekly_2003/conservatives_honor_free_speech.html#
 
puhleeese!

:rolleyes:

-z

(I can list a dozen websites that prove the world is flat...what I asked for was a specific article(s) of the USC violated....not a bunch of wishy-washy opinions)
 
rikzilla said:
puhleeese!

:rolleyes:

-z

(I can list a dozen websites that prove the world is flat...what I asked for was a specific article(s) of the USC violated....not a bunch of wishy-washy opinions)

What part of "faith-based initiatives" is not recognizing a religious organization?

No more need be said.

Bush has run rampant over the constitution to an extent unseen in history. He's worse than McCarthy, because McCarthy was arguing politics instead of religion.

And the pledge. You have to say "under God" to say the pledge. The very oath of the USA has a mention of God in it, DESPITE the constitution. That alone shows how far to the side of religion the country has swung, and how badly the Constitution has been abused.

And does the legislature have a clue? Nope, they SUPPORT the abuse of the constitution in a pander to their constitutants.

The president is a traitor, most of congress is, too.
 
jj said:


What part of "faith-based initiatives" is not recognizing a religious organization?

There are diverse opinions on this issue. Yours is noted, but others say that the first amendment refers merely to the establishment of an official religion, such as the Anglican Church in England. The POTUS's "FBI" is not establishing such a special relationship for a specific religion with government. Therefore it's not unconstitutional. I'll admit you're right when I see a successful challenge to FBI in court. Until then, all objective indications point to you being of a mistaken opinion.

No more need be said.
Indeed. Yet you do keep on going:

Bush has run rampant over the constitution to an extent unseen in history. He's worse than McCarthy, because McCarthy was arguing politics instead of religion.
Another biased and unsupported opinion. :slp:

And the pledge. You have to say "under God" to say the pledge. The very oath of the USA has a mention of God in it, DESPITE the constitution. That alone shows how far to the side of religion the country has swung, and how badly the Constitution has been abused.

And this is Bush's fault? Did I not see every member of Congress including Mrs. Clinton, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy out there on the Capitol steps reciting the damned thing and pandering to the people on this issue? So how is this an example of Bush's trampling of the Constitution??

And does the legislature have a clue? Nope, they SUPPORT the abuse of the constitution in a pander to their constitutants.

Oh, I see now....it's a conspiracy and the legislature is firmly in GWB's camp as far as "trashing the constitution" goes.

I've been attempting to be polite, but you guys are just idiots.

Come back when you have some meaningful info on the subject.

-z

The president is a traitor, most of congress is, too.
nice
 
rikzilla said:


Alright Fool,

You want to raise that old argument again? Ok. Please list for me the articles of the US Constitution which have been "thrown in the gutter". List for me the liberties and justice and how I have "pissed" upon them.

If you cannot do this (which I suspect is the case) then you need not reply. If you can substantiate your claims then please do so.

The last time you (or Shemp...you guys are like clones) accused the Bush admin of trashing the Constitution I reminded you (or him) that the President took an oath to uphold said document. If you can detail how he "trashed" the document he has sworn to uphold, then do so. I'll help you impeach him myself. Thing is, you can't. You're full of hype. (which is a nice way of saying what I'm really thinking) You tell us lurid tales of the crimes of ghastly strawmen.....your stories do not scare me.

Make your point,...or get off the pot.

-z
Do you support your countries detention of people indefinitely without charge or trial ricky boy? How does that look when stacked up against your liberty and justice for all mantra?

You rejoice in the persecution of these people by those that you give your unquestioning support , people fought long and hard to enshrine these liberties for you ricky boy....but why should you care? you are a traitor.
 
Frank Newgent said:
Don't know if anyone has mentioned yet that Reagan presided over the third-longest economic expansion in American history, behind Clinton, then Kennedy and Johnson (a wartime expansion).


[size=1/4]thanks http://mediamatters.org[/size]

Reagan is all about image and appearences. If he had been president during the missile crises, the world would be a smoking ruin.
 
a_unique_person said:


Reagan is all about image and appearences. If he had been president during the missile crises, the world would be a smoking ruin.

And the psychic acrobatics continue. How DO you do it, AUP? Peering into alternate realities sounds like a million-dollar winner to me. Go for it!
 
rikzilla said:
puhleeese!

:rolleyes:

-z

(I can list a dozen websites that prove the world is flat...what I asked for was a specific article(s) of the USC violated....not a bunch of wishy-washy opinions)

You didn't read any, or ignored all, of them. They each cite specific articles of the Constitution.

You concede no reasonable point ever. It diminishes your position.

When I cited a loyal conservative Reagan Republican (Buchanan) he was dismissed out of hand (not by you) as well.

The ignore button is a good thing.
 
Frank Newgent:
"Don't know if anyone has mentioned yet that Reagan presided over the third-longest economic expansion in American history, behind Clinton, then Kennedy and Johnson (a wartime expansion)."


It is worth looking at a top secret memo produced by the National Security Council in August 1954; NSC 5432, Memorandum for the Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (McGeorge Bundy)

It`s plain from this memo that the US hierarchy feared "the trend in Latin America toward nationalistic regimes" and the "popular demand for immediate improvement in the low living standards of the masses" ie a domestic policy of their own. This ran counter to US interests which were based on "encouraging a climate conducive to private investment," and a desire for these countries "to base their economies on a system of private enterprise, and, as essential thereto, to create a political and economic climate conducive to private investment of both domestic and foreign capital," and for the "opportunity to earn and in the case of foreign capital to repatriate a reasonable return."

US policy in South America wasn`t based on any nobel anti-communist idealogy, it was based on exploitation of natural resources for capitalist corporations and woe betide any nationalist or popular movements that got in their way.

Just look at the figures during Reagan`s watch:

El Salvador-70,000 deaths
Guatemala-100,000 deaths
Nicaragua-30,000 deaths

Secretary of State Alexander Haig claimed he had "overwhelming and irrefutable" evidence that South Ameican guerrillas had outside support and of course this is where the old "reds under the bed" myth rears its ugly head again.

This point about the Cold War being a charade for achieving US corporate control over 3rd world economies and resouces, using all manner of violence against nationalist movements, can't be stressed enough.

I strongly recommend "Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II" by William Blum.
 

Back
Top Bottom