EPTReagan's Dead - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
tiffany
3664 Posts
| ||
|
x[ReaPeR]x
United States3447 Posts
On June 05 2004 20:47 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote: would u say the same thing on the day hitler died? Don't compare Reagan with Hitler, period, it's just stupid. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
| ||
|
x[ReaPeR]x
United States3447 Posts
On June 05 2004 20:58 Servolisk wrote: This isn't his funeral, and all of us are about as distant from him as possible.. so no need to hold back opinions. Dude it's still not right though... | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
| ||
|
Countdown
1217 Posts
On June 05 2004 20:53 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote: we didnt give chemicals to saddam to kill the kurds either and we didnt give money and training to bin laden to kill americans. but that doesnt mean that the decisions ultimately proved irresponsible or that there was no way for us to know better before doing those things -- there might have been, or there might not have been, and that is the issue: not whether or not we intended them to do those things, but whether we could have known they might in the first place. um yeah, i can't read that. If Saddam were in power, I would support giving weapons to the Kurds to overthrow Saddam. If Hitler were in power, I would support giving Jews weapons and money to overthrow Hitler. Would you complain if the Jews committed atrocoties fighting the Nazis? However, I don't know nearly as much as Arbiter and I think he thinks the majorities of Nicaragua support Ortego and I don't think they did. If it weren't for the Contras, do you think there would have been an election? Or Democracy in Nicaragua? | ||
|
Countdown
1217 Posts
On June 05 2004 20:53 tiffany wrote: harding = worst president ever Most corrupt. I don't know about worst not that that has anything to do with your opinion  | ||
|
Pob
880 Posts
On June 05 2004 20:34 NuclearAntelope wrote: you must be a true economic genius to intertwine unemployment with sex. it means they made the figures look better than they really are , unemployment figures never count hardcore unemployed and many other minority groups , eg they have to have a seperate section for 'youth unemployment' because if they added youth and normal unemployment the total figure would skyrocket leading to discouraged voters , ditto hardcore unemployed and other minority groups so if you think that is that REAL unemployment rate of the USA you are a fool | ||
|
NuclearAntelope
United States1369 Posts
On June 05 2004 21:07 Pob wrote: it means they made the figures look better than they really are , unemployment figures never count hardcore unemployed and many other minority groups , eg they have to have a seperate section for 'youth unemployment' because if they added youth and normal unemployment the total figure would skyrocket leading to discouraged voters , ditto hardcore unemployed and other minority groups so if you think that is that REAL unemployment rate of the USA you are a fool i never said i believed that figure to be the true unemployment rate of the USA, i was implying you shouldn't use terms like 'sexed up' when trying to prove a point about economics. | ||
Arbiter[frolix]
United Kingdom2674 Posts
On June 05 2004 20:47 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote: would u say the same thing on the day hitler died?  My comment "Perhaps only those who approved of Reagan should post?" was intended as a wry statement in response to Excal. Plainly, I think criticism of Reagan is perfectly justified and not inappropriate in a thread such as this. | ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12240 Posts
On June 05 2004 21:18 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: My comment "Perhaps only those who approved of Reagan should post?" was intended as a wry statement in response to Excal. Plainly, I think criticism of Reagan is perfectly justified and not inappropriate in a thread such as this. Maybe in the future, but not on the day he died. =[ | ||
|
Arbiter[frolix]
United Kingdom2674 Posts
If it weren't for the Contras, do you think there would have been an election? Or Democracy in Nicaragua? There were elections in Nicaragua. The Sandanistas won. Independent observers validated the result and said the rule of the Sandanista government was legitimate. Several years later, in accordance with their stated commitment to democratic government, the Sandanistas lost a second election and left power peacefully. Nicaragua under the Sandanistas was vastly more democratic than a significant number of other regimes being supported by the Reagan administration, such as Saddam Hussein's for instance. The idea that Nicaragua needed to be subjected to a vicious assault by a proxy army in order to restore democracy does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny. | ||
|
Arbiter[frolix]
United Kingdom2674 Posts
Maybe in the future, but not on the day he died. =[ Well, as is so often the case, we disagree. | ||
|
EAGER-beaver
Canada2799 Posts
Good riddance Reagan, you won't be able to slime your way into heaven this time. | ||
|
SoLsiTO
United States573 Posts
| ||
|
x[ReaPeR]x
United States3447 Posts
On June 05 2004 21:26 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: There were elections in Nicaragua. The Sandanistas won. Independent observers validated the result and said the rule of the Sandanista government was legitimate. Several years later, in accordance with their stated commitment to democratic government, the Sandanistas lost a second election and left power peacefully. Nicaragua under the Sandanistas was vastly more democratic than a significant number of other regimes being supported by the Reagan administration, such as Saddam Hussein's for instance. The idea that Nicaragua needed to be subjected to a vicious assault by a proxy army in order to restore democracy does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny. Everything you said was pretty much true. Although I think there should be a little scrutiny involved, the point is that there is Democratic government now, which is good. So why do people bitch so much? | ||
|
chobopeon
United States7342 Posts
On June 05 2004 18:40 FrozenArbiter wrote: Excal, if you'd write/find a bio of him we'd get both extremes and thus might be able to find a middle way (the non fanatics in here :D) non fanatics? what was wrote was true, it wasn't really his opinion that we were the largest debtor nation. | ||
|
WhizKid77
China682 Posts
On June 05 2004 21:32 EAGER-beaver wrote: I can't stand the way the media is idolizing this guy. Hello? Did everyone in America just get a lobotomy? To be blunt, this guy was a huge fuck up, at almost everything. I whatched this one gut churning interview with one of his "close friends" on ABC, who kept going on and on about his wonderful family life. But Reagan got divorced, and his kids hate him, so where the fuck is abc getting this shit? To add to the heaps of media diahrea they kept going on, and on, and on, about surviving a "terrorist attack". Call me crazy, but I thought that was an assasination attempt. Do they expect the public to sympathize for this bastard because they used the word terrorist? What the ass licking media has refused to point out is his long list of fuck ups, which I'm too drunk post right now. Google ronald, and read about his glorious military endevours in other countries. Only Bush tops this guy. Good riddance Reagan, you won't be able to slime your way into heaven this time. hahaha, go canadians. =P | ||
|
STIMEY d okgm fish
Canada6140 Posts
On June 05 2004 21:02 Countdown wrote: um yeah, i can't read that. stfu then wtf. | ||
|
naventus
United States1337 Posts
"The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the `shining city upon a hill.' The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free. I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still." Hey guys! It's fine to contort the truth. Yea! Because like Excalibur said, it's a mark of a good communicator right? Because we can understand watered down lies, we should accept them, right? You want to know what's wrong: 1) Reagan talks about learning American history earlier on in the speech, but contradicts it here with his warped version of history. 2) Winthrop = Puritan not Pilgrim. No big deal, small clarification. 3) "City on a Hill" not about America, but about religion. 4) Puritans were some of the most close-minded and intolerant people. Fuck open gates for everyone. This not an attack on Reagan, though I dislike him, but an attack on Excalibur's point about Reagan's "masterful communication skillz". | ||
| ||
