|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
The Democrats have exploited far more. Far more divisively, far more bitterly, and with far less evidence.
Then how do you know all this?
He got it from the same intelligence that linked al-Qaida and Iraq, pre-9/11.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Wednesday and Jim Jackson, you guys obviously have your pre-
conceived opinions (as well as your clear personal
vendettas against me).
But if you looked more objectively, you'd see that the
whole world thought Saddam Hussein had WMD's prior to
March 2003.
The intelligence of every nation on Iraq reflected this,
NOT just the United States.
In addition, I hasten to add that the Clinton
administration and virtually every Democrat in the House
and Senate as well, supported regime change in Iraq
since 1998 !
Howard Dean is the only prominent Democrat I'm aware of who
initially opposed regime change.
As many times as I post these facts, you continue to ignore
them.
From the New York Post, and my comments on
it, from page 14 of the "It's not about oil or
Iraq..." topic:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I was curious what AFLAC's New York Post link was
about. Here it is:
Quote:
_________________________________________
SADDAM-OSAMA LINK
.
By CLEMENTE LISI
.
November 15, 2003 -- Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein gave
terror lord Osama bin Laden's thugs financial and
logistical support, offering al Qaeda money, training and
haven for more than a decade, it was reported yesterday.
.
Their deadly collaboration - which may have included the
bombing of the USS Cole and the 9/11 attacks - is revealed
in a 16-page memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee
that cites reports from a variety of domestic and foreign
spy agencies compiled by multiple sources, The Weekly
Standard reports.
.
Saddam's willingness to help bin Laden plot against
Americans began in 1990, shortly before the first Gulf
War, and continued through last March, the eve of the U.S.-
led invasion of Iraq, says the Oct. 27 memo sent by
Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith.
.
Two men were involved with the collaboration almost from
its start.
.
Mamdouh Mahmud Salim - who's described as the terror
lord's "best friend" - was involved in planning the
bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in
1998.
.
Another terrorist, Hassan al-Turabi, was said by an Iraqi
defector to be "instrumental" in the relationship.
.
Iraq "sought al Qaeda influence through its connections
with Afghanistan, to facilitate the transshipment of
proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return, Iraq
provided al Qaeda with training and instructors," a top-
level Iraqi defector has told U.S. intelligence.
.
The bombshell report says bin Laden visited Baghdad in
January 1998 and met with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister
Tariq Aziz.
.
"The goal of the visit was to arrange for coordination
between Iraq and bin Laden and establish camps in an-
Nasiriyah and Iraqi Kurdistan," the memo says.
.
Though the bombing of the USS Cole on Oct. 12, 2000 was an
al Qaeda job, the secret memo says the CIA
believes "fragmentary evidence points to possible Iraqi
involvement."
.
The relationship between Saddam and bin Laden continued to
grow in the aftermath of the Cole attack when two al Qaeda
terrorists were deployed to Iraq to be trained in weapons
of mass destruction and to obtain information on "poisons
and gases."
.
CIA reporting shows the Saudi National Guard went on
a "kingdom-wide state of alert in late December 2000 after
learning Saddam agreed to assist al Qaeda in attacking
U.S./U.K. interests in Saudi Arabia," the memo says.
.
And the report contains new information about alleged
meetings between 9/11 mastermind Mohamed Atta and former
Iraqi intelligence chief Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani
in the Czech Republic.
.
Even some Bush administration officials have been skeptical
about a purported meeting in April 2001.
.
But the secret memo says Atta met two other times in Prague
with al Ani, in December 1994 and June 2000. It was during
one of these meetings that al Ani "ordered the [Iraqi
Intelligence Service] finance officer to issue Atta funds
from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office," the
memo says.
.
The memo says the relationship between Saddam and bin Laden
went forward even after 9/11.
.
Both sides allegedly reached a "secret deal" last year, in
which Iraq would provide "money and weapons" and obtain 90
Iraqi and Syrian passports for al Qaeda members.
.
Al Qaeda associate Abu Maseb al Zarqwari also helped set
up "sleeper cells" in Baghdad starting in October 2002.
.
The memo was sent to Sens. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Jay
Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
.
__________________________________
.
This is new from what I've seen previously about a link
between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaida. Prior reports did
not state a direct link, this one does.
.
An earlier January 2003 New York Times article
discussed Saddam employing Al Qaida as mercenaries to
fight Kurdish rebels in the North of Iraq.
.
I previously discussed a book by Laurie Mulroie, about
terrorists who had trained in camps inside Iraq, using a
grounded 747 jet to learn hijacking techniques, that
arguably could have been utilized in the 9/11 hijacking.
She also discussed ties between Saddam, 1993 WTC bomber
Ramsey Yousef, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammad. The information
was from defectors to the U.S. who had trained in Saddam's
terrorist camps. And a documented Saddam plot to
assassinate George Bush Sr.
"The World's Reaction to the War" topic
http://www.rkmbs.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=212973&page=13&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=3&vc=1
.
The only report contradicted by FBI investigation is the
report by Czech intelligence that Mohammad Atta had met
with a Saddam intelligence official in Prague, just prior
to the 9/11 bombing.
The FBI found that Atta had an open rental agreement for
that period, so the FBI rejected that meeting validly
reported.
.
But the report cited in this New York Post article
cites two other meetings between Atta and Saddam's
intelligence official. It occurred to me that he could
have opened a rental agreement and left the car for
someone else to use, while he was out of the country in
the Czech Republic.
.
In any case, even without Al Qaida links, Saddam was a
major sponsor of terror groups in Israel, offering
training, weapons and other support to various Palestinian
terror groups, and Saddam paid $25,000 to the families of
every Palestinian suicide bomber.
.
I reject the idea that Bush's invasion of Iraq is or ever
was about "greed".
.
Certainly, Bush has been clear that Iraq's resources
belong to Iraq, and that the U.S. plans to leave as
soon as Iraq establishes a self-sufficient police and
defense force, to insure a healthy and stable Iraqi
democracy.
Far from the notion of "greed" and profit, the evidence is
abundantly clear that Iraq has already cost, and will
continue to cost, the United States a great deal.
.
If the U.S. is successful, it will have --in establishing a
democracy in the Middle East-- done a great deal to
benefit the Muslim world, certainly far more than any
other nation, and something it will no doubt never get
credit for, from either the Muslim world or other U.S.-
bashers around the world.
.
Mistakes have been made, certainly. Mistakes occur in
any war. But I still support what has occurred in
Iraq. It is certainly better than anyone else's
alternative. Although there really are no alteratives
offered, just condemnation.
.
Except for notions that we "should have waited for the
U.N." (which is a clear contradiction of the fact that
France, and possibly Germany and Russia as well, made
clear they would veto ANY resolution to invade Iraq, so
waiting would never have borne fruit, and is just so much
anti-American liberal revisionism that has no basis in
fact).
.
And the U.N. with its most recent resolution now supports
U.S. action and opens the door to nations like Japan,
Turkey, and many other nations to send assistance.
.
But the assistance of these other U.N. nations combined
would offer at most 30,000 troops, and probably
a lot less.
So regardless of any cooperation of Bush with the U.N., the
overwhelming brunt of it is and will remain on the U.S.,
no matter what is conceded by the U.S. And other nations
don't WANT to take command from the U.S.
.
For any invasion of Iraq to have occurred, the U.S. had to
do what it did, because the U.N. was giving zero
cooperation, DESPITE seeing the same potential threat of
Iraq as the U.S. cited. As U.N. resolutions against Iraq,
and private intelligence of European nations makes clear.
.
What really pisses me off is that if the U.S. sends in more
troops (as they did after the official end of the war, to
do the job right against guerilla fighters) Democrats
label it a "miserable failure" or a "quagmire" or "another
Vietnam."
And if they lessen troop strength, then Bush is accused
of "endangering the mission" and "caving in to political
pressure" (the very political pressure that Democrats
themselves are providing, to get out !)
.
I dislike the partisan accusations of Democrats, that
criticize Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq, no matter
what Bush does to stay the course.
.
Some of the criticism is warranted (such as vastly
underestimating the cost of the war). But much of it is
unfair criticism that has no consistency, and vaccilates
from one hysterical extreme to the other (too much, not
enough...)
And by the way, this is the Ronald Reagan topic, not the
Iraq and WMD topic. It would be nice if you could
separate the two, and not force me to respond here.
--------------------
"This Man, This Wonder Boy..."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Quote:
Press Remarks with Foreign Minister of Egypt Amre Moussa
Secretary Colin L. Powell February 24, 2001
We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions — the fact that the sanctions exist — not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Wednesday and Jim Jackson, you guys obviously have your pre-conceived opinions (as well as your clear personal vendettas against me).
Honestly, I don't care enough to have a personal vendetta against you or anyone else here. A lot of mean ol' nasty things have been said on this board about liberals, but, though I'm the most liberal guy here according to G-man's "how conservative are you" questionnaire, I haven't really given a gosh darn about 95% of it.
Truth is, most of the arguments you, JLA, and G-man, have with whomod end in immature, overly general name-calling geared at every person on the other side of the political fence. Do liberals hate America? It's all about the oil! The [other side] controls the media, and uses it to opress the people!! Stupid. No softer name for it. Sometimes it's the left that starts it, sometimes it's the right. Sometimes it's funny, most of the time it's kinda annoying. Whatever. I don't take it seriously. I might snap now and then, but I won't hold any grudges. I'm a Scorpio leaning on Libra, man. I just don't give a fuck.
DtWB, if I met you on the street, I'd probably offer to shake your hand and buy you a beer. Not the expensive stuff, though, and you're responsible for tip.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Wednesday and Jim Jackson, you guys obviously have your pre-conceived opinions (as well as your clear personal vendettas against me).
But if you looked more objectively, you'd see that the whole world thought Saddam Hussein had WMD's prior to March 2003.
The intelligence of every nation on Iraq reflected this, NOT just the United States.
In addition, I hasten to add that the Clinton administration and virtually every Democrat in the House and Senate as well, supported regime change in Iraq since 1998 !
Howard Dean is the only prominent Democrat I'm aware of who initially opposed regime change.
As many times as I post these facts, you continue to ignore them.
From the New York Post, and my comments on it, from page 14 of the "It's not about oil or Iraq..." topic:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I was curious what AFLAC's New York Post link was about. Here it is:
_________________________________________
SADDAM-OSAMA LINK
.
By CLEMENTE LISI
.
November 15, 2003 -- Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein gave terror lord Osama bin Laden's thugs financial and logistical support, offering al Qaeda money, training and haven for more than a decade, it was reported yesterday.
Their deadly collaboration - which may have included the bombing of the USS Cole and the 9/11 attacks - is revealed in a 16-page memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee that cites reports from a variety of domestic and foreign spy agencies compiled by multiple sources, The Weekly Standard reports.
.
Saddam's willingness to help bin Laden plot against Americans began in 1990, shortly before the first Gulf War, and continued through last March, the eve of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, says the Oct. 27 memo sent by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith.
.
Two men were involved with the collaboration almost from its start.
.
Mamdouh Mahmud Salim - who's described as the terror lord's "best friend" - was involved in planning the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.
.
Another terrorist, Hassan al-Turabi, was said by an Iraqi defector to be "instrumental" in the relationship.
.
Iraq "sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan, to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return, Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors," a top-level Iraqi defector has told U.S. intelligence.
.
The bombshell report says bin Laden visited Baghdad in January 1998 and met with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz.
.
"The goal of the visit was to arrange for coordination between Iraq and bin Laden and establish camps in an-Nasiriyah and Iraqi Kurdistan," the memo says.
.
Though the bombing of the USS Cole on Oct. 12, 2000 was an al Qaeda job, the secret memo says the CIA believes "fragmentary evidence points to possible Iraqi involvement."
.
The relationship between Saddam and bin Laden continued to grow in the aftermath of the Cole attack when two al Qaeda terrorists were deployed to Iraq to be trained in weapons of mass destruction and to obtain information on "poisons and gases."
.
CIA reporting shows the Saudi National Guard went on a "kingdom-wide state of alert in late December 2000 after learning Saddam agreed to assist al Qaeda in attacking U.S./U.K. interests in Saudi Arabia," the memo says.
.
And the report contains new information about alleged meetings between 9/11 mastermind Mohamed Atta and former Iraqi intelligence chief Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani in the Czech Republic.
.
Even some Bush administration officials have been skeptical about a purported meeting in April 2001.
.
But the secret memo says Atta met two other times in Prague with al Ani, in December 1994 and June 2000. It was during one of these meetings that al Ani "ordered the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office," the memo says.
.
The memo says the relationship between Saddam and bin Laden went forward even after 9/11.
.
Both sides allegedly reached a "secret deal" last year in which Iraq would provide "money and weapons" and obtain 90 Iraqi and Syrian passports for al Qaeda members.
.
Al Qaeda associate Abu Maseb al Zarqwari also helped set up "sleeper cells" in Baghdad starting in October 2002.
.
The memo was sent to Sens. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
.
__________________________________
.
This is new from what I've seen previously about a link between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaida. Prior reports did not state a direct link, this onbe does.
.
An earlier January 2003 New York Times article discussed Saddam employing Al Qaida as mercenaries to fight Kurdish rebels in the North of Iraq.
.
I previously discussed a book by Laurie Mulroie, about terrorists who had trained in camps inside Iraq, using a grounded 747 jet to learn hijacking techniques, that arguably could have been utilized in the 9/11 hijacking. She also discussed ties between Saddam, 1993 WTC bomber Ramsey Yousef, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammad. The information was from defectors to the U.S. who had trained in Saddam's terrorist camps. And a documented Saddam plot to assassinate George Bush Sr.
"The World's Reaction to the War" topic
http://www.rkmbs.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=212973&page=13&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=3&vc=1
.
The only report contradicted by FBI investigation is the report by Czech intelligence that Mohammad Atta had met with a Saddam intelligence official in Prague, just prior to the 9/11 bombing.
The FBI found that Atta had an open rental agreement for that period, so the FBI rejected that meeting validly reported.
.
But the report cited in this New York Post article cites two other meetings between Atta and Saddam's intelligence official. It occurred to me that he could have opened a rental agreement and left the car for someone else to use, while he was out of the country in the Czech Republic.
.
In any case, even without Al Qaida links, Saddam was a major sponsor of terror groups in Israel, offering training, weapons and other support to various Palestinian terror groups, and Saddam paid $25,000 to the families of every Palestinian suicide bomber.
.
I reject the idea that Bush's invasion of Iraq is or ever was about "greed".
.
Certainly, Bush has been clear that Iraq's resources belong to Iraq, and that the U.S. plans to leave as soon as Iraq establishes a self-sufficient police and defense force, to insure a healthy and stable Iraqi democracy.
Far from the notion of "greed" and profit, the evidence is abundantly clear that Iraq has already cost, and will continue to cost, the United States a great deal.
.
If the U.S. is successful, it will have --in establishing a democracy in the Middle East-- done a great deal to benefit the Muslim world, certainly far more than any other nation, and something it will no doubt never get credit for, from either the Muslim world or other U.S.-bashers around the world.
.
Mistakes have been made, certainly. Mistakes occur in any war. But I still support what has occurred in Iraq. It is certainly better than anyone else's alternative. Although there really are no alteratives offered, just condemnation.
.
Except for notions that we "should have waited for the U.N." (which is a clear contradiction of the fact that France, and possibly Germany and Russia as well, made clear they would veto ANY resolution to invade Iraq, so waiting would never have borne fruit, and is just so much anti-American liberal revisionism that has no basis in fact).
.
And the U.N. with its most recent resolution now supports U.S. action and opens the door to nations like Japan, Turkey, and many other nations to send assistance.
.
But the assistance of these other U.N. nations combined would offer at most 30,000 troops, and probably a lot less.
So regardless of any cooperation of Bush with the U.N., the overwhelming brunt of it is and will remain on the U.S., no matter what is conceded by the U.S. And other nations don't WANT to take command from the U.S.
.
For any invasion of Iraq to have occurred, the U.S. had to do what it did, because the U.N. was giving zero cooperation, DESPITE seeing the same potential threat of Iraq as the U.S. cited. As U.N. resolutions against Iraq, and private intelligence of European nations makes clear.
.
What really pisses me off is that if the U.S. sends in more troops (as they did after the official end of the war, to do the job right against guerilla fighters) Democrats label it a "miserable failure" or a "quagmire" or "another Vietnam."
And if they lessen troop strength, then Bush is accused of "endangering the mission" and "caving in to political pressure" (the very political pressure that Democrats themselves are providing, to get out !)
.
I dislike the partisan accusations of Democrats, that criticize Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq, no matter what Bush does to stay the course.
.
Some of the criticism is warranted (such as vastly underestimating the cost of the war). But much of it is unfair criticism that has no consistency, and vaccilates from one hysterical extreme to the other (too much, not enough...)
And by the way, this is the Ronald Reagan topic, not the Iraq and WMD topic. It would be nice if you could separate the two, and not force me to respond here.
--------------------
"This Man, This Wonder Boy..."
Sweet Zombie Reagan, man! I've said it before and I'll say it again: you people post too long. Call me ignorant, lazy, and uneducated, but do all of you long-winded fellows really think what you have to say is so important that it deserves a dissertation? I know most of that's quotes, but, man, I really hope you posted all that for the benefit of the Partisan Family, cuz I'm pretty darn sure most ain't gonna sit down and actually read all that. Jim Jackson, grab yourself a chair, cuz I'm sure all that's cuz of your 9/11 crack, and it's gonna be a while.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Wednesday and Jim Jackson, you guys obviously have your pre-
conceived opinions (as well as your clear personal
vendettas against me).
Honestly, I don't care enough to have a personal vendetta
against you or anyone else here. A lot of mean ol' nasty
things have been said on this board about liberals, but,
though I'm the most liberal guy here according to G-
man's "how conservative are you" questionnaire, I haven't
really given a gosh darn about 95% of it.
A lot of mean ol' nasty things have been said by liberals
on these boards, and have compelled conservatives here
to make a response.
There are only about six liberals on these boards that I
have a consistent problem with, in their one-sided and
vicious attacks on conservatives. And then they have the
balls to call myself, G-man, Mr JLA and others "immature"
and "name-callers" for specifically answering the partisan
venom you, Whomod, and a few others post.
You post stuff to the effect of saying: Republicans are
assholes.
And we generally respond saying: Here are links to the
facts that disprove the slanderous spin you allege
to be true.
So based on your false liberal allegations, you jerks are
the assholes you allege us to be.
If that's immature, then you might do well to ask: who
launched the first salvo?
Whenever possible, I try to refrain from insults and just
answer the issues raised.
But once again, right here in this latest round YOU are
personalizing it and won't let it go, and forcing me into
another round of response.
I try to always respond politely, but I get tired of the
personal attacks, and my patience has limits, like
everyone else's.
So if I call you an asshole for baiting me into a flame-
war, and for then further insulting me for responding at
length to the issues that YOU RAISED, then pardon
me for calling you the raging troll asshole that you have
demonstrated yourself to be.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
.
Truth is, most of the arguments you, JLA, and G-man, have
with whomod end in immature, overly general name-calling
geared at every person on the other side of the political
fence.
Again, I didn't start this flame-war, I was baited into it
by you, Jim Jackson and Whomod, which is the consistent
pattern. I try to respond minimally to it when possible,
if you'd just let it go !
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Whatever. I don't take it seriously. I might snap now and
then, but I won't hold any grudges. I'm a Scorpio leaning
on Libra, man. I just don't give a fuck.
.
DtWB, if I met you on the street, I'd probably offer to
shake your hand and buy you a beer. Not the expensive
stuff, though, and you're responsible for tip.
I find that hard to believe, considering the relentless
antagonism you provide here in response to virtually every
topic I post to.
I'm a pretty forgiving guy, but I don't treat people who
constantly misrepresent me and constantly launch personal
atrtacks on me like they're my friends.
I tried in my above post to just respond with the facts in
a prior link and my previous posted comments, but you
still had to further bait me with more insulting personal
remarks.
Your immaturity and insults are on display here.
I tried to take the high road, and just post facts to
disprove the "no Osama/Saddam link" you allege, without
responsing to your personal insults.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Sweet Zombie Reagan, man!
I've said it before and I'll say it again: you people post
too long.
I respond exactly as long as is required to disprove the
false allegations that YOU RAISED !
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Call me ignorant, lazy, and uneducated, but do all of you
long-winded fellows really think what you have to say is
so important that it deserves a dissertation?
As I said, I'm just responding to the points raised. If I
respond briefly, I'm accused of "not backing up" what I
say.
If I give links and detailed answers, then I'm accused
of boring you with long-winded answers.
So... I'm damned either way by your hostile partisan
liberal crap.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
.
I know most of that's quotes, but, man, I really hope you
posted all that for the benefit of the Partisan Family,
cuz I'm pretty darn sure most ain't gonna sit down and
actually read all that. Jim Jackson, grab yourself a
chair, cuz I'm sure all that's cuz of your 9/11 crack, and
it's gonna be a while.
You guys post the angry baiting crap, and I try to politely
answer your points while ignoring your antagonism.
And then I'm vilified for even responding politely !
Just amazing...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
Yeah, those two are pretty good.
It's too bad that McGruder, like Michael Moore, is so obsessed with attacking Republicans that he stops being funny (at least to everyone who ISN'T a total left wing partisan).
When he does more "character driven" stuff tlike these two strips, the guy shows real talent.
I guess it's just easier to be mean than funny.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
From CNN:
Quote:
REAGAN THE NEW FACE OF $10 BILL?
.
Conservatives will push for image of 40th president to grace $10 bill, $20 bill or dime.
June 11, 2004: 12:53 PM EDT
.
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Ronald Reagan's face could one day
adorn the $10 bill or half the dimes minted in the
country, if fans of the late president get their way.
.
Will Reagan replace the nation's first treasury secretary
on the $10 bill?
On Tuesday Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) confirmed that he
is considering sponsoring legislation in the Senate to have Reagan's image replace that of Alexander Hamilton, the
nation's first treasury secretary, on the $10 bill.
.
Meanwhile, an effort is underway in the House of
Representatives, led by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.),
to put Reagan's face on the $20. And Rep. Jeff Miller (R-
Fla.) wants to swap Reagan for John F. Kennedy on the 50-
cent piece.
President Reagan Commemorative Coin
$29. Washington monetary authority. 999 fine silver. 1 1/2 inch diameter. A...
store.reagancoins.com
.
Ronald Reagan on ShopPBS.org
The official online store for all PBS programming. Over 4,000 specialty DVDs,...
www.shoppbs.org
.
Ronald Reagan Talking Action Figure
Keep the memory of Ronald Reagan alive with a talking action figure. Hear Ronald...
www.toypresidents.com
.
Conservative Singles Love Ronald Reagan
ConservativeMatch.com is a real community of singles who share common cultural,...
www.conservativematch.com
.
If either of the bill-changing efforts is successful, it
would represent the first change of a person on U.S.
currency since 1929, when the nation's paper money was
standardized in size and general design. Although various
anti-counterfeiting measures have altered the look of
paper notes since then, the principals depicted have not
changed.
.
The proposal has the support of Ronald Reagan Legacy
Project, which is headed by Grover Norquist, an
influential conservative activist.
Democrats in Congress may not be ready to embrace the idea,
though none has publicly declared opposition after
Reagan's death Saturday.
A change would require majority votes in both houses of
Congress.
.
In the Republican-dominated House, passage of a bill seems
achievable, according to Washington sources. In the
Senate, however, cloture rules would allow the Democratic
minority to block any legislation.
.
Proponents of Reaganized money, however, are proposing an
alternative to paper: coins.
Unlike decisions about notes, coins can be changed at the
discretion of the Treasury Secretary.
Over at the Treasury Department, however, lips are tightly
pursed on the notion of honoring the 40th president on
money.
"It's premature to get into any discussions about it,
including discussions of process or timing," said Ann
Womack Colton, a Treasury spokeswoman.
.
But GOP activist Norquist has said he has already had
discussions with treasury secretary John Snow and senior
White House staff about the idea, and found no opposition.
.
If Reagan is not put on the $10, an alternate proposal is
to have half the nation's dimes carry Reagan's face, with
the other half continuing to honor Franklin D. Roosevelt.
The idea of removing Roosevelt from the dime altogether in
favor of Reagan had enough opposition, even from Nancy
Reagan, to be dropped, USA Today reported.
.
But the Gipper's fans think giving equal time to Reagan and
FDR strikes an appropriate compromise.
.
One person opposed to removing Hamilton from the $10 bill
is Ron Chernow, author of an acclaimed biography of the
revolutionary war hero and founding father.
.
He told USA Today that he believed even Reagan would have
objected to the snub of Hamilton.
.
"Hamilton was the prophet of the capitalist system that
Ronald Reagan so admired," he was quoted as saying.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,016
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,016 |
The Treasury Department is always trying to shove the Dollar Coin down everyone's ass, why not put Reagan's image on that? ZOD would hate to see Hamilton taken off the 10 dollar bill. He died in a duel!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Yeah, those two are pretty good.
It's too bad that McGruder, like Michael Moore, is so obsessed with attacking Republicans that he stops being funny (at least to everyone who ISN'T a total left wing partisan).
Well, I found the first cartoon posted(involving Reagan) to be both funny and aimed more at the media in general, rather than Republicans specifically, and I don't think I'd call myself a total left wing partisan(and the "how conservative are you?" test seems to agree). I'm not overly familiar with McGruder, though, so I don't know much about whatever agenda he may or may not be pushing.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
My God!
Don't any of you watch television??
He was on "Real Time With Bill Maher", just about every other week!
He'd be described as a very soft spoken but direct and intelligent young man.
Plus I posted an interview from the Los Angeles Times Magazine a while back regarding "The Boondocks" being made into an animated cartoon, over in the media section of the boards.
I'm sure it's not that far back if you look. That interview would give you an idea of the man.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Bill Maher comes off as a dick a good deal of the time, though I did like to watch Politically Incorrect every now and then. Sometimes he would get carried away and just say something stupid, and I'd have to turn it. He was on Jay Mohr's show once, and they were discussing sports(yes, sports are what makes my world turn), and he said something to the extent that he could beat any woman at any sport with his hand behind his back. I'd just love to see him play one on one with Lisa Leslie, or try and hit a Jenny Finch fastball. Better yet, put him in the ring with Laila Ali for a few rounds. See how he comes out.
I don't get HBO, so I haven't watched any of his new show.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
A lot of mean ol' nasty things have been said by liberals
on these boards, and have compelled conservatives here
to make a response.
There are only about six liberals on these boards that I
have a consistent problem with, in their one-sided and
vicious attacks on conservatives. And then they have the
balls to call myself, G-man, Mr JLA and others "immature"
and "name-callers" for specifically answering the partisan
venom you, Whomod, and a few others post.
You post stuff to the effect of saying: Republicans are
assholes.
And we generally respond saying: Here are links to the
facts that disprove the slanderous spin you allege
to be true.
So based on your false liberal allegations, you jerks are
the assholes you allege us to be.
If that's immature, then you might do well to ask: who
launched the first salvo?
Whenever possible, I try to refrain from insults and just
answer the issues raised.
But once again, right here in this latest round YOU are
personalizing it and won't let it go, and forcing me into
another round of response.
I try to always respond politely, but I get tired of the
personal attacks, and my patience has limits, like
everyone else's.
Ok. Please let me know where I've posted all this slander and hate against conservatives. I post news A LOT, and I give my opinion sometimes, but where have I said mean things about conservatives?
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
So if I call you an asshole for baiting me into a flame-
war, and for then further insulting me for responding at
length to the issues that YOU RAISED, then pardon
me for calling you the raging troll asshole that you have
demonstrated yourself to be.
Again, I didn't start this flame-war, I was baited into it
by you, Jim Jackson and Whomod, which is the consistent
pattern. I try to respond minimally to it when possible,
if you'd just let it go !
Calling me a raging troll asshole is a minimal response?
Anywho, all I did is quote this...
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
The Democrats have exploited far more. Far more divisively, far more bitterly, and with far less evidence.
And ask "Then how do you know all this?" It's not libel or an insult. It's just that this statement you posted didn't make sense to me at first. When I first read it, it looked like you were saying that Democrats leave behind less evidence, which made me wonder how you could then know that we've "exploited far more." Now I read it to mean that we have far less evidence to exploit with. If that's true, then I see your logic, though I don't think that's true. All I was doing was asking for clarification. Not "trolling."
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I find that hard to believe, considering the relentless
antagonism you provide here in response to virtually every
topic I post to.
I'm a pretty forgiving guy, but I don't treat people who
constantly misrepresent me and constantly launch personal
atrtacks on me like they're my friends.
Please post examples of this relentless antagonism. If you mean that I disagree with you, then you're basically faulting me for posting my own opinions to the same topics to which you post your opinions. If I've posted relentless antagonisms toward you, specifically, then let me know.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I tried in my above post to just respond with the facts in
a prior link and my previous posted comments, but you
still had to further bait me with more insulting personal
remarks.
Your immaturity and insults are on display here.
I tried to take the high road, and just post facts to
disprove the "no Osama/Saddam link" you allege, without
responsing to your personal insults.
I said you guys often resort to name-calling, and that I often find it annoying. If you take that as an insult or name-calling in itself, then so be it. I think name-calling is childish and stupid. Doesn't matter who insults who first, answering name-calling with name-calling is just as bad, in my opinion.
For the record, I think good arguments have been posted by both sides on many issues. It's not the opinions I have a problem with, it's the slander that follows from both sides.
Also, where have I "alleged" that there was no Osama/Saddam link? It's not in this thread or the "Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were gay lovers" thread (I love that title, by the way). I haven't even posted to that other thread.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I respond exactly as long as is required to disprove the
false allegations that YOU RAISED !
What false allegations? I asked how you could know the Democrats have exploited far more, because, at worst, I misread the statement. Where is the allegation in that?
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
As I said, I'm just responding to the points raised. If I
respond briefly, I'm accused of "not backing up" what I
say.
If I give links and detailed answers, then I'm accused
of boring you with long-winded answers.
So... I'm damned either way by your hostile partisan
liberal crap.
No venom there.
I'll give you some of that, though. I'd bet you have been accused of not backing yourself up. I don't say that because you don't, but because long posts like the one I've noted seem to have become par.
I never said you bore me. If you did, we wouldn't be having this back and forth. I said I'm not going to read something so long in the first place.
As far as it being "hostile partisan liberal crap" posting long isn't a conservatives-only trait, and I never said it was. And my earlier "hostility" pointed out whomod as well, who you've already counted as a liberal.
I think you're seeing everything I say as a liberal as broad-sweepingly anti-conservative, when that's just not the case.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
You guys post the angry baiting crap, and I try to politely
answer your points while ignoring your antagonism.
And then I'm vilified for even responding politely !
Just amazing...
What I said doesn't villify you. It complains that your posts are too long, but it doesn't villify you. And where, exactly, do you see that I am angry? Annoyed? Yes. Angry? No.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
whomod said:
Wednesday is a Boondocks fan so he's ok in my book.
I've become a big Boondocks fan in the last year and a half. I can't wait for the animated cartoon. And it will be done by anime artists!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
whomod said:
Don't any of you watch television??
He was on "Real Time With Bill Maher", just about every other week!
He'd be described as a very soft spoken but direct and intelligent young man.
The interviews I've read with him make him look like something of a nasty wise ass.
Maybe he's more willing to spout off when he's not on TV.
In any event, my point is not whether or not he is, or can be, a nice guy in real life. He might be a swell fella.
My point is that he can be funny. But he has a tendency to get so caught up in his "all republicans are evil" spiel that he confuses attacks with humor.
It's sort of like that old "Bloom County" strip where Opus was replaced for a few days by "Ollie Funt" an angry Aussie penguin who thought that screaming "Reagan sucks" was "a wise a wistful comment on the days events."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Wednesday and Jim Jackson, you guys obviously have your pre-conceived opinions (as well as your clear personal
vendettas against me).
Dude, nobody's above a little piss-taking-out, not even you, despite all your, ahem, piety. I'm getting tons of abuse for correcting Chewy on Freud and for being a Pete Townshend fan. And ya know what? I'm still here, and I've got no grudges against anybody and I'm not so self-centered as to think *anyone* in this forum has a vendetta against me. I'd gladly go out for a beer with just about anybody in this forum, and I'll bet we'd have a good time. I'm just a guy in Ohio who can be a wiseass now and then. Albeit an intelligent wiseass...
Jim
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
In addition, I hasten to add that the Clinton
administration and virtually every Democrat in the House
and Senate as well, supported regime change in Iraq
since 1998
The reason for going to war in Iraq, pre-emptively, was not for regime change. Bush told us it was because Iraq had WMDs and that those WMDs posed a threat to the United States. It was only after no substantive trace of WMDs was found that Bush changed his story and decided we went in for regime change.
A failure of leadership...
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
In addition, I hasten to add that the Clinton
administration and virtually every Democrat in the House
and Senate as well, supported regime change in Iraq
since 1998
The reason for going to war in Iraq, pre-emptively, was not
for regime change. Bush told us it was because Iraq had
WMDs and that those WMDs posed a threat to the United
States. It was only after no substantive trace of WMDs was
found that Bush changed his story and decided we went in
for regime change.
A failure of leadership...
That's the liberal spin of the truth. I've linked Bush's
1-28-2003 State of the Union speech half a dozen times in
the "It's not about oil or Iraq..." topic, and
elsewhere (and Bush's other speeches leading up to the
war), and you keep right on posting the same distortions
and outright lies.
In addition, David Kay found that Iraq was unquestionably
in material breach of the U.N. ban on it having WMD's,
with extensive WMD research, ready to go into production
as soon as sanctions were lifted. And like the F-16's
buried in the desert, WMD's are likely buried somewhere in
Iraq, or have been slipped across the border to Syria, or
both. "Not found" is not the same as "proven not to
exist".
And you do remember the Sarin-tipped missile that was found
about a month ago ? Much was made of the fact that this
proves there are WMD's in Iraq. Where one exists,
there are, no doubt, more.
Bush clearly stated a number of reasons for entering Iraq,
primary of which was the 10 U.N. resolutions calling
directly for Saddam to disarm.
Plus Saddam's genocide, torture and rape rooms, aggression
toward his neighbors, non-compliance with U.N. weapons
inspectors (throwing them out of Iraq entirely from 1998-
2002, and not cooperating with inspectors even after they
were permitted back inside Iraq), and on and on. WMD's
are barely mentioned in Bush speeches prior to war, far
more emphasis is given to the other transgressions I just
listed.
Granted, WMD's were the urgency that got the House and
Senate to more quickly sign on to invade Iraq. But when
Bush persuaded the American public with his speeches in
the months leading up to war, his emphasis was enforcing
the U.N. resolutions, and ending torture, rape and
genocide in Saddam's Iraq. Much as liberals and a
complicit media try distort the record to say otherwise,
to vindictively undermine Bush's presidency.
--------------------
"This Man, This Wonder Boy..."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Wednesday, you confuse me.
You complain that I post responses that are too long, and
then you say I've falsely labelled you "hostile", with a
very long post of your own, that solicits a 5000
word response, just to minimally answer all the questions
and requests for specific examples you raise.
And this, after you imply that my prior posts were too long
for you to bother reading in the first place.
Truly: WTF ?!?!?!?!?!?
Here's what I described as you and Jim Jackson baiting me
into a flame-war I didn't want (again, this is a Raegan
tribute, NOT a Bush/Iraq topic) here:
Quote:
Wednesday said#287534 - Fri Jun 18 2004 04:38
.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
.
The Democrats have exploited far more. Far more divisively,
far more bitterly, and with far less evidence.
Then how do you know all this?
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:#287551 - Fri Jun 18 2004 05:41 PM
.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
.
The Democrats have exploited far more. Far more divisively,
far more bitterly, and with far less evidence.
.
Then how do you know all this?
.
He got it from the same intelligence that linked al-Qaida
and Iraq, pre-9/11.
--------------------
George W. Bush: born on 3rd base, thinks he hit a triple
Okay this is one that rankled my fur because:
1. Again, this is a REAGAN TRIBUTE, and Jim Jackson is
taking special pleasure in ruining it for the people who
like Reagan. You don't like Reagan?
Okay: WE GET IT ! So start your FUCK REAGAN topic
already and get out of my face. No one is shutting you
up, just take it to an appropriate place, not his eulogy,
and nostalgic reflections of those who like the guy.
And you've been doing this in the topic for
several pages. So.. take it elsewhere.
2. I just got through with an exchange that took the topic
further off Reagan than I wanted it to go, and I tried to
ignore you here, and take it back on-topic (my post about possible Reagan images on currency) but you just wouldn't let it go.
3. I've detailed "How do [I] know this", in probably
hundreds of posts ober the last year, and I feel it's
redundant and pointless to re-hash what I've said a vast
number of times, just because others want to ignore and
not read what I've already posted, chapter and verse
examples.
Just read my posts in the most recent pages of
the "It's not about oil or Iraq.. topic. I mean,
GEEZ ! I've explained myself in detail many times, and
what I see as Democrat party manipulation of the facts
is not exactly a mystery here !!
4. In retrospect, your post simply asks for a response,
Wednesday. Jim Jackson's is the snide one that really
pissed me off, and compelled me to show that there is
definite Senate intelligence that shows an Osama-Saddam
link. You're right, you didn't ask me. But it's pretty
clear that I posted in response to Jim Jackson's remark.
5. I think I'm on the record saying previously that when I
field several posters, some inquiring and some attacking
me, I find it difficult without re-reading the page to
remember who said what. Until I re-read it, I remember it
as several liberal posters jumping on me at once, and
forget which said specifically what. And it's only on re-
reading that I see one was polite and one was more
confrontational.
Initially, you were much more polite than Jim Jackson.
But in your lengthier second post, while you, deep into the
post, became more balanced in criticizing both sides,
also made some remarks I found partisan and insulting.
I'll go through the second post of yours, that
follows the opening shots on me by both you and Jim
Jackson (quoted above), and detail the examples you ask for:
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Honestly, I don't care enough to have a personal vendetta
against you or anyone else here. A lot of mean ol' nasty
things have been said on this board about liberals, but,
though I'm the most liberal guy here according to G-
man's "how conservative are you" questionnaire, I haven't
really given a gosh darn about 95% of it.
Here you imply that all the "mean ol' nasty things" are
initiated by conservatives against the liberals here on
RKMB.
When in truth, it's the reverse! Liberals attack, bait,
make snide remarks, and conservatives respond to disprove
the allegations, or at least give something resembling
equal time.
You say you're equally critical of Whomod. But your
comments here don't reflect that. They are solely
directed at conservatives on the boards here.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
.
Truth is, most of the arguments you, JLA, and G-man, have
with Whomod end in immature, overly general name-calling
geared at every person on the other side of the political
fence. Do liberals hate America?
Again, your comments here are directed solely at
conservatives. You list G-man, Me, and Mr JLA (all
conservatives) in your "immature" list. I don't see
Whomod (or the name of any other liberal posters) listed
specifically by you and criticized for their antagonistic
banter and "immature, overly general namecalling,
geared at every person on the other side of the political
fence." You say that you criticize both sides,
but your comments clearly single out only one side:
CONSERVATIVES.
Your comment clearly singles out conservatives for lashing
back at Whomod (and at other liberals, like yourself)
while giving liberals a free pass, while conservatives
here, for simply responding to liberal baiting and
condescension, are labelled as "immature"
and engaging in "overly general name-calling geared at
every person on the other side of the political fence".
This, despite the fact that I repeatedly make
it very clear, across many topics, that my comments don't
apply to more civil liberals who respectfully discuss the
issues, such as Chant and JQ. Llance has identified
himself as liberal also, and you don't see me make
comments toward him either, of the kind that I do toward
you, and Whomod, and Jim Jackson, and a few others.
Doesn't happen !
As Whomod often accuses me also, of "hating" all liberals,
that's not even true of the liberals in Washington. I've
many times said that Democrat Senator Joseph Biden and
Democrat Senator Joseph Lieberman are two whose opinions I
value, who don't lower themselves to the scorched-earth
partisan rhetoric of Kerry, Dean, Gore, Ted Kennedy,
Hilary Clinton and others.
I haven't said it before, but Clinton generally
is supportive of President Bush, and respectful in his
dissent when he voices it as well.
While Hilary Clinton is far more biting and partisan.
Again, except for the Bill Clinton part, I've said this all
many times, and across many topics. So it's a bit
annoying to have to repeat it.
But again, I'm not angry toward "all" liberal posters, or
all liberals in general. I enjoy having a friendly
exchange of ideas with liberals, when I don't have to deal with the usual "racist" "bigot" "homophobe" "blind
supporter of Bush" "Republican extremist", etc, etc.,
labels that liberals like to slap on me here to discount
my point of view.
So, like I said, Chant, JQ and others who can discuss the
issues in a more civil way, while often disagreeing with
me, still disagree respectfully, and I respond in kind.
Because they don't lower the bar like others do, and lash
out with such abrasiveness and rude condescension that I
have to respond.
Your topic "examples" appear more
directed at, possibly solely at, conservatives:
Quote:
Wednesday said:
"Do Liberals Hate America?"
That's G-man's topic, a branch off of the "Do liberals hate
the President?" topic. And that has been answered
abundantly within those two topics. The liberal venom and
prejudice toward Bush and conservatives in general by the
usual liberal partisans, is clearly on display.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
It's all about the oil!
This is what liberals constantly say about conservatives,
not the other way around. Possibly your including
it in the list is criticizing Whomod and other liberal
partisans (un-named in your comments)for sniping at
conservatives here. But it's vague, and seems directed
solely at admonishing conservatives.
Again, you name conservatives specifically, and it's
questionable whether you're criticizing liberals too, or
just solely criticizing conservatives for their part in
the topic.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
The [other side] controls the media, and uses it to
opress the people!! Stupid. No softer name for it.
Again, I've backed this up a hundred times, with statistics
that show the media is about 80% liberal, and that to
even get truly conservative opinion in this country,
you have to go to a very select group of publications and
media outlets, such as The Wall Street Journal, New York
Post, Weekly Standard and The National Review,
and arguably Fox News.
It's not "stupid". It's how you partisanly dismiss my
opinion about liberal media coverage, without any facts to
dispute it, just, "it's stupid".
See the Liberal Media topic, if you want some
statistics. In the 1984 Presidential election, every
White House correspondent voted for Mondale and ZERO
voted for Reagan. How do you think that affected
media reporting?
The existence of media bias is "stupid"?
Give me a freaking break.
And similarly issues like AIDS, homelessness, gay rights,
abortion, hyping white-on-minority crime, and downplaying
minority-on-white crime. And just generally downplaying
anything that portrays liberal-favored minorities
(gays, pro-abortionists, feminists, atheists, muslims) in
a negative light. While simultaneously hyping anthing
negative about Christian or conservative groups.
Or just more broadly blaming all social problems and the
misfortune of minorities on the Republicans.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Sometimes it's the left that starts it, sometimes it's
the right. Sometimes it's funny, most of the time it's
kinda annoying. Whatever. I don't take it seriously. I
might snap now and then, but I won't hold any grudges.
I'm a Scorpio leaning on Libra, man. I just don't give a fuck.
This is the first fair and balanced statement you've made
in this post.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
DtWB, if I met you on the street, I'd probably offer to
shake your hand and buy you a beer. Not the expensive
stuff, though, and you're responsible for tip.
Again, I'd like to be conciliatory, but there have been
some rather harsh things said over the last year. Maybe
I'm taking things overly personal, but some of the remarks
directed at me have seemed overly harsh and
personal. I'm a pretty friendly guy generally, and I'd
really like to tone down the rhetoric here, on both
sides. As I've said, some of the things said here (not
necessarily by you, Wednesday), it's hard not to take
offense.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Sweet Zombie Reagan, man!
?!?
I don't want to sound humorless, because I think you meant
this to be light and funny. But it's a bit ambiguous.
I felt this was a rather odd thing to say about Reagan,
in a tribute to widely admired former President who just
died.
Some here have gone out of their way to express contempt
for Reagan.
For those who feel the burning need, if it were earlier on
and the ugliness were not already here, I'd suggest you
start a "FUCK REAGAN!" topic, to get it out of your
systems. But the damage is already done, to the
attempt at an affectionate tribute to Reagan here, and
it's already somewhat tainted for those, like myself, who
admire and have affection for Reagan.
Further evidence of liberal bitterness, from my
perspective.
For God's sake, The man is dead !! Why do you
(liberals in general) have to urinate on a tribute to
him? Couldn't you (those liberals who despise Reagan)
just as easily dump on Reagan in a new topic devoted
specifially to that?
To me, that's typical of the liberal mentality I despise.
A complete lack of respect, and antagonism, toward those
who don't share liberal views. A burning, gleeful
malicious pleasure in getting in the face of someone who
doesn't share your liberal views.
A mindset for which Whomod is the poster boy.
And Jim Jackson is just a step behind.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: you people post
too long. Call me ignorant, lazy, and uneducated, but do
all of you long-winded fellows really think what you have
to say is so important that it deserves a dissertation?
Again: you solicited it, and there is no short way
to respond to the issues you raise. But I'll try and work on being more concise.
In the earlier post I responded to with the "Saddam-Osama
link" article, the issue is personalized toward me (by Jim
Jackson) implying I'm ignorant for somehow not buying the
liberal notion that Bush went to war "solely for WMD's".
Well, that liberal notion is wrong, and rather than just me
saying: "You're wrong" and go through 10 rounds of "Fuck you
Wonder Boy, you don't know what you're talking about", I
find it logical to back what I say with an article from
the New York Post, and point out what Bush actually said
(as opposed to the partisan liberal myth of
what Bush said) my documenting Bush's actual comments in his
speeches on the eve of war.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
I know most of that's quotes, but, man, I really hope you
posted all that for the benefit of the Partisan Family,
cuz I'm pretty darn sure most ain't gonna sit down and
actually read all that. Jim Jackson, grab yourself a
chair, cuz I'm sure all that's cuz of your 9/11 crack, and
it's gonna be a while.
It seems to me this is overly snide too, and directed at
conservatives only.
The "Partisan Family" remark seems squarely directed at me
and conservatives. And this is further confirmed by your
offering Jim Jackson to "grab a chair" and watch the show
that conservatives (me in particular) are obligated to
give in response.
I find this especially annoying, since Jim Jackson is among
the most partisan and insulting liberals I have the
displeasure of exchanging posts with. If you offer Jim
Jackson a chair, then there's clearly no liberal you'll
honestly criticize. Which means you've chosen partisan
sides, in giving his abrasiveness a free pass.
You say that your comments are "annoyed maybe" but "not
angry". Well, either way it's rude and insulting.
One example was on page 1 of the "Islamic Ignorance"
topic, which I believe is the first time we crossed paths
and you insulted my opinion with a flippant remark
about "using the Bible to rationalize any foolish notion"
or something to that effect. Which insulted my opinion,
without any kind of factual basis. Whether "annoyed"
or "angry", the comment, and similar ones, are
condescending and hostile, and definitely rub me the wrong
way.
Again, you asked for examples, I tried to provide them. I
apologize for the lengthy response. This is a discussion
of what I think and what you think, and how we perceive
each other's comments.
And I'm reluctant to post this, because I really don't want
to dredge up and prolong this. But neither do I want to
ignore your request for examples.
As far as I'm concerned, it's a done deal, and you don't
need to respond if you don't want to. I'm talking in this
post about my personal perceptions, and I don't want to
say or imply that you absolutely did this or that. Just
my interpretation, which could be not what you actually
intended.
And Jim Jackson, same thing. If you'll ease up, I'll do
the same.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I think you and Jim Jackson, Jackson in particular, have gone out of your way to express your contempt for Reagan. I'd suggest you start a "FUCK REAGAN!" topic, but you've already done your best to destroy the affectionate tribute to him here, and taint it for those, like myself, who admire and have affection for Reagan.
Now, hold the phone here...I do not have contempt for Reagan. In fact, here's what I have said that is on point regarding Reagan...
June 6: "Iran-contra. If you're going to take note of the highs, you must also note the lows."
June 6: "Reagan had stengths and weaknesses as president. In fairness to him as a man, we should not overlook or overemphasize either."
June 7: "I was never a Reagan supporter. I did not vote for him in the one election he ran in during my adulthood. I never felt that I was someone, as a liberal, whom Reagan would have embraced despite the fact that I, too, was born in the same United States as he. I found he skated out of harm's way over Iran-contra far too easily, and I felt in far more fear of nuclear proliferation than in any time up until the election of George W. Bush. "
Nonetheless, I am saddened at his passing. Despite our undeniable differences of opinion, Reagan was a great American, and in these immediate days following his death, I mourn his loss. I misted up at images of Nancy, clearly devastated at his death, and as one who has known death too, I understand her grief and the sense of loss that appears to permeate her. Reagan was cut from a cloth similar to that of my late father-in-law. Both worked for their country, my father in law as a soldier in WWII and Reagan as 40th US President. Both are gone and represent aspects of era we will likely not see again during our lifetimes. In some ways, that's a good thing, as both men probably held beliefs whose times had come and gone. But the time for that discussion is another day.
I wish the Reagan family well."
June 10: "Despite my disdain for VP Cheney, I thought his speech at Reagan's laying-in-state last night was very good."
June 11: "From Paul Krugman, NY TIMES: 'But Reagan does hold a special place in the annals of tax policy, and not just as the patron saint of tax cuts. To his credit, he was more pragmatic and responsible than that; he followed his huge 1981 tax cut with two large tax increases.'
Reagan did raise taxes.
Go to this source to read some interesting commentary on how much of what we've heard this week deifying Reagan isn't true. http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/4820649.html
I'm not going to dwell on anything anti-Reagan until after this weekend."
Show me where anything in that even resembles "contempt." I pointed out, to dispell myths that were being touted as fact upon his death, that Reagan did increase taxes later in his tenure and that Iran-contra occurred on his watch and with his knowledge. I also noted that Reagan didn't like talking about AIDS, but nowhere did I or do I label him a homophobe, anti-gay or anything of that nature.
I think I had very nice things to say about Reagan, I shed tears over his passing; I fucking even likened him to my late father-in-law, a man whom I loved dearly!
You have just decided to pigeonhole me as a Liberal who hates everything that doesn't speak to my politics. And that is so fucking wrong. But if it's easier for you to do, and it helps you sleep better, go right ahead. Changing your opinion doesn't mean a goddamn thing to me anyway. I'm not that quixotic.
Jim
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Wednesday, you confuse me.
You complain that I post responses that are too long, and
then you allege that I've falsely accused me of labelling
you "hostile" (which you were), with a very long
post of your own, that solicits a 500 word response, just
to minimally answer all the questions and allegations, and
requests for specific examples you raise.
And this, after you imply that my prior posts were too long
for you to bother reading in the first place.
Truly: WTF ?!?!?!?!?!?
I made another post and noted the same folly here. My only excuse was that I had a lot of time last night and not much to do. End of the semester with no gas in the car. I'll try to keep my responses here short. I have to warn you, though, that just like last time, you made a lot of points. To address them all might take a lot of words.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I'll go through the one post second post of yours, that
follows the opening shots on me by both you and Jim
Jackson, and detail the examples you ask for:
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Honestly, I don't care enough to have a personal vendetta against you or anyone else here. A lot of mean ol' nasty things have been said on this board about liberals, but, though I'm the most liberal guy here according to G-man's "how conservative are you" questionnaire, I haven't really given a gosh darn about 95% of it.
Here you imply that all the "mean ol' nasty things" are initiated by conservatives against the liberals here on RKMB.
When in truth, it's the reverse! Liberals attack, bait, make snide remarks, and conservatives respond to disprove the allegations, or at least give something resembling equal time.
You say you're equally critical of Whomod. But your comments here don't reflect that. They are solely directed at conservatives on the boards here.
Where do you see the word "initiate"? Actually, I never said conservatives initiate anything. In fact, I never implied it (I even said that sometimes one side starts it, sometimes the other). I said mean ol' nasty things have been said about liberals, and that's the truth. I don't care about most of it, and that's the truth. Mean ol' nasty things have been said about conservatives as well, but pointing out that I don't care about most of it wouldn't have helped prove my point.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
Wednesday said:
.
Truth is, most of the arguments you, JLA, and G-man, have with whomod end in immature, overly general name-calling geared at every person on the other side of the political fence. Do liberals hate America?
Again, your comments here are directed solely at conservatives. You list G-man, Me, and Mr JLA (all conservatives) in your "immature" list. I don't see Whomod (or the name of any other liberal poster's) listed specifically by you and criticized for their antagonistic banter and "immature, overly general namecalling, geared at every person on the other side of the political fence." You allege that you criticize both sides, but your comments clearly single out only one side: CONSERVATIVES.
Your comment clearly singles out conservatives for lashing back at Whomod (and at other liberals, like yourself) while giving liberals a free pass, while conservatives here, for simply responding to your baiting and condescension, are labelled by you as "immature" and engaging in "overly general name-calling geared at every person on the other side of the political fence".
This, despite the fact that I repeatedly make it very clear, across many topics, that my comments don't apply to more civil liberals who respectfully discuss the issues, such as Chant and JQ. Llance has identified himself as liberal also, and you don't see me make comments toward him either, of the kind that I do toward you, and Whomod, and Jim Jackson, and a few others. Doesn't happen !
Because they don't lower the bar like you do, and lash out with such abrasiveness and rude condescension that I have to respond.
I bold-faced whomod's name in the quote you gave to prove my point. He was on the list, and I listed it that way because most of the arguments I watch go downhill are you vs. whomod, G-man vs. whomod, and MrJLA vs. whomod. You can read that as meaning that conservatives attack whomod, or that whomod pulls every debate down. Or you can say it takes two to tango. I listed one side, then the other, and I used the word "with" not "at." Plus, I've also stated that both sides are at fault when things get nasty.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Your "examples" make it clear that your comments are directed solely at conservatives.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
It's all about the oil!
This is what liberals constantly say about conservatives, not the other way around.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
The [other side] controls the media, and uses it to opress the people!! Stupid. No softer name for it.
Again, I've backed this up a hundred times, with statistics that show the media is about 80% liberal, and that to even get truly conservative opinion in this country, you have to go to a very select group of publications and media outlets, such as The Wall Steet Journal, New York Post, Weekly Standard and The National Review.
It's not stupid. It's how you partisanly choose to insult and spin my opinion, with nothing factual for you to back up the insult. More of your presumtuous liberal condescension.
I'm aware of the fact "It's all about the oil" is a thing liberals say. I put that in there to show that the pointlessness doesn't come from just one side. Same goes when I said "[other side]" verses saying "liberals." Once again, I'm pointing out that it comes from both sides.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
See the Liberal Media topic, if you want some statistics. In the 1984 Presidential election, every White House correspondent voted for Mondale and ZERO voted for Reagan. How do you think that affected media reporting?
Media bias is "stupid"? Yeah, right.
Give me a freaking break.
And similarly issues like AIDS, homelessness, gay rights, abortion, hyping white-on-minority crime, and downplaying minority-on-white crime. And just generally downplaying anything that portrays minorities in a negative light. Or blaming the misfortune of minorities on the Republicans.
That argument isn't sound because that statistic proves nothing. You simply can't derive a direct correlation between the way every newsperson votes and the they report news, all you can do is suggest. Plus, Reagan won, so either the bias really didn't show in the reporting, or it didn't make a considerable enough difference to cause worry.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Sometimes it's the left that starts it, sometimes it's the right. Sometimes it's funny, most of the time it's kinda annoying. Whatever. I don't take it seriously. I might snap now and then, but I won't hold any grudges. I'm a Scorpio leaning on Libra, man. I just don't give a fuck.
This is the first fair and balanced statement you've made in this post.
Okay, you've recognized one. I've proven the others. Still you say I've shown a history of contempt. That's what I'm asking you to prove.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
Wednesday said:
DtWB, if I met you on the street, I'd probably offer to shake your hand and buy you a beer. Not the expensive stuff, though, and you're responsible for tip.
Again, I'd like to be conciliatory, but there have been some rather harsh things said over the last year.
Again, I ask to be shown these harsh things I've said.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Sweet Zombie Reagan, man!
?!?
I felt this was a rather unkind thing to say about Reagan, in a tribute to widely admired former President who just died. I think you and Jim Jackson, Jackson in particular, have gone out of your way to express your contempt for Reagan. I'd suggest you start a "FUCK REAGAN!" topic, but you've already done your best to destroy the affectionate tribute to him here, and taint it for those, like myself, who admire and have affection for Reagan.
Further evidence of liberal bitterness, as far as I'm concerned. For God's sake, The man is dead !! Why do you have to urinate on a tribute to him. Couldn't you have just as easily shit on Reagan in a new topic devoted to that?
To me, that's typical of the liberal mentality I despise.
A complete lack of respect, and antagonism, toward those who don't share your views. A burning, gleeful malicious pleasure in getting in the face of someone who doesn't share your liberal views.
A mindset for which Whomod is the poster boy.
And Jim Jackson is just a step behind.
I have no contempt for Reagan. If it helps, make an alt ID called 'Zombie Wednesday.'
Wanna know where it comes from? One of my favorite quotes from Futurama. One of the old doctor's favorite expressions is "Great Zombie Jesus!" Delightfully un-PC, and the price for having a recognizable name.
If it helps I've invited Zombie FDR over for dinner. He asked if he could bring along bringing Zombie Kennedy and Zombie Ray Charles along with him.
I can only hope that someone someday somewhere quips about Zombie Jason.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
Wednesday said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: you people post too long. Call me ignorant, lazy, and uneducated, but do all of you long-winded fellows really think what you have to say is so important that it deserves a dissertation?
Again: you solicited it, and there is no short way to respond to the issues you raise.
In my earlier response, you raise the issue that I'm ignorant for somehow not realizing the liberal Gospel that Bush went to war "solely for WMD's". Well, that liberal notion is wrong, and rather than just say "you're wrong" and go through 10 rounds of "Fuck you Wonder Boy, you don't know what you're talking about", I find it logical to back what I say with an article from the New York Post, and point out what Bush actually said (as opposed to the partisan liberal myth of what Bush said) in his speeches on the eve of war.
Where did I say that you're ignorant, that you don't know what you're talking about, or say Bush went to war solely for WMD's? You're taking everything I say that questions or doesn't agree with your political beliefs as a personal shot. "Fuck you Wonder Boy, you don't know what you're talking about"? How'd you pull that line of thinking from anything I've EVER posted?
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
Wednesday said:
I know most of that's quotes, but, man, I really hope you posted all that for the benefit of the Partisan Family, cuz I'm pretty darn sure most ain't gonna sit down and actually read all that. Jim Jackson, grab yourself a chair, cuz I'm sure all that's cuz of your 9/11 crack, and it's gonna be a while.
...And I still haven't read it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Wednesday, you might (or might not ! ) want to re-read my monster post above. I was trying to write the whole response in one post, and I had only partially written what you responded to. And tried to improve my wording, but even so, I'm not posting today with the clarity I'd like to.
Basically, I think you meant your post to be more mutually critical of sniping from both the Left and the Right here on the boards, and through either your writing or my perception, it came across more left-favoring than you wanted it to be.
And I think the further into it, the more balanced your criticism got. My apologies for remaining in defense mode while you were being conciliatory.
Again, my response is super long, and I'm half-tempted to delete the whole post, to spare you from having to respond. I'm not writing at my best today. Some days the words don't flow like you want 'em to. 
The "Fuck you Wonder Boy, you don't know what you're talking about" thing is not directed at you personally.
It was an attempt at humor.
I've often said to Rob in e-mail that discussions here (where topics & posts aren't deleted for profanity or for controversial remarks), as opposed to the DC boards, tend to generally follow a pattern when they get heated up:
PERSON A: Voices heated unpopular opinion.
Person B: "Fuck you, person A !!"
PERSON A: "No FUCK YOU, harder and deeper !!!"
Person B: "Fuck you, fuck your girlfriend, fuck your mother, etc., etc."
Ad infinitum
Just a general expression of unleashed emotion on a board where nothing can be deleted.
Which I think tends to happen more when two people discuss their opinionated opinions, instead of shared facts. Which is why I tend to post long. Effectively or not, I try to lay out the facts as I understand them. But again, I see your point about brevity, and I'll work on it.
{ I updated this post too, to try and clarify ]
Last edited by Dave the Wonder Boy; 2004-06-19 6:16 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Seems things were misconstrued on both our parts. No problem. And if you're ever in Miami, that offer for a beer still stands.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
That's a kind offer Wednesday, I appreciate that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
Quote:
That argument isn't sound because that statistic proves nothing. You simply can't derive a direct correlation between the way every newsperson votes and the they report news, all you can do is suggest. Plus, Reagan won, so either the bias really didn't show in the reporting, or it didn't make a considerable enough difference to cause worry.
Well put, and a good catch.
If there was liberal media bias, and it did make a difference, the US public wouldn't have voted for 4 Republicans as opposed to 2 Democrat presidents over the past 35 years.
Getting back to the issue, I was watching something on BBC last night about the evolution of rap music. It plainly credited Reaganomics with the feeling of anger, powerlessness and disenfranchisement felt amongst black Americans in the 80s.
Anyone got any comments on how minorities fared under Reagan?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
Dave said:
Quote:
That argument isn't sound because that statistic proves nothing. You simply can't derive a direct correlation between the way every newsperson votes and the they report news, all you can do is suggest. Plus, Reagan won, so either the bias really didn't show in the reporting, or it didn't make a considerable enough difference to cause worry.
Well put, and a good catch.
If there was liberal media bias, and it did make a difference, the US public wouldn't have voted for 4 Republicans as opposed to 2 Democrat presidents over the past 35 years.
Getting back to the issue, I was watching something on BBC last night about the evolution of rap music. It plainly credited Reaganomics with the feeling of anger, powerlessness and disenfranchisement felt amongst black Americans in the 80s.
Anyone got any comments on how minorities fared under Reagan?
Just because liberal bias hasn't been successful in turning public opinion, doesn't mean that liberal bias doesn't exist. It only means that bias hasn't been successful.
I would argue that the liberal bias is much stronger and more vindictive since November 2000, and that as close a race as this one is, that bias is strong enough to shift the balance in favor of the Democrats.
That is certainly the intention.
~
Regarding allegations of a minority persecution under Reagan, I dispute that. The first black managers I worked under were during the Reagan years.
There's a difference between subsidizing minorities and pandering to them (which Reagan did not do),
And simply treating minorities like equals and giving them the same shot at careers and success as everyone else (which Reagan did do).
I've seen a number of articles about how black immigrants from places like Africa, Jamaica, Haiti and the Bahamas achieve a much higher rate of career success and education than do American blacks. So the question is:
Is this "racism"?
Or is it, more obviously, a poisonous belief system in the American black community, that convinces many African Americans not to even try?
I feel that the perception of discrimination, and the resultant attitude of a large percentage of blacks about race, was a regressive and destructive pandering to black fears and phantoms of past racism, by black politicians trying to spread/preserve their powerbase at the expense of the country, and by black musicians and other artists manufacturing rage as a gimmick to sell albums, movies and plays.
Speaking for myself and the blacks I worked with in the early, mid and late 80's, it was a fun and optimistic period, and I felt good about having black managers and co-workers that I could bond so well with. We had a lot to talk about. We enjoyed the same music. We'd all go out and eat and drink together. And in that time, I felt good about being part of an America that had emerged from the 60's and 70's and was increasingly uniting as one nation.
I saw rap and Spike Lee and exploitative reporting as manufacturing an artificial rage that kept memories of 60's discrimination alive.
And I was saddened after a number of years (particularly 1992) to see that the liberal perception of race projected in the popular media had begun to sink in, and had fragmented America into ethnic camps. Where America remains.
But there's hope. And black Republicans. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
The Cato Institute agrees with you: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.htmlQuote:
The poorest 20 percent of Americans experienced a 6 percent gain in real income in the 1980s and have suffered a 3 percent loss in income in the 1990s. Figure 13, which compares the income trends for the poorest fifth of Americans over the past 20 years, shows that the poor did the best during the Reagan years. Black Americans saw their incomes grow at a slightly faster pace (11.0%) than whites (9.8%) in the Reagan years (see Table 9).
This is actually an extremely interesting article, as it explodes a lot of myths about Reaganomics by looking at data, not anecdotal conjecture.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
simply treating minorities like equals and giving them the same shot at careers and success as everyone else (which Reagan did do).
I think you would get a lot of debate over this.
He was opposed to the Civil Rights Act in 1964, and in 1980 he called the Voting Rights Act "humiliating to the South". He also opposed the extension of the Act in 1982.
Reagan also sided against the IRS when they tried to deny tax exemptions to segregated private schools like Bob Jones University(a common practice for years), prompting a lawsuit. Later, he said he didn't see it as a civil rights issue.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
