• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Read ALL of this before you decide right or wrong

Soapweed

Well-known member
Read all of this before you decide right or wrong. Surprise, surprise!

______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ___________
"He's nothing but a B-List TV personality. He has no business being in politics."

"He's been divorced and remarried. He can't commit to anything."

"He's dangerously ignorant about international affairs. The Russian leaders will walk all over him."

"He has no filter - doesn't think before he speaks."

"Until recently, he was a Democrat. He's not a real Republican. He hasn't paid his GOP dues."

"He used to be Pro Choice. Now, suddenly he's Pro Life?"

"That can't be his real hair!"

"He's a loose cannon. No one wants HIS finger on the nuclear button."

"His opponent has the experience and political savvy to be president. He does not."

"He's just not presidential."

"His temperament disqualifies him from ever being Commander-In-Chief."

"He's proven himself to be mentally unstable."

"The military will never accept him as Commander-In-Chief. He's not smart enough."

"The GOP doesn't want him to be the head of the party. He could never reach across the aisle to get anything done."

"Most Republican voters will just stay home rather than go out and vote for him."

"He's almost 70. Much too old to be president."

"Evangelicals will never support him."

"He says '(Let’s) Make America Great Again'. How dare he say we aren't still great?!?!"

"His intellect is thinner than spit on a slate rock.”

"90 percent of Republican state chairmen judge him guilty of 'simplistic approaches,' with 'no depth in federal government administration' and 'no experience in foreign affairs.'"

"His spontaneity with reporters and voters plays well but also gives him plenty of space to disgorge fantasies and factual errors so prolific and often outrageous that he single-handedly makes the word gaffe a permanent fixture in America’s political vernacular. He confuses Pakistan with Afghanistan. He claimed once that trees contributed 93 percent of the atmosphere’s nitrous oxide..."

"After all his gaffs, he doubles down on them instead of admitting he made a mistake."

"He's threatening to upend our treaties and relationships with our allies by demanding that they pay for their own defense!"

"Because of his gross factual errors he might take rash action and needlessly lead this country into open warfare!"

"He's racist, xenophobic, and fuels the fires of hatred!"

"You shouldn't take him seriously. He has a penchant for offering simplistic solutions to hideously complex problems and a stubborn insistence that he is always right in every argument.”

"The rising turnout of his voters are not loyal Republicans or Democrats and are alienated from both parties because neither takes a sympathetic view toward their issues.”

"He wears the disdain he draws from the GOP elites as a badge of honor. Henry Kissinger’s championing the other GOP candidate and attacking him are actually helping him!"

"The fact that he could be deemed a serious candidate for president is a shame and embarrassment for the country.”

The New Yorker observed that his appeal “has to do not with competence at governing but with the emotion he evokes... [He] lets people get out their anger and frustration, their feeling of being misunderstood and mishandled by those who have run our government, their impatience with taxes and with the poor and the weak, their impulse to deal with the world’s troublemakers by employing the stratagem of a punch in the nose.”

"His unpopular opponent presided over the current Iranian crisis... and a reeling economy, yet surely the Democrat will prevail over him."

"Is he Safe? …he shoots from the hip … he's over his head … What are his solutions?”

"Voters want to follow some authority figure, — a leader who can take charge with authority; return a sense of discipline to our government; and, manifest the willpower needed to get this country back on track -- Or at least a leader from outside Washington,"

****************************** *
Sound familiar? You've heard this all about Donald Trump, right?

Try Again. All this was said of Ronald Reagan in 1976 and 1980. Most of it was BY OTHER REPUBLICANS, and Reagan turned out to be arguably one of the greatest presidents of the 20th Century, if not of all time (excluding possibly George Washington.)
 

Silver

Well-known member
The way much of the world saw it Ronnie was no hero. I know I this comment will draw fire, but c'est la vie.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
Silver said:
The way much of the world saw it Ronnie was no hero. I know I this comment will draw fire, but c'est la vie.


Could you explain that for me please.

If you like. You of course won't agree with me but keep in mind that is your right just as mine is to have the opinion that the man was a failure.
I clearly remember well north of 200 American servicemen killed in Beirut, and Reagans response was to pull out. Seems to me he attacked Grenada days later to deflect the criticism.
I also recall an attack by Saddam on a US navy ship that killed quite a few, and Ronnie gets the distinction of being the only president to never retaliate for such an aggression.
He also vetoed the anti-apartheid bill. Wtf?
Reagan didn't like farmers. Remember "I wish we could keep the grain and export the farmers"?

The list is a long one BMR, this is really the tip of the iceberg, and my feelings on the matter are justified, weather they line up with yours or not they are nonetheless my views which of course I am entitled to ;)
 

Brad S

Well-known member
"I clearly remember well north of 200 American servicemen killed in Beirut, and Reagans response was to pull out. Seems to me he attacked Grenada days later to deflect the criticism."

What monstrous evil was critical of Reagan for a suicide bomber that killed 240 Americans (besides the world's socialists that resented reagans promotion of the choice economy)?

In the "Attack" (rescue of Americans) on Grenada, how many Commies were killed? Yup - again the world's anti choice economy contingent (commies) hated Reagan. So the commies blame Reagan for savage killing of marines and again blame Reagan for preemptive intervention that secured safety for Americans from Cuban commies despots? Yes, I know there is a certain contingent of Canadians much more in step with the Castro idea of freedom than the Reagan idea of freedom - and they effing don't speak for the world. They speak for the world's socialists. The rest of the "criticisms of Reagan" are equally specious, but I've already committed excess time to the nexus of stupidity and dishonesty. I'm happy for people's right to be so abjectly misinformed - nothing wrong with a little levity.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Well Brad, you have confirmed my suspicion that there is no room for free thought or open honest discussion in this forum. Thank you.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Silver said:
Well Brad, you have confirmed my suspicion that there is no room for free thought or open honest discussion in this forum. Thank you.

Since I asked you to explain your position, I thank you as so many times statements are made here and not backed up with reasons. You did explain your reasons whether I agree with them or not is beside the point it is your right.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
Silver said:
Well Brad, you have confirmed my suspicion that there is no room for free thought or open honest discussion in this forum. Thank you.

Since I asked you to explain your position, I thank you as so many times statements are made here and not backed up with reasons. You did explain your reasons whether I agree with them or not is beside the point it is your right.

Thanks BMR. Fact is, were I an American I would have voted for Ronnie both times. I think he was the better candidate. Having said that, what I do not understand is why people defend their candidate right or wrong. Seems to me if we vote them in we need to be extra critical of them. The "my party right or wrong" mantra doesn't sit well with me and I think is for the weak minded.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Silver said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Silver said:
Well Brad, you have confirmed my suspicion that there is no room for free thought or open honest discussion in this forum. Thank you.

Since I asked you to explain your position, I thank you as so many times statements are made here and not backed up with reasons. You did explain your reasons whether I agree with them or not is beside the point it is your right.

Thanks BMR. Fact is, were I an American I would have voted for Ronnie both times. I think he was the better candidate. Having said that, what I do not understand is why people defend their candidate right or wrong. Seems to me if we vote them in we need to be extra critical of them. The "my party right or wrong" mantra doesn't sit well with me and I think is for the weak minded.

When the Democratic Party has almost the exact same platform as the American Communist Party, as they have for years, it's weak minded and mind numbing to even think about voting that way.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Mike said:
When the Democratic Party has almost the exact same platform as the American Communist Party, as they have for years, it's weak minded and mind numbing to even think about voting that way.

So that's you logic for never criticizing your chosen candidate? :???:
 

Steve

Well-known member
U.S. President Ronald Reagan called the attack a "despicable act"[67] and pledged to keep a military force in Lebanon. U.S. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, who had privately advised the administration against stationing U.S. Marines in Lebanon,[68] said there would be no change in the U.S.'s Lebanon policy.

U.S. Vice President George H. W. Bush arrived and made a tour of the destroyed BLT barracks on Wednesday, October 26, 1983. Vice President Bush toured the site and said the U.S. "would not be cowed by terrorists."

Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger was against retaliation. Secretary of Defense Weinberger, in a September 2001 FRONTLINE interview, reaffirmed that rift in White House counsel when he claimed that the U.S. still lacks "'actual knowledge of who did the bombing' of the Marine barracks."[73]

The USS New Jersey had arrived and taken up station off Beirut on September 25, 1983. Special Representative in the Middle East Robert McFarlane's team had requested the New Jersey after the August 29th Druze mortar attack that killed two Marines.[82] After the October 23rd bombing, on November 28, the U.S. government announced that the New Jersey would remain stationed off Beirut although her crew would be rotated. It wasn't until December 14 that the New Jersey finally joined the fray and fired 11 projectiles from her 16-inch guns at hostile targets near Beirut. "This was the first time 16-inch shells were fired for effect anywhere in the world since the New Jersey ended her time on the gunline in Vietnam in 1969."[83] Also in December 1983, U.S. aircraft from the USS John F. Kennedy and USS Independence battle groups attacked Syrian targets in Lebanon, but this was ostensibly in response to Syrian missile attacks on American warplanes.

On February 8, 1984, the U.S.S. New Jersey fired almost 300 shells at Druze and Syrian positions in the Beqaa Valley east of Beirut. This was the heaviest shore bombardment since the Korean War. The ship consumed 40 percent of the 16-inch ammunition available in the entire European theater...[and] in one burst of wretched excess," the New Jersey seemed to be unleashing eighteen months of repressed fury

On February 7, 1984, President Reagan ordered the Marines to begin withdrawing from Lebanon largely because of waning congressional support for the mission after the attacks on the barracks

The ship borne 22d MAU contingent remained stationed offshore near Beirut while a detached 100 man ready reaction force remained stationed ashore near the U.S./U.K. Embassy.


After some years of investigation, the U.S. government now believes that elements of what would eventually become Hezbollah, backed by Iran and Syria, were responsible for these bombings[106][109] as well as the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut earlier in April.[110][111] It is believed that Hezbollah used the name "Islamic Jihad" to remain anonymous. Hezbollah eventually announced its existence in 1985.[112][113] To date, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria have continued to deny any involvement in any of the bombings; even though, in 2004, the Iranian government erected a monument in Tehran to commemorate the 1983 bombings and its "martyrs".

Two years after the bombing, a U.S. grand jury secretly indicted Imad Mughniyah for his terrorist activities.[115] Mughniyah was never captured, but he was killed by a car bomb in Syria on February 12, 2008

complicated, but all we heard from the media is Reagan ordered the withdrawal.

Nowadays, the president can just ignore congress and use his phone and pen to illegally spend money and declare war against foreign nations and groups..
 

Steve

Well-known member
and Reagans response was to pull out. Seems to me he attacked Grenada days later to deflect the criticism."

The 1983 Beirut barracks bombings were terrorist attacks that occurred on October 23, 1983

The invasion commenced at 05:00 on 25 October 1983.

In October 1983, the government of Grenada was overthrown and the island’s military assumed control. In response, President Reagan ordered American troops to invade. Several other Caribbean nations also sent troops.

Planning for that large of a multi nation, joint forces operation did not happen over night. while they can be called off with short notice, they often take months of planning.

as for to avoid criticism .. for the pull out..

On February 7, 1984, President Reagan ordered the Marines to begin withdrawing from Lebanon

I have always been against our involvement in civil wars, and in UN style peace keeping forces,, Granada was an decent example of how we should deal with both.

(the War Powers Resolution of 1973 required presidents to consult with Congress before committing troops, except in cases of serious and immediate threats. In the case of Grenada, Ronald Reagan’s administration informed congressional leaders.) Instead of informing the world and our enemies.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Silver said:
Mike said:
When the Democratic Party has almost the exact same platform as the American Communist Party, as they have for years, it's weak minded and mind numbing to even think about voting that way.

So that's you logic for never criticizing your chosen candidate? :???:

There is nothing MORE logical.............
 

Silver

Well-known member
Mike said:
Silver said:
Mike said:
When the Democratic Party has almost the exact same platform as the American Communist Party, as they have for years, it's weak minded and mind numbing to even think about voting that way.

So that's you logic for never criticizing your chosen candidate? :???:

There is nothing MORE logical.............

That's exactly the answer I knew I'd get from you! :clap: :D
 

Mike

Well-known member
Ask and you shall receive. But to think I'm going to sell my candidate down the road to Socialists when I'm already outnumbered by adverse criticism to the "nth" power by the MSM is absurd. To be clear..........It's already an uphill battle going against the "Gimmiedats" and they're breeding like rats.......... There is no more unbiased media, and they choose the candidates.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Mike said:
Ask and you shall receive. But to think I'm going to sell my candidate down the road to Socialists when I'm already outnumbered by adverse criticism to the "nth" power by the MSM is absurd. To be clear..........It's already an uphill battle going against the "Gimmiedats" and they're breeding like rats.......... There is no more unbiased media, and they choose the candidates.

Why in the world does holding your candidate / leader of choice to the highest possible standard constitute selling him/her out? That is absolutely shameful. Never settle. Ever. If you settle and allow your leader to be less than he/she should be then you are failing your party and your country. In fact you would be selling your candidate and your party and your country down the road.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
When Nixon found himself accused of the watergate issues, he assembled Dole and Baker and asked for their support. With their support, Nixon could have destroyed the tapes/evidence and weathered the constitutional crisis with "no proof here"
Dole and Baker refused Nixon support in the crisis scheme. All this is a sharp contrast to the workings of dnc. None of the dnc would even condemn "drag a hunnerd dollah bill through a trailer court" remark to besmirch one of clintons sexual assault victims. Relatively speaking, the freedom advocates are way more pure than the commies - and it is a relative matter.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Silver said:
Mike said:
Ask and you shall receive. But to think I'm going to sell my candidate down the road to Socialists when I'm already outnumbered by adverse criticism to the "nth" power by the MSM is absurd. To be clear..........It's already an uphill battle going against the "Gimmiedats" and they're breeding like rats.......... There is no more unbiased media, and they choose the candidates.

Why in the world does holding your candidate / leader of choice to the highest possible standard constitute selling him/her out? That is absolutely shameful. Never settle. Ever. If you settle and allow your leader to be less than he/she should be then you are failing your party and your country. In fact you would be selling your candidate and your party and your country down the road.

That's full blown horseshit. You must be totally ignorant of the change in the Democratic Party over the last 30-40 years. At one time, there was actually some honorable and statesmen-like Democrats, but no more. Not even one!

But who says I have never been adversely critical of my chosen candidate? I called for the impeachment of GWB right here on these pages after the Ramos & Compean case was over and when it didn't look as though Bush was going to pardon them. But that's neither here nor there. My criticism got me nowhere because I found out later that he had already been working on a commutation for both of them for months. And if I had had any pull with anyone who mattered on the other side of the aisle, they would have used my words against my chosen candidate to rally their troops against him four or five-fold. Which happened anyway.

It's to the point now in American politics we Conservatives have no choice but to play the game. But not because we aren't statesmen, but because WE ARE Statesmen and true lovers of liberty. The Socialists, or Communists in Socialist clothes have finally gotten the masses over to believing that a vote for them will give them more Gimmies. Bernie Sanders & Hillary are proof of that.

I have done nothing to let my country down. Nothing. I'm just playing the game of politics just as the other side does. I'll also bet you wouldn't say that "I've sold my country down the road" to my face. You Socialist cowards are just that way.
 
Top