Bush inches closer to Reagan-like Immortality

[syzygy]

when reagan was elected, elite lefties feared he would bring us closer to nuclear
armaggedon than nay president before him

they cried that his ideology was wrong-headed, confrontational, cocky, uncomprimising,
cowboy-like. his rhetoric proved them correct. his moral stand amounted to a stare-down
of the soviet hegemony. lefties ran back into their woods.

reagan was elected in 1981, communism was a dead issue by 1991. results matter, all
else walks.

now bush is faced with a relentless cacophony of lib whining. they herald him as worse than
dumb, possessed of the kind of the stupidity which manslaughter charges are made of. his
policies of intervention, talk-less, kick-more, have irked chirac, and are therefore ipso facto
wrong. he punted the german chancellor to the curb. his tactics are made on principle, not
on polls. pooh pooh.

let the libs disgrace themselves. hit them with the truth and let them run for the shadows.
more ammunition below:

ashland university paper draws excellent comparison

 

[Gravity]

I don't know that he'll be imoralized by his presidency. I think that he was in the right place at the right time and acted with honor and integrity.

That and whatever he accomlishes in his imminent, 2nd term will be his legacy.

 

[smashp]

the Paper is a theory of certain comparisons. not Truth as you refer to It.

bush is not Reagan....

Reagan worked With a democratic Majority to pass legislation. He Was a Uniter. Politics were civil

republicans disagreed with democrats then but worked with them.

 

[RedPickle]

Originally posted by: smashp
the Paper is a theory of certain comparisons. not Truth as you refer to It.

bush is not Reagan....

Reagan worked With a democratic Majority to pass legislation. He Was a Uniter. Politics were civil

republicans disagreed with democrats then but worked with them.

:thumbsup:

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: RedPickle

Originally posted by: smashp
the Paper is a theory of certain comparisons. not Truth as you refer to It.

bush is not Reagan....

Reagan worked With a democratic Majority to pass legislation. He Was a Uniter. Politics were civil

republicans disagreed with democrats then but worked with them.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

And a for syzygy. Bush is not worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as RR. You disrespect him by even trying to lop them into the same OP. Pft.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well, many mindless psychopaths have gone down to become immortal. One more won't make much difference.

 

[kage69]

...and acted with honor and integrity.

Well someone's been watching a lot of FAUX News....

:roll:

 

[phantom309]

If by "immortal" you mean "incompetent and corrupt beyond mortal comprehension", then yes.

 

[Red Dawn]

The only valid comparison right now are each Presidents major fsck up. Reagan and Beruit and the Dub and Iraq.

 

[Czar]

hey, he could go the Nixon way as well

 

[Minchenden]

I suspect that the immortality history will bestow on the Bush presidency will be similar to that bestowed on 7th December 1941.

A day of infamy

 

[heartsurgeon]

Reagan worked With a democratic Majority to pass legislation. He Was a Uniter. Politics were civil

Apparently you were either not alive, or were still in diapers when Reagan was Pres.

Politics were not civil, and the Dems hated Reagan with the same passion as they hate Bush now.

And yes, the parallels between Reagan and Bush are significant. The Gipper had broader mass appeal because of his genial manner, but the Democrats hated his guts and tried to screw him every chance they could.

 

[heartsurgeon]

hey, he could go the Nixon way as well

Czar old buddy!!!

Bush is going to add Iceland to the "Axis of Evil" if you keep that up!

besides, i thought all you Icelanders were a "hard drinking" crowd, and would feel a certain kinship to our reformed-drinker President....

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Reagan worked With a democratic Majority to pass legislation. He Was a Uniter. Politics were civil

Apparently you were either not alive, or were still in diapers when Reagan was Pres.

Politics were not civil, and the Dems hated Reagan with the same passion as they hate Bush now.

The Gipper had broader mass appeal because of his genial manner, but the Democrats hated his guts and tried to screw him every chance they could.

Not nearly as much as the Republicans did to Clinton

 

[imported_froste211]

Ya, immortality.

2.3 million jobs lost during his first three years in office.

7.3 trillion dollar national debt as of right now.

The US trade deficit in 2003 was 489 billion, the worst in history for a single year.

Took us to a war with Iraq based on lies.

Do I even need to go on?

 

[thuper]

Are you saying Bush is going to kill "Communism" again?

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Reagan worked With a democratic Majority to pass legislation. He Was a Uniter. Politics were civil

Apparently you were either not alive, or were still in diapers when Reagan was Pres.

Politics were not civil, and the Dems hated Reagan with the same passion as they hate Bush now.

And yes, the parallels between Reagan and Bush are significant. The Gipper had broader mass appeal because of his genial manner, but the Democrats hated his guts and tried to screw him every chance they could.

you are correct. democrats detested reagan with a passion. i read about the uproar
when he declared one year (1983 or 1984) as 'the year of the bible'.

the libs ignorance and lame attempts at historical revisionism is astounding.

hopefully the ignorance levels will rise to levels where extinction of their species is
assured, a la communism.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: syzygy


hopefully the ignorance levels will rise to levels where extinction of their species is
assured, a la communism.

Democratic Politicians detested him but not the Democratic voters whom without Reagan wouldn't have been elected. Reagan crossed party lines with regards to popularity, the Dub isn't even in the same ball park.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Reagan worked With a democratic Majority to pass legislation. He Was a Uniter. Politics were civil

Apparently you were either not alive, or were still in diapers when Reagan was Pres.

Politics were not civil, and the Dems hated Reagan with the same passion as they hate Bush now.

And yes, the parallels between Reagan and Bush are significant. The Gipper had broader mass appeal because of his genial manner, but the Democrats hated his guts and tried to screw him every chance they could.

you are correct. democrats detested reagan with a passion. i read about the uproar
when he declared one year (1983 or 1984) as 'the year of the bible'.

the libs ignorance and lame attempts at historical revisionism is astounding.

hopefully the ignorance levels will rise to levels where extinction of their species is
assured, a la communism.

Ah, longing for a theocratic dictatorship, are you?

I am sad to have to tell you that i don't think that will happen, in a country that is about embracing the differences rather than condemning them you are lost.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: syzygy
when reagan was elected, elite lefties feared he would bring us closer to nuclear
armaggedon than nay president before him

they cried that his ideology was wrong-headed, confrontational, cocky, uncomprimising,
cowboy-like. his rhetoric proved them correct. his moral stand amounted to a stare-down
of the soviet hegemony. lefties ran back into their woods.

reagan was elected in 1981, communism was a dead issue by 1991. results matter, all
else walks.

now bush is faced with a relentless cacophony of lib whining. they herald him as worse than
dumb, possessed of the kind of the stupidity which manslaughter charges are made of. his
policies of intervention, talk-less, kick-more, have irked chirac, and are therefore ipso facto
wrong. he punted the german chancellor to the curb. his tactics are made on principle, not
on polls. pooh pooh.

let the libs disgrace themselves. hit them with the truth and let them run for the shadows.
more ammunition below:

ashland university paper draws excellent comparison

The article was written in 2001, I wonder if the author still think Bush is so succesfull fighting terrorism.

But no matter what even if you believe Bush will win war on terrorism with his well proven tactics (Just look at the peacefull Isreal, to see how well it works). You don't actually KNOW that Bush will win the war on terror, which he BTW doesn't think he can win. But it's nice to see you believe in something even Bush himself doesn't believe.
There's one great difference between Reagan and Bush, Reagan didn't attack his opponent directly, but used other skills to win over communism, and that's why it didn't end in nuclear (or nucular ) chaos. This is basically where those for attacking Iraq and those against it differ. I believe the war against terror should be based around non violent tactics. Sometimes military is needed, but as the main solution it will not work. Reagan knew it, Bush don't.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: syzygy


hopefully the ignorance levels will rise to levels where extinction of their species is
assured, a la communism.

Democratic Politicians detested him but not the Democratic voters whom without Reagan wouldn't have been elected. Reagan crossed party lines with regards to popularity, the Dub isn't even in the same ball park.

I know this doesn't matte to many of you as you consider yourself so much "above" the Europeans but fact is that Reagan was well liked over here too, so was Bush 1, he had the support, so did Clinton.

W is a disaster though, a maniac, a war hungry psycopath with an agenda of the old chickenhawks.

He needs to go.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: syzygy


hopefully the ignorance levels will rise to levels where extinction of their species is
assured, a la communism.

Democratic Politicians detested him but not the Democratic voters whom without Reagan wouldn't have been elected. Reagan crossed party lines with regards to popularity, the Dub isn't even in the same ball park.

I know this doesn't matte to many of you as you consider yourself so much "above" the Europeans but fact is that Reagan was well liked over here too, so was Bush 1, he had the support, so did Clinton.

W is a disaster though, a maniac, a war hungry psycopath with an agenda of the old chickenhawks.

He needs to go.

:beer:

Starting a war, is definately not something that boost the support around the world.

 

[Moonbeam]

There once was a mighty wrestler who died in the ring not knowing that could happen to him.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

For a second there I thought your title said, "Bush inches closer to Reagan-like IMMORALITY."

I still remember one of Reagan's early executive orders that captures his moral essence. Carter had forbidden US pharmaceutical companies from marketing drugs overseas if they failed FDA-mandated safety and efficacy trials in the US. Naturally, Reagan saw no reason why Big Pharma should not profit from unsafe or ineffective drugs.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: biostud666

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: syzygy


hopefully the ignorance levels will rise to levels where extinction of their species is
assured, a la communism.

Democratic Politicians detested him but not the Democratic voters whom without Reagan wouldn't have been elected. Reagan crossed party lines with regards to popularity, the Dub isn't even in the same ball park.

I know this doesn't matte to many of you as you consider yourself so much "above" the Europeans but fact is that Reagan was well liked over here too, so was Bush 1, he had the support, so did Clinton.

W is a disaster though, a maniac, a war hungry psycopath with an agenda of the old chickenhawks.

He needs to go.

:beer:

Starting a war, is definately not something that boost the support around the world.

Certainly not and telling old allieances that they are irrelevant or worthless isn't all that great either, he has the diplomatic skills of a rat.

Now the US is stuck in Iraq with an increasing amount of insurgants while country after country removes their soldiers from Iraq.

(and no, this does not make me cheer, it makes me sad to know that fellow soldiers are in the line of fire.)