Thread: WARPED POLICIES

What the hell are you talking about?

George H.W. Bush won in a landslide in 1988 passing himself off as Reagan's heir apparent.

R U talking about that freakmouthed carrot arianna paper? That treasonous whore. I'd bitchslap that demondog if she tainted my air.

Originally Posted by jps

What the hell are you talking about?

George H.W. Bush won in a landslide in 1988 passing himself off as Reagan's heir apparent.

Not exactly a landslide ... it was when the Republican propaganda machine and Karl Rove were just getting started ( but you are correct in that H.W. rode Reagan's popularity into the White House ... again, that is why you might want to open your eyes and mind and read the article). And let us not forget, it was his economic policy which caused the prior "recession" ( mild compared to the mess "sonny" made) which resulted in the election of Bill Clinton, who was subsquintly re-elected.

Originally Posted by thepamphleteer

I would like to invite "everyone" to visit The Huffington Post to read the article entitled "Why Reagan Still Matters". Americans told pollsters that the nation was on a wrong track in 1987. We needed a new direction away from Reagan's often divisive policies back then, but instead recieved the first Bush. Meanwhile, a new generation of neoconservatives would construct a mythologized, iconic version of the 40th president that increasingly bore little resemblance to the flesh-and-blood Ronald Reagan.

Warped policies called "Reaganism" gave us an unfathomable national debt and a wide gulf between the nation's rich and poor. Worst of all, they gave us George W. Bush!

Will Bunch: Why Reagan Still Matters Today

Reagan matters to a bunch of idiots who try to use him as an example of good government. It is all built on lies, unless you think having The Heritage Foundation run the government is a good idea.

Originally Posted by jps

What the hell are you talking about?

George H.W. Bush won in a landslide in 1988 passing himself off as Reagan's heir apparent.

The unpopularity of Mike Dukakis had more to do with it that Bush or Reagan.

Another example of people making comparisons with half the facts. I am tired of people refusing to understand the constitutional duties of these 2 branches of govt.

Simply put. If Reagan had Clinton's Congress from 95 through his terms he would have endless surpluses, smaller government, and would have began retiring the debt.

The reason why Clinton had surpluses was because of Gingrich.

Then take Bush who had majorities, and they together acted like Dem lite, we get to where we are now. And the new Geniuses in charge want to redo Bush with gusto.

If you libs are so fucking concerned with deficit spending, and want to blame Reagan, why are you defending PBO doing more than Reagan/41/43 combined?

Originally Posted by LCOF

Another example of people making comparisons with half the facts. I am tired of people refusing to understand the constitutional duties of these 2 branches of govt.

Simply put. If Reagan had Clinton's Congress from 95 through his terms he would have endless surpluses, smaller government, and would have began retiring the debt.

The reason why Clinton had surpluses was because of Gingrich.

Then take Bush who had majorities, and they together acted like Dem lite, we get to where we are now. And the new Geniuses in charge want to redo Bush with gusto.

If you libs are so fucking concerned with deficit spending, and want to blame Reagan, why are you defending PBO doing more than Reagan/41/43 combined?

I think it was Sen. McCain & Sara Palin who wanted to "redo" Bush.
They lost. The stench of the corrupt Bush/Cheney Administration clung to McCain, he couldn't shake it, be cause if one listened it was McCain who was running on a platform to continue the Bush legacy.

America voted for change.

Originally Posted by LCOF

Another example of people making comparisons with half the facts. I am tired of people refusing to understand the constitutional duties of these 2 branches of govt.

Simply put. If Reagan had Clinton's Congress from 95 through his terms he would have endless surpluses, smaller government, and would have began retiring the debt.

The reason why Clinton had surpluses was because of Gingrich.

Then take Bush who had majorities, and they together acted like Dem lite, we get to where we are now. And the new Geniuses in charge want to redo Bush with gusto.

If you libs are so fucking concerned with deficit spending, and want to blame Reagan, why are you defending PBO doing more than Reagan/41/43 combined?

You're a fucking moron and don't even know it. How fitting. . .

Pay attention everyone. Gingrich was actually the President.

What a winner your ignorant parents raised.