Right-Wingers Create Yet a NEW Crisis: Flipping Off A Picture of The Great Ronald Raygun!

{So, the odds of me actually getting reliable information which would be useful in a timely manner to disrupt such a terrorist attack would be about as high if I decided to go out and look through the city of New York for some kind of bomb hidden in a garbage can.}

No, it can produce reliable information. And there should be no consideration for the terrorist, anyway. Absolutely none if it looks like he might have some information that can save only one American life.

{There are hundreds of men in Guantanamo who have no connections to terrorists or terrorist activities who have been and are being tortured for information that they do not have.}

I work for the military. I know people who were guards in Gitmo. You are wrong. There are several levels. The prisoners are very comfortable and have good food and prayer rugs. Do you think they would give us that?

At the inner level, they are not really like human beings. They collect their own feces to throw at the guards, for example and openly declare that they want to kill all Americans. The guards are under strict orders - that they obey - not to respond to getting bitten, to these animals pissing on them as they pass by, and to their throwing feces in their faces.

You have no freakin' idea, pal.

{ I find it both humorous and annoying that here you are whining like a prepubescent bitch about people who are exercising their first amendment rights, }

It is more than that, and they do have the right to declare we should get rid of our Constitution. It means that they want to end our country as it now exists and how it was founded. The American people need to know that about 1 of 4 or 5 die-hard Leftists want the end of our civilization in order to establish their vision.

{Just to wrap up what it seems like you're REALLY claiming here.. you didn't know the details of the random sample or how it was made}

No. That is absurd, absolutely nonsensical. I mean over the top.

In order to report the results of a poll from the most respected polling agency in the country, I am supposed to go into how they did a random sample? All that will happen is the dissembling and dishonest Left-wingers will simply go off on tangents about that, playing word games and such. I clearly remember when I reached my limit with Leftists on this sort of thing. I went to the trouble to find out the source of a report about crime. I posted the information, links, etc. The Left-winger just kept on making demands, over and over.

It was a publication of a REFEREED law journal from Stanford University. I kept complying, request after request, copying quotes, tables, providing links. Finally, the Leftist asked me to describe how the subjects were selected. It was random sampling, and I posted it. But it still was not enough: The Left winger then wanted to know PRECISELY the method of random sampling and the population from which the subjects were chosen.

I realized I had been sucked in yet again by the prevaricating, deceiving, dishonest, hypocritical Leftist. It would never end. That was one of three experiences that made me resolve what I did.

Wanna know the other two? They are really incredible!

"OK. To protect the so-called "rights" of vicious killers who would end our civilization, you would be willing to not even try to save the lives of potentially hundreds of thousands of American citizens. You would just say - despite the fact that we DID get useful information from the scumbags animals from waterboarding - "let the Americans die, I don't think it will work, anyway.""

It is amazing that you got all of that out of the simple and factual statement that torture does not result in reliable intelligence.

I believe this, "Revealing, your attitude is clear," deftly applies to you and confirms that you are in fact, a fucktard.

"No, it can produce reliable information."

When has torture EVER provided reliable information faster than humane means or where humane means could not?

"And there should be no consideration for the terrorist, anyway. Absolutely none if it looks like he might have some information that can save only one American life."

Ok, so then what about the consideration of a citizen to a foreign nation who is not a terrorist? The vast majority of detainees in Guantanamo were people who were abducted because they fit a very VERY general description of what terrorists would look like. We're not talking about descriptions of defining characteristics either, like being 5 foot 9 and 180 lbs. People were abducted from an arab nation because they wore beards and turban and fit in a certain age group. By this logic, I should be able to arrest and persecute all the teenagers in North central Colorado who have been the victims of bullying because they fit an overly general description of the kids who shot up the school in 1999.

And what do we do if we THINK one guy out of fifty, hell, one guy out of ten is a terrorist and the life of a United States citizen might be saved if we get information out of the guy. We don't know that one of those ten guys is a terrorist, but we think one might be, but we also don't know which one it is and we think information from a guy, who if he is a terrorist might save an American life. We have no proof of anyone being a terrorist, we have no proof that an American life is in any more danger than what would be considered the norm for being an American citizen, so do we torture the ten guys in hope that one of them will actually actually be a terrorist and confess even though the act of torture is all but guaranteed to provide the "interrogators" with a near 100% return rate of confessed terrorists despite the fact that we only think ONE MIGHT be a terrorist?

Because if the answer is yes then you are a seriously fucked up individual.

"I work for the military. I know people who were guards in Gitmo."

Bullshit and bullshit. You have proven time and time again that you are willing to make claims that can be bullshit but are NEVER willing to back them up.

"You are wrong. There are several levels. The prisoners are very comfortable and have good food and prayer rugs. Do you think they would give us that?"

Again, bullshit. The recent acts of kindness have only come about with the exposure of how Guantanamo detainees were treated. Despite these "comforts" the prisoners, the vast majority of had no ties to terrorist activities prior to being imprisoned, have between minuscule and no access to a lawyer. Those that have been released have only been released because they were not only terrorists, but not even citizens of any arab nation. Canada, Germany, and England have all had citizens of theirs illegally detained, tortured, and released after years of their government badgering our own with proof that those few people were in fact citizens of those nations with no terrorist ties. And the icing on the cake is that those few people are never allowed into the United States again under the order of the United States because the United States does not recognize them as non-terrorists despite the fact that they were proven non-terrorists.

"It is more than that, and they do have the right to declare we should get rid of our Constitution. It means that they want to end our country as it now exists and how it was founded. The American people need to know that about 1 of 4 or 5 die-hard Leftists want the end of our civilization in order to establish their vision."

You still only address the side that you want and the side that is actually more passive about actually going through with its plans. You are proof that there are conservatives who support torture and have no problem suspending the rights of others in order to be secure. So long as you support the torture of others in order to grasp at some false shred of security, you do more to damage the founding ideals of this nation than any liberal who talks about throwing the constitution away.

“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.”

- George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

"No. That is absurd, absolutely nonsensical. I mean over the top.

In order to report the results of a poll from the most respected polling agency in the country, I am supposed to go into how they did a random sample? All that will happen is the dissembling and dishonest Left-wingers will simply go off on tangents about that, playing word games and such. I clearly remember when I reached my limit with Leftists on this sort of thing. I went to the trouble to find out the source of a report about crime. I posted the information, links, etc. The Left-winger just kept on making demands, over and over.

It was a publication of a REFEREED law journal from Stanford University. I kept complying, request after request, copying quotes, tables, providing links. Finally, the Leftist asked me to describe how the subjects were selected. It was random sampling, and I posted it. But it still was not enough: The Left winger then wanted to know PRECISELY the method of random sampling and the population from which the subjects were chosen.

I realized I had been sucked in yet again by the prevaricating, deceiving, dishonest, hypocritical Leftist. It would never end. That was one of three experiences that made me resolve what I did.

Wanna know the other two? They are really incredible!"

And the followup question is, why didn't you bother making this argument before? There is nothing in this particular part to argue against, so are you really that insecure, do you really care about our opinions that much that you didn't want afraid to be shouted down, or were you just tired of having people dismiss what you wrote? Because if any one of these, or combination thereof, is the reason why, you probably shouldn't be posting here until you thicken your skin the fuck up.

{It is amazing that you got all of that out of the simple and factual statement that torture does not result in reliable intelligence.}

It has.

No, I know people who have been guards at Gitmo. I was considering a transfer there, in fact.

"are you really that insecure"

Post Classification: Puerile meaningless personal attack. Often used by Left-wingers to intimidate or anger.

I will give you a piece of information that may reduce your typing. There is absolutely no personal insult that a Left-winger can hurl at me that would anger, embarrass, intimidate or even slightly annoy me. Absolutely nothing.

There ARE other things, however, that DO anger and annoy. It is when Left-wingers bash America, support communism, and try to influence government to set up programs that are destructive to the greatest country in the world. The incessant attacks on the Founders and the ugly historical revisionism, like with the SOB Howard Zinn, are especially irritating.

"It has."

When?

"No, I know people who have been guards at Gitmo. I was considering a transfer there, in fact."

Bullshit.

"I will give you a piece of information that may reduce your typing. There is absolutely no personal insult that a Left-winger can hurl at me that would anger, embarrass, intimidate or even slightly annoy me. Absolutely nothing."

Then you shouldn't have a problem posting sources which liberals might bash.

"There ARE other things, however, that DO anger and annoy. It is when Left-wingers bash America, support communism, and try to influence government to set up programs that are destructive to the greatest country in the world. The incessant attacks on the Founders and the ugly historical revisionism, like with the SOB Howard Zinn, are especially irritating."

Really, like what?

The founding fathers owned slaves.
Lincoln was a racist who happened to think that the slaves should be freed and returned to Africa.
Christopher Columbus murdered and tortured Native Americans prior to starting the slave for labor after all but wiping out a native population.
Southern slave owners used biblical verses to justify slavery, would hang slaves for crimes the slaves did not commit and would chase away or kill abolitionists.
We should not have participated in the Vietnam war.
George W. Bush is by international law a war criminal.
Pussies who are willing to sacrifice the international human rights of others for the safety of themselves and their own don't deserve the rights that they enjoy.

Any of these, all of these, what ones piss you off?

as best I remember reganomics about did us in. and those that belive this Hack was a great man are delusional

A most mild mannered friend of mine recently said, I paraphrase---" Right wingers form a circle jerk over Reagan's grave" I tend to agree:

Here is how the white house leadership under Raygun looked like:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5lkxkvl47JM/S-G2lERF3wI/AAAAAAAAArg/tgbXySpA4Zw/s1600/...

Here is what the "infectious love" looked like http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_982w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/12/16/...

Here is what Tip thought of Raygun--- O'Neill called Reagan the most ignorant man who had ever occupied the White House http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tip_O'Neill#O.27Neill_at_odds_with_President_Ronald_Reagan

Ted Kennedy said [Ronald Reagan] will be honored as the president who won the Cold War."" ---Well no shit he was the president who was in office when the soviet union broke up by the efforts of the people and Gorbachev's true leadership.

See how the truth works?

{he was the president who was in office when the soviet union broke up by the efforts of the people and Gorbachev's true leadership.}

In response to the Liberals insistence that the USSR was on its way out anyway, Jeane Kirkpatrick, former member of Ronald Reagan’s Cabinet and Ambassador to the United Nations, pointed out that in just the decade before Ronald Reagan came into office, the Soviets had expanded influence and control in the following countries:

South Vietnam
Laos
Cambodia
Afghanistan
Ethiopia
Mozambique
South Yemen
Libya
Syria
Aden
The Congo
Madagascar
The Seychelles
Nicaragua
Grenada

But Kirkpatrick left out the countries that embraced Marxism or Socialism during that decade:

Benin
Algeria
Cape Verde
Guinea-Bissau
San Tome
Zambia
Tanzania

And let’s add the other countries through which the Soviets had previously marched:

Armenia
Azerbaijan
Georgia
Mongolia
Turkmen
Uzbekistan
Tajikistan
Kirgizia
Poland
Moldavia
Lithuania
Latvia
Estonia
Albania
Czechoslovakia
Hungary
Romania
Bulgaria
East Germany
Yugoslavia
North Korea
Cuba
North Vietnam
Guinea-Bissau
Angola

Today, Communism as an ideal and as a threat to the world is over. This is another reason that the New Leftists and tody's Liberals revile Ronald Reagan: He ended the illusion that there could be a utopian Communist state.

Ronald Reagan was clear in his convictions about Communism: “Communism…is a form of insanity… It is contrary to human nature,” and he knew that “communists use lies, deceit, violence, or any other tactic.”

William F. Buckley said that with Ronald Reagan, “the countdown for communism began.”

Margaret Thatcher said “We were not to know it at the time, but 1981 was the last year of the West’s retreat from the axis of convenience between the Soviet Union and the Third World,” and “There is new leadership in America, which gives confidence and hope to all in the free world.”

Oh woah now! Speaking truth to "the faithful", You'll get a fatwah proclaimed on ya! right-wing-corporate-fascist suicide bombers on your doorstep! It's forbidden to speak ill (regardless of it being truth) of holy-saint-reagan patron of senile-paranoid-dementia, and the patron of the right-wing-corporate-fascist-party.

You missed San Francisco.

What about Frisco?

That's in Texas or Colorado. People in San Francisco never call it that.

"That's in Texas or Colorado. People in San Francisco never call it that."

Call what what?

Frisco.

That is true. If you recall a few comments back I referenced that part of the reason the Soviet Union collapseD WAS BECAUSE THEY EXTENDED THEMSELVES militarily. I'll add that their economy could not support all the fronts they were in. Do pay attention.

Just a thought, might part of the Soviet Union's problem been that it expanded to quickly into other nations and could not economically support the occupations?

I ask because I know that at least one nation on that list heavily resisted and actually repelled the Soviet Union's incursion at heavy cost to Soviet forces, the nation of Afghanistan, and for some reason I cannot imagine every other nation on that list simply opening the door and letting the Soviets in.

Communism is BULLSHIT, I and just about any Liberal will tell you so----Either you are willfully saying this to illicit a response or you really believe it---either way you are WRONG.

Yes, but you left out the huge part that the great Ronald Reagan played. Most Left-wingers falsely claim that the USSR would have failed anyway.

There is a "fatwah " declared out on me, just once I would like a slimwah.

In the past, the Old Left was enamored of Communism. Then came the New Left. The USSR was in complete disrepute, and the New Left moved to the "Third Word" agrarian reformers who embraced some form of communism - Mao (they carried his Little Red Book), Ho Chi, Castro, Che, and so on. They even extolled Pol Pot for awhile.

That failed, and the horrors of those regimes came to the fore. Today's Liberals have inherited this legacy, and it has been going on for over a century in one form or other. The dream is still there, underlying the thinking and drive of today's Left.

I'm still trying to figure out if he was talking about Frisco, Colo., or Frisco, Texas.

I did not leave his part out ---I clearly said he exploited the fact that the USSR under Gorbachev was leaning to ending classical communism. Why are you diminishing historical fact?

:)

(Stupid current forum system, won't let me just leave a smilie, says it's a url and needs a description...)

Try this. ☺

Gorby was a COMMITTED Socialist-Communist!

He served as General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union so on paper he was a communist----this was of course BEFORE the collapse of the USSR, but his policies leaned to the democrat side. In 2008, Gorbachev and Alexander Lebedev announced they would form the Independent Democratic Party of Russia.

He had no choice. Gorby was a die-hard socialist. And despite what the Left-wingers say, he was NOT akin to Jesus Himself.

Liberals don’t credit Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, or Pope John Paul II with helping to end the Cold War; they give all of the human credit to Gorbachev.

The Leftist and radical anti-nuclear crusader Helen Caldicott said “[Gorbachev] is like Jesus.”

Liberal columnist Mary McGrory wrote that “[Gorbachev] is a political leader to make Americans weep.”

So was Bush Jr and ya see where that got us. They both about ruint this country.

Well said! Very well said! Baffle them with bullshit!

Why doesn't McDonald's sell hotdogs?
They clash with Ronald's hair.

At a movie theater which arm rest is yours?
Both

What is Satan's last name?
Like Madonna, he only has one name

Why do doctors leave the room when you change? They're going to see you naked anyway.
They don't want to see skid marks on underwear.

Where does the toetag go on a dead person if they don't have toes?
Nose

If your driving a federal owned car, and you run a stop sign, is it considered a felony?
Double indemnity felony

Why is there a disclaimer on the Allstate Auto Insurance commericals that says "Not available in all states"?
Because not all states are states....some are a Commonwealth

If you dug a hole through the center of the earth, and jumped in, would you stay at the center because of gravity?
No, you would be in China

If a person dies and then springs back to life, do they get their money back for the coffin?
They can trade it in on a newer model later

If you are asked to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and your the main witness, what if you say "no"?
You've got balls!

Do they bury people with their braces on?
ewwww, and yes, probably

How far east can you go before you're heading west?
depends where the sun is, no?

How does a Real Estate company sell its office without causing confusion?
They move out first and then list...way too logical of an answer for me.

Do dentists go to other dentists or do they just do it themselves?
Do it?

that was fun, what's next?

only if you throw boxers or briefs into the poll also.

Why, when you cut a crumb in half, do you have two crumbs and not two half-crumbs. Why isn't a semi-truck driver half as tall as a truck driver? If you have 28 odds and ends on a table and 27 roll off, which is left, an odd or an end? George Carlin

you get mad points for this

:Where does the toetag go on a dead person if they don't have toes?
Nose" Bravo!

Why is Moe pronounced moh and Zoe pronounced Zoey? shouldn't iZoe be soh?

You know what I'd like to know?

How does Mishie get +2 on all of his comments within 30 seconds?

Yeah, I've actually noticed that.

Bad company?

LOL

Great list HH!

So here is how they approach the poll:

Survey Methods
Results for this USA Today/Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Feb. 2-5, 2011, with a random sample of 1,015 adults, aged 18 and older, living in the continental U.S., selected using random-digit-dial sampling.

Random how? all calls made in one state?

faulty poll.

This sort of thinking is common with the Left. They demean the typical American person, especially for the choices he makes in his everyday life.

Left-wingers think that people do not make good choices and these Liberals feel compelled to therefore force the choices that THEY deem are best for the "common man." The great Ronald Reagan had something to say about this.

Ronald Reagan believed in the people and renewed our spirit when he spoke about them:

{They are not “the masses,” or as the elitists would have it, “the common man.” They are very uncommon. Individuals, each with his or her own hopes and dreams, plans and problems, and the kind of quiet courage that makes this whole country run better than just about any other place on earth.}

That is how WE CONSERVATIVES look at our fellow citizens!

No, Gallup is possibly the best polling agency in the entire country, and all sorts of politicians rely on it to make decisions and inform policy.

You simply want to deny the results and nothing more. I provided the data because I chose to. But your response to the excellent data only show precisely why I no longer provide "sources" and "links" to Leftists when they request them. This is the sort of response one ALWAYS gets. I chose that word - always - carefully.

Hey, how is the book, coming, Mishie? Need a proofreader? I charge reasonable rates.

They also think McDonald's is great.

All land lines or does poll include mobile phones? Not everyone has a land line. It matters too.

What time of day were calls made? Matters.

Oh so many ways to skew a poll, You're right, faulty

"Americans Say Reagan Is the Greatest U.S. President"

Only the fools.

Exactly!

My biggest question about these polls is what kind of people answer the phones and chat it up with pollsters? Only the weird people. If they are going to question these people, they have to also include the following information: that 98% of the people that think Reagan was awesome also believe that tinfoil hats keep out the alien transmissions from the mother ship above their homes from getting into their heads.

Hey, hey, HEY. A WHOPPING 19 percent said Reagan. That PROVES he is the greatest president EVER.

Though, I would like to see the same people polled and asked how many of them have even heard of Lincoln.

It proves he was #1.

"I would like to see the same people polled and asked how many of them have even heard of Lincoln."

This is a typical response of the Left to data. I presented a poll, and you are simply trying to deny it.

{My biggest question about these polls is what kind of people answer the phones and chat it up with pollsters?}

The polls are valid, and this response about the great Ronald Reagan has been very consistent over at least the past 3 years.

Left-wingers will always contrive some excuse to negate - among themselves, of course - any data, facts or research that does not align with their dogma.

{Only the fools.}

It is clear, then, how you feel about your fellow Americans.

Ronald Reagan believed in the people and renewed our spirit when he spoke about them:

"They are not 'the masses,' or as the elitists would have it, 'the common man.' They are very uncommon. Individuals, each with his or her own hopes and dreams, plans and problems, and the kind of quiet courage that makes this whole country run better than just about any other place on earth."

Being an author, Mishie, what do you think of the writing in those "Fifty Shades" books?

it's a right wing poll.

So he was a good puppet. As best I can tell the man was out of his mind the last six or eight years he was in office

Of course it is not. Gallup is the best around.

But look at the data and try really thinking about them.

First of all, the data I presented were the overall data. The combination.

Next, look at the Independents: Their vote was about 50% higher for Reagan than Clinton. Next, among the Independents - let's assume they are not partisan, of course - Reagan WAS #1 among the 20th century presidents!

So, if we look at the total population OR the independent people, Reagan was #1 in the 20th century!

Well said!

right-wing-corporate-fascist-party propaganda "polls" are IN-valid, and this response about the NOT-great ronnie raygun is entirely in keeping with Faux Noise channel Herr rupert goebbels propaganda.

right-wing-corporate-fascist-partiers will always contrive some excuse to negate - among themselves, of course - any data, facts or research that does not align with their holy-corporate-fascist dogma.

This is a typical response of the right-wing-corporate-fascist-partiers to any denial of their dogma. Propaganda is presented as facts, and you are simply trying to spin it as if it truly was facts and not propaganda created primarily for consumption by "the faithful".

Mishi

"I presented a poll"...You presented your projected garbage.

By today's standards, Lincoln would not be considered a Republican. Maybe a moderate, but oh the horrors!! He wanted the slaves to be free! What a socialist.

You should read some of those books on the top ten list. take a break.

It was all tongue-in-cheek, of course.

"He wanted the slaves to be free! What a socialist."

Really? The Socialists are not racists? You really believe that?

Victor Berger, the first member of the Socialist Party to be elected to Congress, said “Socialism means segregation, capitalism means integration!” He also said: “Private ownership of industries mixes up the races…socialism would separate (them),” and “Capitalism has forced [the white man] to work side by side with the negro... In the sight of the capitalist all workers look alike.”

The Socialists also blamed capitalism for enticing the “lowest scum of Europe,” and bringing in “Mongolian herds.”

Gallup is used by all presidents and such candidates. Clinton was one who relied on them extensively.

Always figures any Americans who think that are actually just sentimental fools. They are fondly remembering a time, just before the wheels fell off, when they were blissfully unaware and untouched by the massive corporate takeover that ruined America, and that Reagan ushered in.

They remember him fondly because, in the beginning of his presidency, there was still a middle class and working people still had some clout. He changed all that, but people want to remember the 'good ol days' and they put his face in their memories because he sold them a lot of crap that made them feel good. You know, a lot like how he peddled those Chesterfield cancer-sticks, saying doctors liked them.

Spot on. They were to blinded by the Bullshit to see the knife in their back.

Woof!

A perfectly Pavlovian response!
Ha! Only problem with this analogy is puppies are wonderful, and the analogous object is NOT.

Those were Brits and they have NO BUSINESS disparaging the GREAT Ronald Reagan!

Typical European Socialist LEFTISTS!

WOW - excellent! +^d!

Is it self evident and "revealing"?

Do you know the origin of the Kool-Aide idea? It came from the Left. It was what Left-wingers did. Want to know?

The NOT-great fascist-imperialist ronnie-raygun-the-senile-paranoid-dementia-riddled, may he burn in his much-deserved snake-handler hell for eternity!

I would add: treasonous, puppet, union betrayer, anti-worker, anti-education, corporate whore

I agree with every word!

thank you.

I didn't know that. A writer, legendary screen star and Republican Presidential icon.

He wrote all of his speeches, too. Peggy Noonan and Peter Robinson never wrote a word. ☺

Don't forget all that great work he did trying to sell crappy products to Americans even before he went into politics! Huckster from way back and just a hired huckster as POTUS.

Well said! Truth!