Constantine, I have just f*cked your *ss, and I feel much better.

Kralizec on November 14, 2006 at 9:05 PM

Disgusting!

Can’t you do better than that?

Do you have to sound like a left wing, liberal, whacked out, disrespectful, foul mouthed moonbat?

Geez!

I have been hoping for better than that here on this “conservative?” forum.

I thought Conservatives were more intelligent, more well educated, and had better manners and showed more self control and respect.

Really!

Maybe you are not really a conservative.

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

William

Reagan was neither a failure nor an embarrassment,

Let’s not misunderstand, here… I didn’t say he was. I said he was “wrong” as opposed to being a failure and an embarassment, which was a reference to our current President.

Reagan was one of the most influential Presidents in history, I just question the right wing view of how much of that influence was positive.

Carter, Carter, Carter. Put a flaming bag of poop on his doorstep for all I care. You guys keep bouncing back to the “Carter = bad, therefore Reagan = good” argument. Why? Because that’s all you’ve got.

The Soviet Union was crushed by its own corruption and overreaching, and Reagan’s military spending was way out of control. Reaganomics has been working for 18 years? I shouldn’t be surprised; I walked outside this morning and discovered that Reaganomics had detailed my car and mowed the lawn.

“It’s the Economy, Stupid” was a DNC campaign commercial, not an economic statistic, although it is not surprising that you seem to think so.

Reagan was neither a failure nor an embarrassment, as even your political partners in the press demonstrated upon his death. He is revered for his successes in resurrecting this country from the disaster that was Jimmy Carter, the worst President of modern times.

After Carter’s destruction of our economy (see Clark1 — Stagflation), Reagan not only created the military environment which crushed the Soviet Union, his economy expanded for the next 18 years.

You’ll need to do better than quote Michael Moore fiction next time.

f you want to see some specifics about how budgets were cut:

Early in his first term, Reagan ordered some of his toughest budget cuts in Medicaid, food stamps, aid to families with dependent children…

On Mr. Reagan’s watch, federal spending for subsidized housing programs was sliced by about 75 percent…

Happy reading.

Constantine on November 15, 2006 at 12:45 AM

Sorry you were personally affected be these welfare cuts. I happen to agree with them and America is better for it. Ronaldus Magnus was not perfect, but about as close as you can get given the size of the bureaucracy.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. What do they mean? I’ll make it simple for you: over time the population increases and the value of the dollar decreases. Therefore, in order to stay even, the actual outlay of dollars needs to increase. If you’re just going by dollars, unadjusted for inflation and ignoring per capita, every President can claim he’s increased spending in every area or at least kept it steady.

If you want to see some specifics about how budgets were cut:

Early in his first term, Reagan ordered some of his toughest budget cuts in Medicaid, food stamps, aid to families with dependent children…

On Mr. Reagan’s watch, federal spending for subsidized housing programs was sliced by about 75 percent…

Happy reading.

And I mean endorses.

Word!

My friends, I present, “The Speech.” The content of this speech represents the most accurate conveyance of Conservative principles ever spoken. It was delivered on October 27, 1964 in Los Angeles, CA. Running time: 27 minutes Get the Flash Player……

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/sheets/hist03z1.xls

…slashing of vital social programs….

Constantine on November 14, 2006 at 2:51 PM

This is a link to a historical table of U.S. outlays for the years 1940 – 2005 (with estimates through 2011), published by the Government Printing Office. Reagan took office in January of 1981, and his administration presented budgets to the Congress for FY 1982 – 1989.

Constantine, will you show us where the slashing occurred? Take your time.

Constantine, I have just f*cked your *ss, and I feel much better.

Stick it where the sun doesn’t shine, Constantine.

This is the most cogent argument you’ve provided to date in any thread here.

You’re not a Republican and you’re comments are nothing but a troll and are disruptive — by design.

Ladies and gentlemen, please don’t feed the troll.

Allahpundit, Bryan, Ian, Michelle,
A “twit filter” would be nice to have.
Thank you.

kmcguire,

I’m not entirely sure about J.D. Hayworth, but, many of the GOP congressmen that were hardliners on immigration that were defeated had Democrat opponents that were running an even harder line against immigration.

If the GOP and Dem candidate are saying the same thing about an issue that’s important to me (i.e. immigration) and I’m mad at the GOP and want to ‘teach them a lesson’, it doesn’t mean that the GOP lost because of that issue.

JadeNYU on November 14, 2006 at 6:07 PM

Hayworth’s opponent ran to the right of him on immigration. And don’t forget he did so in a state that passed four voter initiatives concerning illegal immigation by very wide margins (70% + on all of them). Also, Brian Bilbray and Tom Tancredo won re-election, while RINO’s who voted for amnesty (e.g., Chaffee and DeWine) lost.

In short, I don’t think we can conclude one way or another about the immigration issue based on who won and who lost. However, I think the voter initiatives which spoke directly to the problem are telling, and certainly contradict the conventional wisdom about JD Hayworth.

I’m not entirely sure about J.D. Hayworth, but, many of the GOP congressmen that were hardliners on immigration that were defeated had Democrat opponents that were running an even harder line against immigration.

If the GOP and Dem candidate are saying the same thing about an issue that’s important to me (i.e. immigration) and I’m mad at the GOP and want to ‘teach them a lesson’, it doesn’t mean that the GOP lost because of that issue.

Clinton didn’t really win. The (R)’s lost. And they lost by being squishy on conservatism. Bush 41 had no vision at all. Bush 43 at least knows enough to defend this nation against threats on-the-other-side-of-the-world without compromise. But other than the WOT and taxes, he has no real vision either. I know better than to vote for a squishy Bush ever again. (That means you, Jeb.)

One thing I don’t like is Pence’s position on illegal immigration. He pretty much endorsed Bushes shamnesty initiative. Oh yeah, he tweaked it a little and called it his own. It’s essentially Bushes plan and that is not acceptable to conservative voters.

There’s nothing inherently conservative either way about immigration reform, IMO. The Immigration and Reform Act of 1986 was proposed by and passed under the Reagan administration, giving amnesty to illegal immigrants. Okay, it wasn’t successful at stemming the flow, but that’s beside the point. Illegal immigration is a function of our great economy and Mexico’s corrupt failure of an economy. Make it just a little harder for an illegal to get a job and make it a lot easier for law enforcement to arrest illegals and deport them and most of the problem is solved.

I’m no fan of illegal immigration, but as a vote-getter for conservatives, I think it’s demonstrably a failure. I liken it to Buchananism and Perot’s “giant sucking sound” regarding NAFTA. Plays well on talk radio, but it won’t get anyone voted in and might just just get conservatives voted out (witness J.D. Hayworth).

So the choice is either stagflation or Reaganomics? We did quite well without either under Clinton.

Constantine on November 14, 2006 at 3:47 PM

The economy under Clinton, which was good, was a direct result of Reagonomics. Under Reaganomics, inflation and interest rates tumbled and the stock market soared. Housing prices came back and energy prices were reasonable and jobs were created. This doesn’t happen with a failed economic policy. While politicians and their lemmings may lie, the market, more often than not doesn’t.

Average Americans were better off with double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and double digit interest rates? Do you remember the misery index? Like I said, anyone who can’t see how Reagan turned the economy around is either spouting DNC crap or isn’t old enough (or wasn’t sober enough) to remember the 70s.

And the glory days of Clinton? Yes, we need to bring back rampant corporate fraud and a massive stock bubble.

n2sooners on November 14, 2006 at 3:54 PM

Ditto to what sooners said. Constantine sounds like he’s about 25 years old (please fill us in), because he clearly has no idea of just … how … freakin’ …. ROTTEN the 70′s were, especially under Jimmy Carter.

It must really chap your ass Constantine that Reagan left office with better than 70% approval rating for all of the ‘damage’ he did. But at least the former leaders of communist eastern Europe are on your side!

And the glory days of Clinton? Yes, we need to bring back rampant corporate fraud and a massive stock bubble.

http://wapurl.co.uk/?GLEZU8M

Anyone who doesn’t think trickle down worked is either spouting DNC talking points or isn’t old enough to remember the 70s or both.

So the choice is either stagflation or Reaganomics? We did quite well without either under Clinton.

The polarization of rich and poor increased to levels never seen before during the Reagan era.

Which proxy war in Central America did we win? We funded the Contras who slaughtered thousands of Nicaraguans, to what end? Thank goodness we had a Dem congress that wouldn’t give him the all-out war he wanted.

vital…for the employment of middle-class bozos with otherwise unmarketable degrees, yes…for the poor/women/children/homeless/little baby ducks/unicorns/bridge trolls/the dead…not so much

Totally wrong. Programs specifically for the poor and mentally ill.

So the umpteen-millions spent on Star Wars actually went to buy you gore-tex and computers? I guess that, and chasing every red-scare fire across the globe helped him claim victory over the Soviet Union, which collapsed under the weight of its own corruption.

The party did have a moral compass before Reagan, personified by Barry Goldwater; never said it didn’t.

You know what? I miss Reagan, too. He was just wrong, as opposed to being a failure and an embarrassment.

True. The fact that it didn’t work the first time means it doesn’t work. Why do think Bush Sr. inherited an economy that Clinton was able to beat him over the head with in the ‘92 campaign?

Constantine on November 14, 2006 at 3:03 PM

Yeah, it was such a failure, all that strong GDP growth in a low inflation environment. Carter’s policies that gave us anemic growth and double-digit inflation were so much better, weren’t they?

Trickle-down economics

…which worked….

polarization of rich and poor

…which was effected by the Democrats…the “homeless” weren’t ever, and aren’t ever, an issue until the campaign season.

immoral proxy war in Central America

…which we won…being Latin America, it just won’t stay won….

Iran/Contra

…got me there…like Watergate, just another botched “special op” run by amateurs…which the Left blew up into the biggest scandal since the Snake was sellin’ apples….

slashing of vital social programs

…vital…for the employment of middle-class bozos with otherwise unmarketable degrees, yes…for the poor/women/children/homeless/little baby ducks/unicorns/bridge trolls/the dead…not so much.

a huge budget deficit

…because the “purse-strings” branch, the Democraticly-controlled Congress, spent like a Clinton at a frat party, while the President was fulfilling the “defend the nation” part of the his Constitutional mandate after years of neglect after Vietnam/Carter.

I was a snug and productive part of the “Reagan defense build-up”, and I can attest to the military pre-Reagan and post-Reagan. Night v. day. I signed into a unit, where we spent large amounts of time at 20 degrees below, slogging through forests and up mountains, and they issued me WWII skis, WWII radios and Korean War era wollens. When I left, it was polypropylene, Gore-Tex, and computerized goodies.

…unless you think we might’ve been able to face Saddam down in ’91 with Sherman tanks….

and trashing of the party’s moral compass.

…come now…you can’t have it both ways. One time, Republicans haven’t *GOT* any morals, the party’s full of bigots, fools and general buffoons…now, they have ‘em, but the compass has been degaussed.

But who cares? He was a winner. Worked out well for him

…he *WAS* a winner.

Evidence? You can still buy pieces of the Berlin Wall on eBay.

Worked out well for him…and for us. And, for the Grenadans, the Panamanians, the Nicaraguans, the Kuwaitis, and the folks formerly behind that Berlin Wall. Can you say “discos in Prague”? Can you say “Solidarnosc”?

…he won…and a *LOT* of other people won.

He wasn’t perfect. Still, he was pretty good. Surveying the party he left behind today, I miss him.