NEWS ALERT: President Reagan Has Died

[JamieW]

All those words but not a drop of truth. You should have stuck with "baah." You may assume anyone here believes anything you say. But the fact is you are a dolt who assumes without evidence a great deal of things, the most important of which is that others are stupid. This is why you are a failure. Your next response should be "baaah" because logic fails you completely.

[XXXXX]

necessarily eroding some of our rights as a way to protect the country

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

Remind yourself of that quote while the next terrorist bomb is exploding in your city.

I won't respond to the rest of your post because JamieW already did a fine job of responding to it.

No, the reality is because you were humiliated by my replies, and have at best resorted to quoting famous men, or having others fight your battles. Spoken like a true Libertarian from the fringes of the peanut gallery.

[XXXXX]

All those words but not a drop of truth. You should have stuck with "baah." You may assume anyone here believes anything you say. But the fact is you are a dolt who assumes without evidence a great deal of things, the most important of which is that others are stupid. This is why you are a failure. Your next response should be "baaah" because logic fails you completely.

Now that was a masterful rhetorical response filled with an endless elucidation of facts if I ever saw one. Not even a drop of truth, huh? LOL! You just hoisted yourself on your own petard. Congratulations, you have demonstrated the degree of hysteria with which the liberals are resorting, since losing all control in Washington over the last 8 years (started with congress).

[JamieW]

I love the "oh my god, terrorists!!!!" Less people have died from "terrorism" than so many other means. And while I will argue against gun control as just controlling law abiding citizens, I will be consistent. Patriot Act doesn't control terrorists, it controls citizens. Hard Republican platform is a conflict of its own ideas. But I do love how propaganda and fear-mongering has driven you into this impenetrable shell of ignorance which lets you sleep at night. And I thought I told you to respond with "baah."

[JamieW]

I respond as you do:

FACT: You have never provided one.

FACT: You assume without knowledge.

FACT: I'm not compelled to provide anything except a commentary on your robotic rhetoric.

FACT: You should be responding with "baah."

[Ian]

I'm not a big fan of the Patriot Act myself. It reminds me a little too much of Big Brother. Call me paranoid, but I'm not ready to trade in the freedoms this country has fought for quite yet. It might make you feel "safe" but putting too much power into the hands of a few is not a good thing.

[XXXXX]

I love the "oh my god, terrorists!!!!" Less people have died from "terrorism" than so many other means.

Now that's a sign that the elevator doesn't go to your top floor. So let's see if I got this straight. We should ignore terrorism, and 9/11 because more people die from cancer or car accidents? Good strategy, doophus. Thank God your heroes are not in power.

And while I will argue against gun control as just controlling law abiding citizens, I will be consistent. Patriot Act doesn't control terrorists, it controls citizens.

And pray-tell what about those terrorist who just may happen to be citizens, or preying on the rights that we citizens enjoy as their Trojan Horse entry?

Hard Republican platform is a conflict of its own ideas.

Whatever that means....do not assume I subscribe to anything other than what I have said here. To do so would illustrate your narrow minded liberal perceptions of reality.

But I do love how propaganda and fear-mongering has driven you into this impenetrable shell of ignorance which lets you sleep at night. And I thought I told you to respond with "baah."

At least try to recreate the noise of an elephant, that would be funny rather than inanely stupid. You have painted yourself into the corner of ignorance, congratulations. Your emotional statements are too pathetic to be comical.

[XXXXX]

I'm not a big fan of the Patriot Act myself. It reminds me a little too much of Big Brother. Call me paranoid, but I'm not ready to trade in the freedoms this country has fought for quite yet. It might make you feel "safe" but putting too much power into the hands of a few is not a good thing.

I agree, but faced with the effects of 9/11 it is not practical to sit and wait for round two as these other posters would recommend. Any new actions to ferret out terrorists from among our free society will be an erosion of freedoms. I don't like having my guns controlled, but I can understand the problems they cause in the wrong hands, and can support reasonable attempts to regulate some aspects of their ownership.

[JamieW]

Dude, you're an idiot who says nothing but in a great deal of words and understands even less. Now just stick with "baah," you sheep. Do as you're told. You're used to it.

[XXXXX]

I respond as you do:

FACT: You have never provided one.

FACT: You assume without knowledge.

FACT: I'm not compelled to provide anything except a commentary on your robotic rhetoric.

FACT: You should be responding with "baah."

So cute, so stupid. How old are you? Fourteen, maybe fifteen is my guess.

[XXXXX]

Dude, you're an idiot who says nothing but in a great deal of words and understands even less. Now just stick with "baah," you sheep. Do as you're told. You're used to it.

Notice how well this is working for you. LOL! OK, post away your cute little animal noises. I'm gonna go take a crap!

[JamieW]

It is amazing how quickly you get offended when someone applies the same tactics you have used. When you don't like the argument, you insult. Not because it is worthy of insult, but because you've got nothing better to say. Now, say "baah," boy.

[XXXXX]

It is amazing how quickly you get offended when someone applies the same tactics you have used. When you don't like the argument, you insult. Not because it is worthy of insult, but because you've got nothing better to say. Now, say "baah," boy.

I don't mind any of these conversations. I think you are a cute little boy, who's mommy is not regulating on the family's AOL computer account today.

[JamieW]

I knew you'd come down to this. You are so out of insults, you basically went with the standard "you're 12" insult. Thank you, I win. Now "baaah" away.

[Ian]

I agree, but faced with the effects of 9/11 it is not practical to sit and wait for round two as these other posters would recommend. Any new actions to ferret out terrorists from among our free society will be an erosion of freedoms. I don't like having my guns controlled, but I can understand the problems they cause in the wrong hands, and can support reasonable attempts to regulate some aspects of their ownership.

There needs to be a fine balance. Personally, I'd rather have better screening of people let into the country than have Big Bro listen into my phone calls and/or emails. Before they extend the Patriot Act for other things, it needs to be reviewed and see if it really worked and how to make it better, without intruding on the privacy of citizens.

Given, I'd have no reason to be worried, but I really wouldn't want to have the FBI camped outside my door because they heard me say "bomb" and "alqueda" on the phone.

[code65536]

No, the reality is because you were humiliated by my replies, and have at best resorted to quoting famous men, or having others fight your battles. Spoken like a true Libertarian from the fringes of the peanut gallery.

Do you have anything in your arsenal except name-calling? This is pointless. Not because I'm humiliated. Not because I'm defeated. But because I feel like I'm talking to a bloody record player saying the same "I'm great, you're stupid" thing over and over again. Grow up. Learn to debate maturely. And then maybe I'll continue this. Good riddance!

[JamieW]

Code, just remember you didn't spend the time here to learn the ways of the world from the wizened XXXXX next time a bomb blows up in your city. By the way, when was the last time a bomb blew up in your city?

[XXXXX]

I agree, but faced with the effects of 9/11 it is not practical to sit and wait for round two as these other posters would recommend. Any new actions to ferret out terrorists from among our free society will be an erosion of freedoms. I don't like having my guns controlled, but I can understand the problems they cause in the wrong hands, and can support reasonable attempts to regulate some aspects of their ownership.

There needs to be a fine balance. Personally, I'd rather have better screening of people let into the country than have Big Bro listen into my phone calls and/or emails. Before they extend the Patriot Act for other things, it needs to be reviewed and see if it really worked and how to make it better, without intruding on the privacy of citizens.

Given, I'd have no reason to be worried, but I really wouldn't want to have the FBI camped outside my door because they heard me say "bomb" and "alqueda" on the phone.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on this. I have not seen the rampant abuses that people are assuming has and will take place with this law, however. Most object just to the idea of it, rather than documented wholesale abuses. I have no doubt that if it is abused, similar to the J. Edgar Hoover/McCarthiasm era, that it will be reversed by the legislature.

In the meantime, my concern is making sure that we have a way to find and deal with terrorist sleeper cells. My preference would be to roll back most incursions into our freedom over the last 100 years, but times change, and threats such as those posed by 9/11 will not allow the wellsprings of freedoms to exist as they once did. In reality, ever since the founding of this country, each decade has brought additional limits and restrictions on our freedoms. Sad, but true.

[XXXXX]

No, the reality is because you were humiliated by my replies, and have at best resorted to quoting famous men, or having others fight your battles. Spoken like a true Libertarian from the fringes of the peanut gallery.

Do you have anything in your arsenal except name-calling? This is pointless. Not because I'm humiliated. Not because I'm defeated. But because I feel like I'm talking to a bloody record player saying the same "I'm great, you're stupid" thing over and over again. Grow up. Learn to debate maturely. And then maybe I'll continue this. Good riddance!

I'm not going anywhere, so don't dismiss me prematurely. You are just not used to anyone talking back to your liberal propaganda.

I gave you a quote of the First Ammendment, and the personal reference of Jefferson in his reply to the Baptist Association 10 years later. I answered your allegation about what you assumed Jefferson stood for. What direct quotes and references to the leaders of your political views would you now like to discuss? Or do you only wish to have the 12 year olds do your bidding?

If you can manage to refrain from bashing republican leaders, and me personally, I can most certainly do the same.

Regarding your Franklin quote, I do not consider the 9/11 disaster as a "little temporary safety," and I don't believe he would be quick to dismiss actions taken to protect the population in its wake.

[vinnie97]

The Founding Fathers had no qualms with public displays of religious expression, even from those within the legislative and executive branches. The Bill of Rights ensures a freedom of religion, not a freedom from it. Let's also not forget how they felt religion was a positive catalyst for encouraging morality in society. That being said, they didn't feel the need to require the public to submit to God, like one would submit to a king. ACLU has turned the idea on it's head, indeed, trying to eradicate any public acknowledgement of religion which is so foreign to the founders' intentions, it's laughable.

[XXXXX]

Keep in mind, code, that times do change...and laws change with the times. For example, to pin today's laws and freedom's on the mantle of Thomas Jefferson is not practical, however noble were his ideals.

Thomas Jefferson had 187 slaves. We know that because he kept meticulous hand-written records, which we still have. On January 14, 1774, after he inherited slaves from first his mother and then his father-in-law, Thomas Jefferson wrote his inventory of 187 slaves.

So this is the same Thomas Jefferson who personally owned 187 slaves, some of whom he had sexual relations with, resulting in DNA proven offspring. Try to fit those activities into a moderm America. There were obviously a lot of good and noble contributions that the founding fathers made, chief among them, was the ability for the Constitution to be a living document. The Declaration was not a living or changing document. It was designed to make the case in separating from Britain.

When was the last time you read the Declaration? 80-90% of it dealt with specific grievances against Britain. Only the first two of the 30 listed paragraphs have any relevance to modern times. Read it here.

[Ian]

Totally off topic, but how do you prove that a person shares DNA with someone that has been dead for 200 years?

[XXXXX]

Several ways. If there are any skin, hair, or bone samples they can be used directly. More commonly, you follow the direct blood line of his known and published male descendants.

It is similar to paternity suits where there are unique strands of the male "Y" chromosome which will always have unique mutations, and are passed directly, unlike the autosomal (non-sex linked XY chromosomes) in DNA base pair ordering.

To quote this article that talks more about Jefferson in particular, and the specific testing methods used:

The only changes on the Y chromosome are rare sporadic mutations in the DNA that accumulate slowly over centuries. Male lineages can therefore be distinguished from one another through the characteristic set of mutations carried in their Y chromosomes.

It is actually quite an interesting and informative article, and how they use DNA testing. I found this paragraph particularly amusing, given comments made in this forum:

The new DNA evidence is likely to renew questions about Jefferson's position on slavery, Lander and Ellis believe. "Jefferson's stated reservations about ending slavery included a fear that emancipation would lead to racial mixing and amalgamation," they wrote in their commentary in Nature. "His own interracial affair now personalizes this issue, while adding a dimension of hypocrisy."

The bottom line, is men have to be careful where they dip their wick...unless you can find a willing and vulnerable intern nearby, that has a spare dress.

[XXXXX]

I found the Gallup Poll page about presidents very interesting...all posted before he died. I'm surprised at the top 3 spots, and how low Clinton is on the list. I thought all the democrats would have pushed him into a higher ranking.


Retrospective Approval Ratings for Presidents
Percentage who approved of each president

[leg4li2ed0pe]

I would like to quote an article that can be found at progressive.org about Mr. reagan.

Spare me the heapings of praise for Ronald Reagan.

He was one of the worst presidents we've ever had.

In fact, he should have been impeached for the Iran-Contra scandal, and he might have been had Congress and the media just done their jobs. Reagan misappropriated funds, and then he lied about it. He traded with Iran, an enemy of the United States, and he lied about that, too.

But Congress went weak in the knees when Ollie North showed up strutting in his uniform.

And the media fell down, too. Katherine Graham, owner of The Washington Post, said the country couldn't handle another impeachment crisis, and so the Post downplayed it.

Let's be clear on Reagan's record.

Reagan was responsible for killing tens of thousands of innocent people in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and Honduras as he waged illegal wars and funded brutal militaries. The truth commission of El Salvador investigated the murders of 75,000 people during the civil war in the 1980s, and it found that the Salvadoran military, or death squads connected to the military, had committed the bulk of those crimes. At the time, Bush was lavishing hundreds of millions of dollars on the Salvadoran government, and his CIA was working with the death squads.

Reagan was responsible, as Christopher Hitchens has noted, for approving Israel's invasion of Lebanon, which killed about 18,000 civilians.

Reagan was responsible for his own unilateral invasion of that huge threat to the United States called Grenada. (Oh, the great liberator!)

Reagan was responsible for inciting a racist backlash. He kicked off his 1980 presidential campaign in--of all places--Philadelphia, Mississippi, where Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, and James Cheney were murdered in 1964. Reagan also fueled racism with his stories about "welfare queens" and his defense of the apartheid regime of South Africa.

Reagan was responsible for attacking women's rights, as he tried to legitimate the backlash against feminism. He appointed the far right justice Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court, and he loaded the lower court benches with anti-choice ideologues.

Reagan was responsible for a woeful response to the AIDS epidemic, which needlessly jeopardized the lives of millions of people. He also consorted with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who called AIDS divine revenge on homosexuals.

Reagan was responsible for shredding the social contract between labor and management, and he declared open season on trade unions when he fired the air traffic controllers.

Reagan was responsible for flattening out the progressive income tax and for giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and to corporations. His economic policies, as Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic Policy and Research has noted, dramatically redistributed income--to the rich.

Reagan was responsible for hooking millions of people overseas on tobacco, as he turned the Commerce Department into the advance team for Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds.

Reagan ("We begin bombing in five minutes") was responsible for the multi-billion dollar boondoggle that goes by the name of missile defense.

Reagan was responsible for launching an assault on our environment (remember James Watt!) that is now reaching its apotheosis under George W.

In a way, Reagan was W's father. The macho swagger, the studied anti-intellectualism, the infatuation with military spending, and the overriding concern for corporations and the rich--all these Bush has inherited from Reagan.

And while Reagan consulted Nancy's astrologer for advice, Bush does him one better by consulting the Lord Himself.

The only difference is that Reagan knew how to read his lines.

-- Matthew Rothschild