+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Kyra Memorial Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+---- Thread: The "Screw Ronnie Raygun" Thread (/thread-219187.html)
- joebordenrebel - 06-07-2004 11:14 AM
Good riddance to bad rubbish. Ronald Reagan was a disgrace to the office and to this country. [EDITED]
Before you click the "add reply" button, consider this:
His "freedom" mission in Nicaragua wound up killing more innocent people than bin Laden allegedly has. He was a consummate union-buster. He worked to undermine all of the Great Society (and oversaw the widening of the gap between rich and poor).
This grade-B actor was as un-American as they come.
But, worst of all, he helped bring about the beginning of student loan hell. And for that,[EDITED]
Ronnie Raygun--you will not be missed.
----------------------
Other reasons[EDITED]
10. Ed Meese as attorney general. The "War" on pornography.
9. Reagan visited the SS graveyard in Bitburg, West Germany
8. The appointment of James G. Watt as Energy Secretary
7. The War on Drugs and "Just Say NO" Everytime you pee in a cup for a job, you can thank Ronnie
6. SDI- A waste of money and a violation of the ABM treaty
5. The appointment of Rehnquist as Chief Justice and the appointment of Scalia.
4. The support of the Contras in Nicaragua.
3. The firing of the air traffic controllers
2. Unprecedented deficits-High military spending and a failed economic policy
1. The Iran Contra affair. Reagan should have been impeached for this.
- rickheel - 06-07-2004 03:08 PM
As usual, your hatred consumes you and it is that type of attitude which will have you where you wish he will end up. :rolleyes:
- georgia_tech_swagger - 06-07-2004 03:29 PM
JBR: That post was a flagrant violation of AUP. Clean it up.
- Wryword - 06-07-2004 07:34 PM
joebordenrebel Wrote:Good riddance to bad rubbish. Ronald Reagan was a disgrace to the office and to this country. [EDITED]So here you are, JBR, no doubt a beneficiary of the student loan program but not yet gainfully employed, and yet you think that the student loan program is "hell". I wonder if it could possibly, maybe, just perhaps be that you aren't seeking serious employment to pay back your very generous student loan debt. Or maybe you think that you should just be subsidized by taxpayers 'cause you are you.
Before you click the "add reply" button, consider this:
His "freedom" mission in Nicaragua wound up killing more innocent people than bin Laden allegedly has. He was a consummate union-buster. He worked to undermine all of the Great Society (and oversaw the widening of the gap between rich and poor).
This grade-B actor was as un-American as they come.
But, worst of all, he helped bring about the beginning of student loan hell. And for that,[EDITED]
Ronnie Raygun--you will not be missed.
----------------------
Other reasons[EDITED]
10. Ed Meese as attorney general. The "War" on pornography.
9. Reagan visited the SS graveyard in Bitburg, West Germany
8. The appointment of James G. Watt as Energy Secretary
7. The War on Drugs and "Just Say NO" Everytime you pee in a cup for a job, you can thank Ronnie
6. SDI- A waste of money and a violation of the ABM treaty
5. The appointment of Rehnquist as Chief Justice and the appointment of Scalia.
4. The support of the Contras in Nicaragua.
3. The firing of the air traffic controllers
2. Unprecedented deficits-High military spending and a failed economic policy
1. The Iran Contra affair. Reagan should have been impeached for this.
This intense hatred you have for Reagan is interesting. You just keep talking, boy. Those of us who were WORKING and trying to make a living under the Demo regime in the late '70's and early '80's think Reagan was a godsend. You would not know anything about that since you were being subsidized then too.
The appointments of Rehnquist (as chief justice) and Scalia were critical ones, and they have done much to ameliorate the war against the constitution by the Supreme Court. You would not understand this, I know, but trust me.
Iran and the Contras? Look at the results, child. Were they not quite good?
SDI? An excellent idea, and one we are or should be pursuing now. Festung Amerika is a great idea!
Increased military spending? That, child, was the cause of the end of the Cold War. You wouldn't know anything about that, what that was like. It also provided an economic stimulus for the country, so it could afford grifters on permanent student loans.
Your hatred of Reagan just says a lot about you. You'd be well advised to can it, bud.
The rest of your points are neither here nor there.
- Guest - 06-07-2004 08:58 PM
Wryword Wrote:Those of us who were WORKING and trying to make a living under the Demo regime in the late '70's and early '80's think Reagan was a godsend. You would not know anything about that since you were being subsidized then too.No we weren't. Unless you were selling junk bonds, he didn't do much for you, either.
Quote:The appointments of Rehnquist (as chief justice) and Scalia were critical ones, and they have done much to ameliorate the war against the constitution by the Supreme Court. You would not understand this, I know, but trust me.
Those two are disgraceful. Are you one of their duck hunting buddies? :D
Quote:Iran and the Contras? Look at the results, child. Were they not quite good?
I didn't realize that treason was mitigated by the results.
Quote:Your hatred of Reagan just says a lot about you. You'd be well advised to can it, bud.
That sounds like a barely veiled threat. Typical. "We don't like what you say, boy, better shut up!"
- Wryword - 06-07-2004 09:40 PM
Reagan's policies did a lot for me, and I wasn't selling junk bonds. Your ignorance about "junk bonds" is startling, seeing as how that business didn't start until some years after. In any event, there is nothing wrong about junk bonds. There is a lot wrong about fools who don't understand why they are called "junk bonds". You babies, you want to have all the advantages of a free market but none of the risk.
Anyway, I am going to be very interested in reading any attempt here to say that the Carter years, the old Democrat New Deal/New Society years that were terminated under his incompetency, were anything but a disaster. You rheumy eyed Democrats, you still think that European style socialism is and was the answer. Well and fine, but see how the old practiced hands, such as Germany, are faring now. Yes, they have enormous social benefits, yet look at their unemployment rate and stagnant economic growth.
- Motown Bronco - 06-07-2004 10:03 PM
Quote:(and oversaw the widening of the gap between rich and poor)
A deliberate <a href='http://www.carolinajournal.com/articles/display_story.html?id=1486' target='_blank'>mathematical distortion</a> used by politicians to play on peoples' envy, fuel another round of class warfare, while scooping up the votes of the "angry".
- Guest - 06-08-2004 05:31 AM
Wryword Wrote:Reagan's policies did a lot for me, and I wasn't selling junk bonds. Your ignorance about "junk bonds" is startling, seeing as how that business didn't start until some years after. In any event, there is nothing wrong about junk bonds. There is a lot wrong about fools who don't understand why they are called "junk bonds". You babies, you want to have all the advantages of a free market but none of the risk.Babies? Whatever you say. Condecension and obfuscation (Carter? LMFAO!) can't hide your lack of substance, but nice try.
Anyway, I am going to be very interested in reading any attempt here to say that the Carter years, the old Democrat New Deal/New Society years that were terminated under his incompetency, were anything but a disaster. You rheumy eyed Democrats, you still think that European style socialism is and was the answer. Well and fine, but see how the old practiced hands, such as Germany, are faring now. Yes, they have enormous social benefits, yet look at their unemployment rate and stagnant economic growth.
- Lethemeul - 06-08-2004 07:58 AM
Quote:He was a consummate union-buster.
He was the President of SAG. He believed in unions. PATCO (which is the event your referring to, I'm sure) threatened to strike if they did not get a 100% pay increase. Their request came well before economic recovery. It is/was federal law that federal employees were not allowed to strike. They did, in violation of that law. Reagan fired them. Seems like he did the right thing to me.
- rickheel - 06-08-2004 08:01 AM
I, for one, like the drug testing. I have avoided hiring three guys who had big time drugs in their systems and fired 2 who failed random tests. As far as the ATC's go, they paid their money, and they took their chances. Sucked to be them!
SDI has been given credit for the fall of the Soviet system. In and of itsef, that is a great result.
Failed economic policy? :laugh:
- Schadenfreude - 06-08-2004 08:24 AM
Lethemeul Wrote:I'm not a labor lawyer, but my understanding is that under normal circumstances, it is illegal for a business to fire a worker simply for going on strike.Quote:He was a consummate union-buster.
He was the President of SAG. He believed in unions. PATCO (which is the event your referring to, I'm sure) threatened to strike if they did not get a 100% pay increase. Their request came well before economic recovery. It is/was federal law that federal employees were not allowed to strike. They did, in violation of that law. Reagan fired them. Seems like he did the right thing to me.
If business is slow once the labor dispute is resolved, the business can opt not to bring back all of the striking workers right away. Also, I don't think the business is under any obligation to get rid of replacement workers to bring back strikers.
Typically, a list of striking workers is created, and the business is required to draw from that list when openings occur.
That's normal practice. And, sure, those legal requirements went out the window when PATCO called an illegal strike.
But keep in mind that the PATCO strike was hardly the first illegal strike of federal workers. My understanding is that there been a couple dozen during the 1970s involving postal workers, GPO workers and the like.
Reagan didn't have to fire those workers. He chose to do that -- and in doing so he nuked 11,000 careers. Suddenly, a whole bunch of men and women who had spent years learning their trade couldn't get jobs anywhere in America doing what they had been trained to do.
Imagine a teacher getting fired in an illegal strike -- and then being told he could no longer get a job anywhere in America as a teacher.
From the fired workers' perspective, that's what happened. They were blacklisted from a career.
It didn't have to be that way.
On a side note, I don't agree at all with the idea that Reagan believed in unions.
Yet, he was at one point president of the Screen Actors Guild -- and at the time, considered himself a Roosevelt Democrat. At some point during the 1950s, Reagan underwent a radical transformation and swung well to the right of the American mainstream. (America moved in Regan's direction during the remainder of his life, and Reagan himself played a role in that).
I'd invite other people to clarify Reagan's true feeling on unions -- but I don't think he had any patience at all for them by the time he was president. His handling of the PATCO strike reflected that, I think.
- Lethemeul - 06-08-2004 08:39 AM
Schadenfreude Wrote:I'd invite other people to clarify Reagan's true feeling on unions -- but I don't think he had any patience at all for them by the time he was president. His handling of the PATCO strike reflected that, I think.I'll be the first to admit that what know of Reagan is mostly from what I've read and what I've read is slanted in favor of him (Noonan and D'Souza). However, both of them tell a story of a man who believed in and was in favor of unions. He did a number of good things while he was the President of SAG and fought for a number of actors who had been blacklisted because of McCarthy's witchhunt.
They also tell a story of a President who believed that PATCO's actions were a threat to national security, something that he was not willing to sacrifice to play nice-nice with a union. According to what I've read he dreaded what he had to do, but he did it because he believed it was the right thing.
As to the career-nuking and blacklisting of ATC's, I've not read or heard much on that subject.
- HuskieDan - 06-08-2004 09:22 AM
Motown Bronco Wrote:I don't see that this makes your point for you. It basically says that the richest do indeed get richer, faster, than anyone else, and that's always been the argument.Quote:(and oversaw the widening of the gap between rich and poor)
A deliberate <a href='http://www.carolinajournal.com/articles/display_story.html?id=1486' target='_blank'>mathematical distortion</a> used by politicians to play on peoples' envy, fuel another round of class warfare, while scooping up the votes of the "angry".
- joebordenrebel - 06-08-2004 10:07 AM
I figured you would take it far enough. See ya.
- GrayBeard - 06-08-2004 10:27 AM
joebordenrebel Wrote:I'd love to respond to the issues that have been raised, but the overarching issue seems to be the newly reconstituted bloody boot of fascist control.Maybe if you would post your dislike (or hatred) of others in a more tasteful and tactful way, your posts would not get edited. The reason why your threads are getting edited is because you are trying to use sensationalism to stir the pot, so to speak.
Why are you Cons so afraid to let people speak their minds? Is that why you banned you-know-who?
Is this intimidation tactic making you feel compensated for certain other inadequacies?
Bah bah. What a herd of f'ing sheep. :roflol:
Why would you post such classless flagrant attacks so shortly after Reagan's death? Because you knew the classless posts would be edited/deleted and you could then complain about the facsist control of this board. Pity you, JBR!
- joebordenrebel - 06-08-2004 11:04 AM
:roflol:
You have got to be shi##ing me, GB!
A public figure (and especially a DEAD public figure) is open to whatever in the HECK any DADGUM foole wants to say about him! He's DEAD! He doesn't care!
You KNOW as well as I do that the rhetoric on this board tends to be over the top. Frankly, there's a lot of people (myself included) who will be glad to urinate in the vicinity of Ronnie's final resting place as he has now passed on.
So what! That language in no way violates the AUP.
Pity you, poor sheep. Bah bah! :roflol:
- Lethemeul - 06-08-2004 11:24 AM
Quote:(2) Hyperbolic or overly emotive language and imagery...are generally discouraged, and will be deleted if they appear to serve no purpose other than to inflame the discussion.
You don't think some, if not many, of your comments violate this section of the AUP? It's a trait, and you're quite skilled with the English language, but wishing a man burns in hell, etc, is 'overly emotive' and meant to 'inflame discussion' in my book.
- Rebel - 06-08-2004 08:15 PM
HuskieDan Wrote:Because they keep doing the same things that made them successful. Yep, makes sense.Motown Bronco Wrote:I don't see that this makes your point for you. It basically says that the richest do indeed get richer, faster, than anyone else, and that's always been the argument.Quote:(and oversaw the widening of the gap between rich and poor)
A deliberate <a href='http://www.carolinajournal.com/articles/display_story.html?id=1486' target='_blank'>mathematical distortion</a> used by politicians to play on peoples' envy, fuel another round of class warfare, while scooping up the votes of the "angry".