We could him again, or someone like him.

[Bubblehead1980]

I was not even born when he gave this speech but watching it now just hits home.We could really use him again.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmmgVFByeaI&feature=related


Great lines about government around 11:00-12:00 mark i believe it was.

Government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us, blinds us to it's power to harm us.

[nikimcbee]

agree, so who is his modern equivilent?

Getting popcorn now.

[Ducimus]

We don't produce anything like that in our country anymore.

It could be that what we have, is the best we currently have to offer. It's what our system produces. Garbage in..... garbage out. :O:

[nikimcbee]

We don't produce anything like that in our country anymore.

It could be that what we have, is the best we currently have to offer. It's what our system produces. Garbage in..... garbage out. :O:

You are correct I think. Our education system has caught up with us.:shifty:

[Ducimus]

You are correct I think. Our education system has caught up with us.:shifty:


Acutally, im just paraphrasing George Carlin, but... i think he's right. He makes a good point about politicians.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk

[Platapus]

Reagan is one of those presidents that history has treated kindly. He was a charismatic leader, I will give him that. I voted for him twice.

I was in Basic Training when Reagan got shot. That was the only time we were allowed to watch TV during basic.

I guess that is ancient history these days.

[Oberon]

Modern equivalent? Naah, there ain't any.

There's not been a politician who could spin a speech like Reagan since he stood down as president. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says...but he knew how to say it...damn he did. :up:

[Bubblehead1980]

Currently, there is no one at the level of Ronald Reagan.Hopefully my fellow conservatives will not be stupid enough to let Palin win the nomination, for if she does, Barry O will most likely get a second term even with a bad economy because she is the definition of a dumb ass.She has some of the right views, but she is just not smart enough.

I like Newt Gingrich and think he could win because he could handle obama in the debates and capture independents which are not on obama train anymore, plus his tenure as speaker of house was pretty successful if I recall.The debates killed McCain and Palin would look like a fool debating Barry O.Right now, I like Newt for 2012 but he does some have baggage he could explain away with the humble approach.We all make mistakes, we are not perfect, I gave in to human desires, I regret it and have not since...etc etc, works pretty well on people bc most people in American tend to forgive things.


One of my favorite Reagan moments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKoWgkDGlWA&feature=related

[August]

I agree with you about Palin, but America is never going to elect someone who goes by the name of "Newt". Not only does he have baggage to overcome but an old school Washington insider. The voters already rejected that in 2008.

[Platapus]

I like Newt for 2012 but he does some have baggage he could explain away with the humble approach.We all make mistakes, we are not perfect, I gave in to human desires, I regret it and have not since...etc etc, works pretty well on people bc most people in American tend to forgive things.

That would be a real tough sell. Discussing divorce papers with his wife recovering from cancer surgery so he can marry another women, who he later cheated on. Dumping his second wife so he could marry his mistress. Lambasting the President on morality all the while dipping his wick with his mistress. :nope:

I don't think the ole "humble scam" will work for Newton. :nope:

[Bubblehead1980]

Carlin is awseome ducimus, heres my favorite from him

"**** you Dad, you simple minded prick" hahaha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxmE2qMbYRU&feature=related

[Castout]

Is it just me because I get the feeling that US president progressively become worse and worse with time. Maybe with the exception of Obama?! If he's for real.

Ronald Reagen was such a big person then AND NOW.

My idol would be JFK. A president who are so bold that needed to be killed. Don't tell me it was the Soviet because if it was the Soviet the world wold see a third world war or a counter assassination which we did not see.

His speeches were awesome! Made me proud of US of A even when I'm not even American :up:

[Sailor Steve]

"**** you Dad, you simple minded prick" hahaha
Read.

The.

Rules.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_new_faq_item_language

[Bubblehead1980]

Steve, no offense man but it was a quote from the carlin video and it was blanked out automatically anyway so no harm mother dear :salute:

the rules are well eh.

kidding of course. ill watch try to it in the future.

[Bubblehead1980]

That would be a real tough sell. Discussing divorce papers with his wife recovering from cancer surgery so he can marry another women, who he later cheated on. Dumping his second wife so he could marry his mistress. Lambasting the President on morality all the while dipping his wick with his mistress. :nope:

I don't think the ole "humble scam" will work for Newton. :nope:


I think it would, say what you will about him he is smart guy and had a successful tenure as speaker.I believe he could own Obama in debates, esp since obama has and will even more of a disaster called his record as President.

I understand his personal life is his baggage but you know I think more people understand now days than before that it's just that, his personal life, has nothing to do with his proffessional life.People in this country need to get over marriage and infidelity thing, it happens, its common.Pretty much the only people who don't cheat are those who can't get laid anywhere else. I'm sure he had learned could sell it off as his failings esp if he is the nominee and is winning debates, I believe most voters could overlook this if he has a sound policy laid out combined with his success as speaker. I'm sure I'll find someone I like more but right now, he's really the only respectable candidate.

[Weiss Pinguin]

Read.

The.

Rules.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_new_faq_item_language
"Read the ******* manual?" :smug: :shifty:

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa315/stevesax30/white_flag2.gif

[WarlordATF]

President Reagan was the best leader in my lifetime IMO (1971-???). He did what he said he would and knew when to be tough. I didn't agree with everything he did while in office, but he was the last President i honestly believed in.

Some say he was just a great actor, but i think that he was just smart enough to know when to act. In those days our Allies respected us and our enemies feared us, No one knew what he would do next but IMO he didn't bring shame upon the office he held.

Sure there were some issues, but nothing like the petty crap we see these days. He was a Great American who loved his Country and will always be a personal hero of mine.

[Bubblehead1980]

President Reagan was the best leader in my lifetime IMO (1971-???). He did what he said he would and knew when to be tough. I didn't agree with everything he did while in office, but he was the last President i honestly believed in.

Some say he was just a great actor, but i think that he was just smart enough to know when to act. In those days our Allies respected us and our enemies feared us, No one knew what he would do next but IMO he didn't bring shame upon the office he held.

Sure there were some issues, but nothing like the petty crap we see these days. He was a Great American who loved his Country and will always be a personal hero of mine.

Well said and he is a personal hero of mine as well.

[mookiemookie]

Ah yes, good ol' Ronnie. The modern day purity test for conservatives and proof that time heals all wounds - or at least obscures all rational thought.

How hypocritical that the new Conservative vogue is to be a budget hawk, but yet venerates Saint Ronnie who tripled the national deficit. This is why people view you hardcore righties as such hypocrites. There's a reason "Reaganomics" is the punchline to a joke.

[Tribesman]

There's a reason "Reaganomics" is the punchline to a joke.
The Laughter curve

[Oberon]

I think that's the thing that has made history so kind to Reagan, and that's how he knew the 'gift of the gab'. Be whatever you think of his economic plans, he produced memorable speeches, he had a little punchline to cut the tension at a conference, he was good to his allies and stern with his enemies.
I think presidency is 8/10s presentation, and if you can present something good to the public, or dress something that's not so good up in a manner that makes it look good...then history will remember you a bit more fondly.

If the Republicans want a chance, I think they might want to look at Scott Brown...I dunno, it's just a hunch...I'm not really that knowledgeable about state politics in the US, but he seems like he might have the panache to pull off a victory for the Republicans in 2012.
If Palin gets the vote though, then Obama will win...that's a given. The last Republican campaign is completely mismatched against the Democratic one. Obama's message was 'HOPE' and 'CHANGE' whereas McCain seemed only intent on telling everyone that the sky would fall in if they voted for Obama...which no-one believed because they wanted 'HOPE' and 'CHANGE' (some powerful words those) and it was that...plus perhaps the novelty of having the first non-white US president, that got Obama in.

[Sailor Steve]

II understand his personal life is his baggage but you know I think more people understand now days than before that it's just that, his personal life, has nothing to do with his proffessional life.
I hope you weren't one of the ones who lambasted Clinton on that account then. He's another one I didn't like for political reasons, but the whole impeachment thing was nothing more than a witch hunt, no better than the attempts to get Reagan through Ollie North.

People in this country need to get over marriage and infidelity thing, it happens, its common.Pretty much the only people who don't cheat are those who can't get laid anywhere else.
Some folks hold their morals high. The only thing I have against conservatives caught in the act is that they are the ones who point the finger when liberals do it. Mistakes I can tolerate, hypocrisy never.

[mookiemookie]

The Laughter curve

http://gerardwhyte.net/images/misc/reaganomics.jpg

[UnderseaLcpl]

Ah yes, good ol' Ronnie. The modern day purity test for conservatives and proof that time heals all wounds - or at least obscures all rational thought.
Yep', good ol' X. The [timeframe] purity test for Y and proof that time heals all wounds, or at least all rational thought.

How hypocritical that the new Conservative vogue is to be a budget hawk, but yet venerates Saint Ronnie who tripled the national deficit. This is why people view you hardcore righties as such hypocrites. What they mean is that they will spend your money on things they (I mean, you) want money to be spent on at the expense of the money those other guys waste.

It's not hypocritical, it's just the mechanics of politics. Calm yourself, I'm not going on another libertarian text-version equivalent of the Bataan death march, just making a brief point.:DL

Politics is the natural result of the political system. Parties shift platforms and declare allegiances to this or that not by the merit of the cause but by the number of voted it will garner. That goes for both parties. I trust there are enough examples that the point stands on its own.

There's a reason "Reaganomics" is the punchline to a joke.
Yup, and it's the same reason the term Reaganomics was coined- politics.

[mookiemookie]

Calm yourself, I'm not going on another libertarian text-version equivalent of the Bataan death march, just making a brief point.:DL

Aaahahahahahaha :rotfl2: :har:

Eh I know it's only politics. I had a few drinks last night and felt like some good natured mud slingin'. :03: I don't talk politics in real life (partly because, as I like to say, being as left as I am in Texas is like admitting you're a Jew in Berlin circa 1941), so this is my only real outlet for it.

[Sailor Steve]

How hypocritical that the new Conservative vogue is to be a budget hawk, but yet venerates Saint Ronnie who tripled the national deficit. This is why people view you hardcore righties as such hypocrites. There's a reason "Reaganomics" is the punchline to a joke.
And today we're seeing the exact opposite. Lefties who have always accused the right of the biggest deficits are now defending their doing the same.

[mookiemookie]

And today we're seeing the exact opposite. Lefties who have always accused the right of the biggest deficits are now defending their doing the same.

Yes but Steve, the hypocrisy is that the right has always portrayed themselves as the antithesis of the "tax and spend liberals."

[Bilge_Rat]

A lot of Republicans now see Reagan's presidency through rose colored glasses, but it was not like that in 76 and 80. Many moderate republicans saw him as an extreme right winger out of touch with the country. Bush sr. ran his 1980 primary campaign on that basis. I remember many moderate republicans in 76 saying nominating Reagan would be as suicidal as picking Goldwater was in 64.

The supply side economics Reagan pushed in the early 80s, i.e. cut taxes and the resulting boom will produce more tax revenues was widely derided as Voodoo economics. He presided over one of the worst recessions in 1982-83 when interest rates topped 20%.

His firing of all the air traffic controllers on strike (81 or 82?), lowered the safety of air travel in the USA for many years afterwards. This was confirmed to me by civilian pilots who flew commercial flights back then.

His defence policies in the early 80s, especially the decision to deploy cruise missiles in europe in 83 increased tensions with the USSR. Recent articles have come out over the past few years that the premiers in 82-85, Andropov and Tchernenko were almost certain Reagan was planning a nuclear war and seriously discussed whether they should launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

The one good thing Reagan did was his handling of Perestroika and the negotiations with Gorbachev in 85-88 which brought about the end of the Cold War.

I am no fan of Obama, but his performance in 2009-2010 is already way better than Reagan's in 1981-82.

[August]

A lot of Republicans now see Reagan's presidency through rose colored glasses, but it was not like that in 76 and 80. Many moderate republicans saw him as an extreme right winger out of touch with the country. Bush sr. ran his 1980 primary campaign on that basis. I remember many moderate republicans in 76 saying nominating Reagan would be as suicidal as picking Goldwater was in 64.

I think you're 4 years off. Jimmah Carter was President between 1976 and 1980. Bush senior didn't run for the presidency until 1984.

[Tribesman]

I think you're 4 years off. Jimmah Carter was President between 1976 and 1980. Bush senior didn't run for the presidency until 1984.
English language.
but it was not like that in 76 and 80. Many moderate republicans saw him as an extreme right winger out of touch with the country.
Two different campaigns with Reagan getting the same description in both for his economic policies
Bush sr. ran his 1980 primary campaign on that basis.
A Primary in one of those two campaigns where Bush running against Reagan lambasted Reagans economic policy.

That English is so complicated

[Platapus]

he didn't bring shame upon the office he held.


I think that is an exaggeration.

Trading weapons with Iran while we were overtly supporting Iraq. Mining civilian harbours. Defying congress with funding terrorists/freedom fighters. Invading a country under false pretenses (we were attacked in Lebanon so he decided to invade Grenada). Classifying ketchup as a vegetable to slash food rations for low income students.

Cutting taxes in 1981 to fool the public and then raised them every single year for the next six years. Cutting social programs but increasing the debt to $150 Billion with military spending. Both of these with a Republican Senate and a Democratic House up to his last year in office. Agreeing to allow the Pakistani ISI to funnel the money and control for the support of the Mujahideen.

Lets consider some firsts in the Reagan administration which was the first administration in the history of the United States to:

Have a sitting cabinet member indicted.

Have an Assistant Secretary of State indicted.

Have an Assistant Secretary of Defense sent to prison.

Have over 100 members of an administration charged with crimes.

The first administration in American history to have more members of his administration charged with crimes than the cumulative total of all other presidents in the twentieth century.

Reagan accomplished a lot of good things in his term as President, but he is hardly the messiah that the republicans make him out to be. I voted for him twice. Primarily due to his charisma and the fact that the democrats did not have anyone better. But Reagan is hardly the saint that some paint him as.

[Bubblehead1980]

I am aware of some of Reagan's shortcomings, he was as well.Reagan said he was not happy about the budget deficit and described it as "one of the greatest disappointments of his Presidency" but I see it as one of those things they had to live with since we were fighting the cold war, which we ultimately won.I like Reagan because he was a leader, stood up for America and believed in American values and way of running things, not a big government, nanny state who rapes many of it's citizens via taxes or who bends over and takes it from other nations, he looked out for America first as any President should.Reagan stayed pretty much to what he outlined in his nomination acceptance speech.Every admin is not without issues and yes he had some people get into trouble but that was them, not Reagan.I also really dislike his amnesty to the 3 million illegals, but he did what he saw as the best option at the time.

Unemployment went down after surviving the post Jimmy Carter recession, inflation dropped.My father has always said he did very well under Reagan and talked to plenty of people who did and lets be real here, a President does not leave office with 64% approval rating if things are not good for most people.Peace through strength won the Cold War because the Soviets took a President serious for the first time since JFK.Reagan appointed Sanda Day O Connor to the Supreme Court.Things are not going to be good for everyone, that is just just life, but 64% is a large number of people so Reagan did his job well, stuck to his principles and that is why he is remembered well.

[Bubblehead1980]

I hope you weren't one of the ones who lambasted Clinton on that account then. He's another one I didn't like for political reasons, but the whole impeachment thing was nothing more than a witch hunt, no better than the attempts to get Reagan through Ollie North.


Some folks hold their morals high. The only thing I have against conservatives caught in the act is that they are the ones who point the finger when liberals do it. Mistakes I can tolerate, hypocrisy never.


Steve I'm not, I never cared about Clinton getting a blowjob, good for him lol. My issue is with his dishonestly.Remember, "Listen America, I did not have sexual relations with that woman" that was just blatant dishonestly to America. I agree it turned into a witchunt just like the Iran Contra thing did.

[Bubblehead1980]

I think that's the thing that has made history so kind to Reagan, and that's how he knew the 'gift of the gab'. Be whatever you think of his economic plans, he produced memorable speeches, he had a little punchline to cut the tension at a conference, he was good to his allies and stern with his enemies.
I think presidency is 8/10s presentation, and if you can present something good to the public, or dress something that's not so good up in a manner that makes it look good...then history will remember you a bit more fondly.

If the Republicans want a chance, I think they might want to look at Scott Brown...I dunno, it's just a hunch...I'm not really that knowledgeable about state politics in the US, but he seems like he might have the panache to pull off a victory for the Republicans in 2012.
If Palin gets the vote though, then Obama will win...that's a given. The last Republican campaign is completely mismatched against the Democratic one. Obama's message was 'HOPE' and 'CHANGE' whereas McCain seemed only intent on telling everyone that the sky would fall in if they voted for Obama...which no-one believed because they wanted 'HOPE' and 'CHANGE' (some powerful words those) and it was that...plus perhaps the novelty of having the first non-white US president, that got Obama in.


Scott Brown is electable because he is young, new, nice looking etc but doesnt seem that bright to me. I would have a hard time getting behind him politically, he is a RINO pretty much.Not a fan which is unfortunate because I was excited when he was elected after Ted Kennedy passed away but now, no.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I hope Steve doesn't mind me usurping his question.
Yes but Steve, the hypocrisy is that the right has always portrayed themselves as the antithesis of the "tax and spend liberals."

The right has always portrayed itself as the antithesis of whatever the left was doing at the time. More specifically, the Republicans and the Democrats always portray themselves as the antithesis of each other, while really being more middle-of-the-road than anything else.

Eh, I know it's only politics.
I hear that all the time, but I'm often left wondering if people really know what they're talking about when they say that, and why they dismiss it so easily.

What is described above, and policits in general are the natural result of a two party system, which is a natural result of a winner-takes-all system.

In a brand-new winner-takes-all system, there are two kinds of voters; those who will vote for A, and those who will vote for B on any given issue. When representatives are voting for you, it makes sense to elect the representative who will vote your way on the most issues of value to you.

However, you won't always get your way like that, whether you're a voter or a candidate, so like-minded groups get together into parties to combine votes, and this is where the trouble starts. (:roll: Don't we know it!) When a vote or candidate ceases to be of the individual type and becomes the party type, and interesting shift of paradigm occurs. Now it's not so much about getting what we want as it is getting enough votes to get what we want, and that's a whole different beast.

When conglomerates of voters and representatives find themselves in a winner-take-all system, they do exactly what you'd expect them to do; they polarize. Each party wants the majority of the votes, but in order to secure that majority they must appeal to the most people. Each party begins to amalgamate interests into its platform as fast as it can, and if party A gets to issue 1 first, party B is forced to adopt issue -1 for no other reason than the votes. Maybe B then gets issue 3, so A now has to take -3, etc... etc...

But politics doesn't stop there. Once the battle lines are drawn, there are still raids, skirmishes, and flanking maneuvers to perform. The most infamous of these tactics is seen on the battlefield of special interests. Special interests, as we all know, have power disproportionate to their size; not so much due to their financial contributions, but due to their ability to sap the enemy's vote. If special interest M (or whatever) goes to party A (who they like) and says, "What will you do for us, specifically?" and M is large enough, A will likely promise them a great deal. The members of M may be of varied opinions, but when M comes back from Washington and announces all the great things A will do for them, their vote becomes one. When the pre-aligned special interests run out, parties begin to seek unaligned special interests and court their vote with promises and such. And it gets a lot more complicated than that, especially in matters of trade and industry. Mookie knows this, I'm sure.

At this point, the original platform is unlikely to resemble its original self, but politics isn't done yet. Propaganda is next, but it isn't just propaganda - its counter propaganda and counter-counter propaganda, and counter-counter-counter propaganda, and it pervades every level of society. This is mostly what reaches the politically disinterested voter, but it also becomes engrained in the minds of party supporters. They find themselves supporting things they otherwise wouldn't care about because a party case has been made for it.

And it goes on, and on, and on, but that's enough for one post.

[Sailor Steve]

Yes but Steve, the hypocrisy is that the right has always portrayed themselves as the antithesis of the "tax and spend liberals."
So if the liberals make political hay by accusing the right of having the "biggest deficit ever", they're not hypocrits when they make one many times larger and then say it's okay, they had to?

[Bilge_Rat]

an interesting side note. As I was driving in to work today, the radio announcer pointed out that Reagan's approval rating at this point in his presidency (42% - august 1982) was lower than Obama's curent number: 47%.

[August]

an interesting side note. As I was driving in to work today, the radio announcer pointed out that Reagan's approval rating at this point in his presidency (42% - august 1982) was lower than Obama's curent number: 47%.

I'd imagine that would depend on whose polls they are referencing.

[mookiemookie]

he is a RINO pretty much.

This is where the GOP is at nowadays. Anybody that isn't an extremist is labelled a closet Democrat.

[August]

This is where the GOP is at nowadays. Anybody that isn't an extremist is labelled a closet Democrat.

Whatever works to break the monopoly.

[mookiemookie]

Whatever works to break the monopoly.

Energizing the base is good, but elections are decided by swing votes.

[August]

Energizing the base is good, but elections are decided by swing votes.

Yeah and the swing voters are definitely in an anti-incumbent mood.

[Bubblehead1980]

an interesting side note. As I was driving in to work today, the radio announcer pointed out that Reagan's approval rating at this point in his presidency (42% - august 1982) was lower than Obama's curent number: 47%.

True BUT Reagan did the opposite of Obama and the economy recovered.Obama's leftist policies will not lead to recovery Americans expect.Where did you get 47? Most polls I see say 44-45 range and dropping.

Obama also has a lot of baggage Reagan did not.Due to Obama's racist connections, actions, remarks, the costly vacations and other controversies he has lost independents, esp white male independents and I would be shocked if he got them back.

[Bubblehead1980]

This is where the GOP is at nowadays. Anybody that isn't an extremist is labelled a closet Democrat.

Well they don't have to be an extremist but when someone runs as a Republican which implies some conservative views they are expected to vote that way most of the time because their principles should demand it, esp on major Dem pushed issues of the Obama agenda.This is a fight for the future, no time to for warm fuzzy cooperation with Obama and his goons.Time to fight their agenda to best of ability until can regain enough seats in congress to stop them and get the US back on the right track.

I was initially excited about Brown winning the seat Kennedy held for so long but a red flag for myself and many was when he continually praised Ted Kennedy after his election, red flag for sure because no self respecting conservative could praise a slug like Ted Kennedy.Sure you do not speak ill of him publicly since he is dead but you don't praise him either, let it be.Then Mr Brown goes to Washington and joined the usual traitors like Snowe, Collins etc If you vote for an an Obama bill, then you are endorsing the Obama agenda and are no Conservative or Republican.

Brown voted for the wasteful and ineffective jobs bill shortly after entering office.So his first vote as a US Senator was the wasteful "jobs bill". Hows that working out? oh yea unemployment is still high and prob going to rise some more.

This is from an article I read and the author said it best:

Today Senator Brown announced that he will be supporting the financial reform bill known as Dodd-Frank. Yes, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank are the ones who has a massive role in creating this mess now want to right the law that fixes it. Scott Brown supports it because they eliminated the tax increases to pay for it.


"I decided that while the bill was far from perfect", he writes in his Facebook post, but it is a "vast improvement". In other words the bill still sucks, but I'm going to vote for it anyway because I don't have spine and I want to try and keep my liberal voters happy in my liberal run bankrupt home state of Massachusetts.

Brown is a RINO, if he had true Conservative/Republican principles he would have voted NO for that crappy bill by Dodd-Frank.

So most of the time thus far on the major issues, Brown has voted with the other side, hmm.I was happy he voted against Kagan, guess even Libby prone Brown saw the potential she has to cause harm.

Brown is a RINO, it's obvious.

[Bilge_Rat]

you have to decide if you want electable moderate candidates or pure, but unelectable conservatives. The democrats got their majority in 2006 by running conservative, pro-gun, anti-abortion candidates in conservative ridings.

Brown is a Republican who managed to get elected in Red liberal Massachusetts. He can't vote with the Republicans all the time if he wants to get reelected in 2012. If you check his votes, you will see he still votes with the Republicans most of the time. He is picking his no votes wisely to have the most impact in Mass.

You have to decide which is better to have in the senate, a moderate republican or liberal democrat? I'm sure the democrats would say the latter.

[Takeda Shingen]

You have to decide which is better to have in the senate, a moderate republican or liberal democrat? I'm sure the democrats would say the latter.

Well, that's just it, isn't it? You can compromise and get yourself into the game, or you can be ideologically pure and sit back home and watch it on TV. Our government is founded on compromise.

[Bilge_Rat]

or you can be ideologically pure and sit back home and watch it on TV.

or post on an internet forum....;)

Easy to be pure when you don't have to answer to constituants...:arrgh!:

[Bubblehead1980]

I see your point about being a Repub in Mass and all that, I had considered that but he does damage when he votes for crappy things such as the jobs bill etc in order to go along to get along, which is a huge part of the problem in D.C., no one has principles they stick to except for a few.I'll give him a chance but thus far I am highly disappointed

[August]

I see your point about being a Repub in Mass and all that, I had considered that but he does damage when he votes for crappy things such as the jobs bill etc in order to go along to get along, which is a huge part of the problem in D.C., no one has principles they stick to except for a few.I'll give him a chance but thus far I am highly disappointed

Your disappointment is nothing compared to what you'd be feeling if we had elected Martha Coakley.

[Sailor Steve]

I'll give him a chance but thus far I am highly disappointed
Do you live in Massachussetts? If not, then saying you'll give him a chance is meaningless. You can love him or hate him, and it won't make one bit of difference.

[krashkart]

The thing that I liked the most about Reagan was that he loved jelly beans. I was a kid during his presidency, so there you go. :rotfl2:

[Bubblehead1980]

No I do not live in MA but his votes do not only affect MA but the entire country so my opinion as well as others matter.

August, good point, better than Coakley but MA could have done better than either of them.

[mookiemookie]

No I do not live in MA but his votes do not only affect MA but the entire country so my opinion as well as others matter.

Not really. You can't vote for or against the guy if he does well or poorly in your estimation, and he doesn't represent you. So no, your opinion of him doesn't matter much. Not saying you can't have an opinion. Just saying it doesn't make a difference.

[Dimitrius07]

:har:Ha! I just looked at the comment section on the first post video. Damn thats what you call a desperation but my favorite is "Mr Putin gemme "rinda, i`am desparate russian good for nothing vodka drinker and i need some attention". I think we have a winner on this thread, 46. Well.... here is your magical number 3. GoFYS :salute:

[AVGWarhawk]

We don't produce anything like that in our country anymore.

It could be that what we have, is the best we currently have to offer. It's what our system produces. Garbage in..... garbage out. :O:

They broke the mold when Ronnie was born.

[August]

August, good point, better than Coakley but MA could have done better than either of them.

Well I agree, *if someone better had been running for that office*.

Don't get me wrong. Martha Coakley has done a good job as State Attorney General. She's a pitbull when it comes to going after lawbreakers, but as a legislator she would have been a rubber stamp for the ruling party who would have exacerbated the problems in Washington rather than helped to alleviate them.

Nobody here really thought Brown would make a better legislator. He got elected because he was able to successfully cast himself as an outsider who would vote his own conscience rather than along party lines.

[Sailor Steve]

Not really. You can't vote for or against the guy if he does well or poorly in your estimation, and he doesn't represent you. So no, your opinion of him doesn't matter much. Not saying you can't have an opinion. Just saying it doesn't make a difference.
Which was exactly my point. I can try to do something about Orrin Hatch. I can't do a thing about Bill Nelson except make noise.