Tuesday, November 08, 2005

REAGEN'S DESTRUCTIVE LEGACY

REAGEN'S DESTRUCTIVE LEAGACY
by Abraham Steffes
Edited by Brandon Alexander Geraghty-MacKenzie


This country was ruined by Ronald Reagen. He told us that greed was good, ushered in a new age of international terrorism, and generally ruined an entire generation of children (the Gen Xers) from whose antics we are still trying to recover. By any standard, Ronald Reagen was nothing more than a pretentious Grade B actor with delusions of adequacy, and he gave his most destructive performance when he decided to play the part of the President of the United States.

Where do I begin? He gave me so much material to work with. Perhaps the best thing to do is to start right here at home and see where our little trek takes us.

When Mister Reagen tried to slash New Deal safety nets we paid dearly for it. Granted, Reagen did stimulate the economy for some, but it wasn't always an easy ride for the folks in third class. Upon taking office, the Jipper pushed through a policy of tax cuts, increased military spending, and reduced social spending. The immediate result was a sharp rise in interest rates. The inflation that we had experienced under Carter (a result of instability in the Mideast, i.e. the Iranian Revolution) did in fact decrease. But unemployment reached a post war record of 10.8 percent. Factories and farms went belly up. By 1984 the economy had begun to pick up, but unemployment still hoovered at or around 7 to 7. 5 percent, although inflation had decreased to a manageable 4.5 percent. That assumes, however, that the Jipper was being honest with us. Regrettably, the Reagen Administration changed the manner in which we count the number of unemployed. In a desperate attempt to fudge its own record, the Reagen Administration decided to stop workers who had been unemployed for longer than six months. In other words, we have not had an accurate account of unemployment since the Jipper left office.

And there's more.

From 1984 to the summer of 1987, confidence had been growing on Wall Street; stock prices were booming at a phenomenal rate. The bubble, however, crashed in October of that year. Panic set in, and stock values plunged by about $500 billion.

And then we had that little matter of the trade deficit. When Reagen took office in 1981, we had a trade surplus (no, that is not a typo--I wrote SURPLUS) of about $6 billion. By 1982, we had a trade DEFICIT of about $8 billion. By 1986 the figure had reached the $170 billion mark. Translated into modern English, we devolved from an exporter into an importer, making ourselves more dependent on the outside world for the basic necessities. Am I the only one on this blog who sees this as a potential threat to our national security?

Socially, America hit the skids during the Reagen years; and in many ways we have yet to recover. Drugs and drug-related crime became a national epidemic. Nancy Reagen told us to "just say no," which produced a restrained giggle among those in the mental health care profession, who issued a collective, "What-did-she-say?" Even a first year psychology student knows that you can't make a human being change behavior unless you are willing demand an alternative behavior coupled with positive reinforcement. But then again, who said that Republicans had a sound understanding of human nature? The "Just Say No" solution (or non-solution, if you will) offered no viable alternatives to drug use and addiction, and the drug epidemic is still a devastating social problem.

In addition, the Reagen years also created an unholy marriage between two of our worst social malignancies. Prior to the 1980s we had our issues with drugs. We also had street gangs. But during the Reagen years we saw the emergence of enterprising street toughs who combined the worst elements of alienation, violence, and the free enterprise system to create for-profit drug gangs. Think Al Capone meets The Lord of the Flies, and then remember that this has been the dysfunctional gift that just keeps on giving.

In addition, we also saw an increase in the number of violent youth overall. Indeed, if I recall correctly, the Reagen years gave us a generation of youth who were willing to kill one another over fashion (read athletic shoes and sports jackets). That was new, although not unexpected when the President's policies are telling us as a nation that greed is good.

All right, perhaps I've been a little too hard on the Jipper. Like most presidents, he probably made up for his domestic short-comings through success in foreign policy.


Or should I say "took credit" for a successful foreign policy?


On the one hand he saved the world from a rickety "Evil Empire" which was ready to collapse under its own militancy, corruption, and inefficiency. On the other hand, when the Soviets made the stupid, stupid mistake of invading Afghanistan the Reagen-Bush 1 Administration supplied aid and assistance to a dedicated, anti-communist freedom fighter named Osama Bin Laden. You really have to wonder. If the Jipper hadn't been suffering from Alzheimer's since his second term, what might he have been thinking when he saw those planes crashing into the Twin Towers on 911. Might he have thought "God-forgive-me," or just issued a befuddled "well,-there-I-go-again?"

Nor was this the only time Reagen assisted (unintentional perhaps) international terrorists

.
In 1982 he sent American troops to Lebanon on a "peace-keeping mission. In 1983 a terrorist crashed a truck full of explosives into the American barracks, killing 239 American soldiers. In fact, the Reagen years were a fine time for terrorism. Terrorists bombed the American Embassy in East Beirut. Libyan terrorists detonated a bomb in a West Berlin night club, killing an American soldier and several patrons. My but we were having fun.

Then we had that little matter of the Iran-Iraq War, during the course of which we cuddled up with our tyrant of choice, (the one, the only), Saddam Hussein! (I guess Saddam wasn't such a bad butcher as long as he was a REPUBLICAN-backed butcher). In fact, we all remember that splendid picture of
Saddam Hussein shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld. (I know, I know. Technically, it's a little off topic, but it does show how hypocritical we were both then and now.)

On the other hand, the Jipper was an equal opportunity arms provider-- as we saw when he sold $30 million in arms to the Iranian Ayatollahs and then used the proceeds to support Right Wing Death squads in Central America (Nicaragua). Why do the words "Iran-Contra come to mind? You see, kiddies, The United States Congress had cut off the flow of blood money to Reagen's Central American bullies, limiting them to humanitarian aid. That, however, wasn't good enough for the Jipper. He wanted to sell military aid. The fact that the White House had been using the money from the secret Iranian Arms sale amounted to a violation of the law. To his credit, Reagen accepted responsibility for Iran-Contra but denied that he knew any details--which i rings true because a substantial share of his second term was probably spent in a senility-induced haze.

Yup. The Reagen years were a real dream. And in many ways we have yet to wake up from his right wing nightmare that he induced.





23 comments:

Goggalor said...

He ended the Cold War. He ended the suffering of West Berlin. He did that. No one else.

Goggalor

Rachel said...

Hello Goggalor.

I think introductions are in order. My name is Rachel Steffes-MacKenzie. I'm Abraham's niece, Enlightenment's wife, and Brandon's step mother. And if you're still with me you're doing a lot better than some of my fellow bloggers here.

Since my uncle signed into the hospital early this morning (he'll be undergoing coronary bypass tomorrow) my husband and I have agreed to handle his responses here on Coalition.

Shall we move on to your talking points?

My Uncle had the dubious pleasure of traveling in the former Soviet Union during the mid 1970s (I believe it was around 1977) and again in 1985. On both occasions he did NOT feel that the Soviet Union was as powerful as we had been told it was. In the 1970s he discovered a society that was dark, paranoid, and crumbling. Buildings were in disrepair, infrastructure was hardly functional; housing was a joke, the environment stunk, and so on. Through the entire 1977 trip he had the distinct feeling that he was being followed, spied on.

When he visited again in the mid 80s, the feeling of discontent among the people had come out into the open. The love affair with Big Brother was over--if it ever existed in the first place. The point he would undoubtedly make was that the Soviet Union was at best a paper tiger. Those who tout the mighty Soviet Union's Military strength only have to look at the abysmal performance Soviet fighters gave in Afghanistan. They couldn't even win a war in a NEIGHBORING state. They might have been as tough as tacks in World War II, but something sure changed in the years that followed. Of course that might be because the Soviet System was so corrupt, and so controlled from the top down that it couldn't do anything BUT collapse.

I, on the other hand, had an opportunity to visit West Germany prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall. That trip included a brief hop to West Berlin. Oddly enough, I was never all that worried about West Berlin. Both sides understood that if the Russians were to get frisky in West Berlin, or that if we got frisky in East Berlin the result would have been World War III. Luckily no one went there.

I think you would have been more on target if you had said that EAST Berlin had been saved. Believe me, they needed it. In so many ways the East German system was even more brutal than the Soviet System which dominated all of East Germany.

I didn't have an opportunity to visit what had once been called East Berlin until after the wall came down, and what I saw more or less confirmed what I had been told. West Berlin was clean, industrial, high tech. East Berlin was dirty, backwards, and again, there were problems with basic infrastructure. Even the orchestras (I'm a former music teacher, BTW) revealed a major difference in the societies. The Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, under then conductor, Herbert Von Karajan was one of the war horse orchestras of the world. We never found its equal in East Berlin. The Dresden Philharmonic and Dresden Staatskapelle came very, very close but they never rivaled what we found in the West. Artistically, the West was alive and vibrant. In East Berlin we found nothing but that horrible Soviet Style Realism. Although there had been underground activities for years.

In the East there was a sense of having just been freed, but there was also a fear that West Germany/West Berlin would eat up the East alive. At the same time the West was looking at their deprived neighbors and they were thinking "how in the HELL are we ever going to lift these people up?"

I'm not complaining, mind you. It was a horrible, horrible system and it deserved to collapse, but you can't underestimate the self-destructive nature of that system either.

Did Reagen have a part in the collapse of Communism?

Perhaps.

But I think a larger share of the credit must be given to Pope John Paul II. JP II wasn't exactly my favorite religious leader--his stand on women's rights, gay rights, and reform within the church was nothing less than feudal--but he did inspire the internal revolution againsit Communism in his homeland of Polamd which expanded to the rest of (or should I say most of?) the Eastern Block.

Rhino-itall said...

Hey Abe tell us how you really feel. anyway, there is so much B.S. in that post that i wouldn't even know where to begin. So, as my rebuttal here representing the evil wing of the conservative republican party, i will say this. Ronald Reagan won not one, but two huge landslide national elections. First he trounced carter. Carter won only seven states total, and then, after his terrible policies took effect, and had been destroying the country for 4 years, he crushed mondale, in fact mondale only got his home state of minnesota, and the always important, washington dc. My thinking Abe is that if he was as bad as you say he was, maybe more of the country would have noticed. It just shows how out of the mainstream you were then, and you are now.

Donkeyhue said...

I think perhaps youre confusing the late great President Ronald Wilson Reagan with movie character Gordon Gecko. For your sake I hope that is the reason that your grasp on reality has been lost. Your ignorance is only rivaled by your arrogance. Is it your opinion that “grade B” actors have no place in politics, or is that strictly the realm for “grade A” types such as yourself and your liberal ilk in Hollywood today? I will however give your credit for your cleverness and originality. I see you took a synonym for cheat and combined it with a movie characters name that Pres. Reagan played to form the ingenious “Jipper”. Im glad to see your have grown tired of resorting to calling all Republican Nazis. The New Deal was a safety net, a short term fix to bring this country out of the Great Depression (which it did not accomplish) Forgive Pres. Reagan for trying to “slash” an antiquated program that failed to achieve its initial purpose forty some odd years ago and helped to create the welfare state we are living in today. Im glad to see that you acknowledged President Reagan DID stimulate the economy thru his policy of tax cuts, military spending (what countries do during wartime just ask your hero FDR), and reduced welfare state spending. However, I am sorry that you feel prosperity is a Constitutional right. As far as your attack on the First Lady Nancy Reagan, the “just say no” program was not intended to alter human behavior or provide an alternative to drug use. The purpose was to try and stop children from doing drugs in the first place. Even a first year History student could tell you that. Sorry to see you feel this is an unworthy cause. My favorite point/counterpoint you make is blaming Pres. Reagan for the creation of the “unholy marriage” between drugs, violence, and gangs, but then you rebut yourself by referencing the “enterprising (???) “ street tough Al Capone from the 1920’s (before Pres Reagan’s time I think) who was infamous for his “violence, drugs, and gang warfare. In regards to your Pres Reagan terrorism correlation I find it misleading and historically inaccurate at best, and ignorantly hateful and un-American at worst. Your hatred has blinded you to the evils that have ALWAYS existed, and youre blaming them on one man or one party shows your lack of any true thoughtful reasoning. I would be incredibly interested to hear your take on the legacy of Pres’ FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter. For the record I am one of the Gen X’ers that Pres Reagan “ruined” and me, my six figure income, and my Central park view apartment thank him for it.

Rachel said...

I think you should know that my Uncle voted for your demented idol in 1980. He did not make the same mistake in 1984. (I always thought it was fitting that Reagen would be re-elected in 1984; considering the famous book title of that same year and all.)


Unlike you Rhino, my Uncle Abraham was man enough (and I might add HUMANE enough) to admit that Reagen was a nice but befuddled man who implemented some truly destructive policies which may or may not have been the result of a degenerative brain condition. We both watched the first presidential debate between Reagen and Mondale in 1984, and when it was over, my Uncle turned to me and said "that man is suffering from Alzheimers," which was later proven true. In fact I still think it was a little strange that the announcement about Reagen's mental state came out AFTER he had left office--as if a degenerative brain disease suddenly displayed itself with no prior symptomology. Of course the symptoms HAD been there all along. The way he dozed off on camera beside Pope John Paul II, his confused state of mind during the above-mentioned debate, his occasional off the cuff (read off color remarks like "we star bombing in five minutes"), the way his handlers made sure that he worked from a script and tried to keep him away from impromputu situations: Those were all indications that the President was in a declining state state of mind.

And that raises an interesting question. Just who was running the country? Well, as it turned out, proven liars like Oliver North and John Poindexter. (Think Iran Contra.)

It seems odd that you wouldn't be aware of the fact that opinion poll after opinion poll showed that the American people liked Reagen PERSONALLY but disagreed with him on a wide range of ISSUES. For all intents and purposes, the Reagen Administration was a classic case of style over substance. He wasn't called the "Great Communicator" for nothing. The fact that he chose to communicate absolute rubbish isn't my fault nor my uncle's.

In addition, I would suggest that there was broad based support against Reagen as his administration ground mercilessly on. Hell, by the late 1980s even Reagen's personal popularity was on the wane--the public image of the loving, benevolent grandpa was wearing off. If he had been allowed to run for a third term there would have been serious doubts as to whether or not he could have won.

Of course I don't expect you to admit that (denial can be a real bitch), but then again we really don't care if you admit it or not. For now you're serving a useful purpose here, and to that end we openly invite your often "interesting" remarks.

And now, if you will excuse me, the kids need my attention and I have to begin work on lunch.

Have fun ducky.

Rachel

Rhino-itall said...

Reagan was the great communicator, but according to you, his "handlers" kept him on a tight leash? hmmm well i expect these little inconsistencies from liberals. Anyway, lets move on. , you say ......... "It seems odd that you wouldn't be aware of the fact that opinion poll after opinion poll showed that the American people liked Reagen PERSONALLY but disagreed with him on a wide range of ISSUES" ............ so that leads me to believe that the overwhelming majority of democrats who voted for him TWICE were either stupid, or they wanted America to fail. i would go with the latter, but either way it doesn't look good for you guys. And then, to top it off, even though "poll after poll" showed that the American people disagreed with him on the issues, they elected his vice president anyway! The reason why Bush got elected was because everyone thought it would be a continuation of the Reagan white house. he didn't get re-elected was because it wasn't. But hey, i'm sure you're right, I'm sure the American people are just stupid. Or maybe you're suffering from a degenerative brain disease? who knows? either way, once again it doesn't look good for you.

Enlightenment said...

I really wasn't going to take the time to answer this, but I'm in a good mood, so I thought I'd take a stab at it while Rachel is fixing din din. We're having fillet of Rhino, want to join us?

I think Donkey's arrival is an admission that Rhino has begun to repeat himself, although it seems to me that Donkey is only repeating Rhino (and us), but that's for our readers to decide.

Would that there something new here besides the usual Right Wing revisionism that is so often sold as the truth these days.

Where do I begin? AH! I know! Let's start with this....


RE: However, I am sorry that you feel prosperity is a Constitutional right

ANSWER: I'm equally sorry that you blieve that it should be granted to only a Plutocratic few. Don't worry. Rhino has already suggested that he enjoys being among the plutocractic few, though not in those words.

**********************

RE: The “just say no” program was not intended to alter human behavior or provide an alternative to drug use. The purpose was to try and stop children from doing drugs in the first place. Even a first year History student could tell you that.

ANSWER: Thanks for making our point for us. That's exactly what Abe was getting at and why Mrs. Reagen's idea was a study in futility. The alternative of just saying "no" was always out there.
Mrs. Reagen's aproach (or lack thereof) sounded good to the voters, and it made her look like a nice lady, but it was junk behavioral science. Hint hint. If you're REALLY interested in reducing drug abuse it MIGHT help to look at the scientific literature to determine what actually works before you make some empty, nebulous remark about just saying "no." As a policy, "Just Say No," was a joke.

Your idea that we would consider a drug free America to be an unworthy goal is little more than congenital imbecility. I'm a father of three , so don't tell me that I would consider a drug free America to be an unworthy goal. Your perspective on this might change when you grow up and have your own children. (I'm assuming that the information in our profile and that you are unmarried, not divorced with children). Until such time as that happens though, you'll forgive me if I dismiss your remarks as...boring.

*************

RE: The New Deal was a safety net, a short term fix to bring this country out of the Great Depression (which it did not accomplish).

ANSWER: Excuse me, but in the last half of this statement you only repeated what others from our side have already stated. As for the first part, you have confused the social spending and various works programs, which did very little to end the Great Depression, with the regulatory devices that were installed to prevent a future Depression.

I believe some of my team members here have already covered that. Of course, what you failed to mention was the fact that the Great Depression was caused by Republican policies during the 1920s. As stated in other posts, Roosevelt's greatest service came in the form of a psychological boost that the dour Republicans under Hoover were either unwilling or unable to provide. I shall simply refer you back to some of the previous posts. You seem tomknow where they are; knock yourself out.

On the other hand I would appreciate it if you would stop rewording our points and passing them off as your own. A little originality might be called for in the future.

******************

RE: My favorite point/counterpoint you make is blaming Pres. Reagan for the creation of the “unholy marriage” between drugs, violence, and gangs, but then you rebut yourself by referencing the “enterprising (???) “ street tough Al Capone from the 1920’s (before Pres Reagan’s time I think) who was infamous for his “violence, drugs, and gang warfare.

ANSWER: Thanks for restating Abe's point. To it I would only add the following.

The basic message of the 1980s was "greed is good." As a product of the 1980s I have always been a little disappointed in the shallow, self-serving nature of my fellow Gen-exers (I'm 37, by the way). They/we seem to know the price of everything but the value of nothing. In fact, when I was in seminary, my superiors thought of them/us as the latest "me" generation. But what else could you expect when you had an administration that was preaching the joys of greed and pirate competition?

The message of the Reagen administration was all to clear: Get ahead at any cost, which it sounds as if you have accomplished. Should we have been surprised when that message was enhanced by street kids? Of course not. In so many ways the values of your typical street gang are a perverted embellishment of the "enlightened self interest" (an oxymoron if ever there was one) that we heard from the your crowd during the 1980s and ever since.

Of course Abe and Rachel could have made another point. The Reagen Years not only saw a revival of the 1920s "greed is good" philosophy. In addition to the rise of money-grubbing drug gangs, we also saw the revival of right wing hate groups. That's right, I'm talking about the avdent of a new phenomonon--skin heads, Hate-mongering gangs The Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nation, and the John Birch Society weren't bad enough. Noooo. During the Reagen years we saw the rise of Nazi-loving
street thugs. Ah the joys of the 80s.


Speaking from both, a political and a sociological point of view, this was to be expected. When you shift as far to the right as Reagen wanted, the revitalization of the radical right was a given. As for this foolish remark:

"I find it misleading and historically inaccurate at best, and ignorantly hateful and un-American at worst."

What can I say? Rhino keeps coming here with comments like "I'll bet you really hate me now," or "you'd really hate my team mates." And yet you seem to be unaware of the fact that your own remarks are DRIPPING with hate, even wallowing in it. You seem to suffer from an irrational fear that someone out there DOESN'T hate you.
So let me put this rumor to rest. We do not hate you. You annoy us from time to time, but the truth of the matter is that you just aren't worth the effort to hate. In fact, after reading your decadent remarks, I actually feel a little sorry for you. Your life sounds a lot empiter and a lot more superficial than mine ever could be.

That we disagree with your revisionist view point is obvious, and if you think that's Un-American, I'm not about to tell you any different. Believe what you want to believe. We'll just have to disagree.

***********************

RE: For the record I am one of the Gen X’ers that Pres Reagan “ruined” and me, my six figure income, and my Central park view apartment thank him for it.

ANSWER: Boy, and you had the nerve to call US arrogant? That comment told our readers more about you as a man than you could have ever imagined. Do yourself a favor. Grow up. Get married. Have children. Take on some real life responsibilities beyond the very narrow confines of your bank account and stock portfolio. If you think financial gains are more important than human beings and doing the right things with your life, then I would submit that you are living a very lonely and superficial life.

Enlightenment said...

Actually, a lot of Americans voted for Bush based--again--on personality traits. Many people thought he'd be a nice guy to party with, although I never did understamd why someone would want to party with a recovering alcoholic.

For the record, Daddy Bush was a one term president, although in retrospect he was a bit classiere than his misbegotten spawn. You may have thought he would be a continuation of Reagen, but most people didn't know what to expect. They just knew they didn't like Gore's supercillious attitude towards everything.

Anonymous said...

This is for ALL of you! It was 20 fucking years ago! Can you bitch about something more recent?

Rhino-itall said...

Hey light, i will let the donkey defend himself, he is more than capable. but i do have one issue that i would like to address. Nancy Reagan was the first lady, i know you clinton lovers don't understand this, but the first lady isn't elected, she's not supposed to make policy, or propose socialist health care plans. She's supposed to have photo ops reading with school children and "just say no" anti drug campains.And commercials with arnold from different strokes. Thats what nancy was doing, so i think you should take it easy on that non point that you're trying to make. And i'm very upset that you don't hate me, i think if you try a little harder you can do it. don't give up on yourself, i haven't lost faith in you.

Rhino-itall said...

ummm light, did you have wine with the filet of rhino? Bush 1 didn't run against gore. and of course, everyone thought Bush would be 4 more years of Reaganite policies. if you're denying that, you're either misinformed, or disingenuous.

Donkeyhue said...

First off I want to thank you for taking time out of your day to respond to my comment O' Enlightened One. I usually let Rhino handle my light work however the sheer stupidity of this post (Ronny "The Jipper" Reagan is responsible for everything bad) compelled me to comment.

ANSWER: I'm equally sorry that you blieve that it should be granted to only a Plutocratic few. Don't worry. Rhino has already suggested that he enjoys being among the plutocractic few, though not in those words.
QUESTION: Do you not believe excellence and hard work should be rewarded? As Abe stated socialism in thoery and in practice does not work. Why would you still feel so strongly in favor of it???

...

ANSWER: Thanks for making our point for us. That's exactly what Abe was getting at and why Mrs. Reagen's idea was a study in futility. The alternative of just saying "no" was always out there.
Mrs. Reagen's aproach (or lack thereof) sounded good to the voters, and it made her look like a nice lady, but it was junk behavioral science. Hint hint. If you're REALLY interested in reducing drug abuse it MIGHT help to look at the scientific literature to determine what actually works before you make some empty, nebulous remark about just saying "no." As a policy, "Just Say No," was a joke.
QUESTION: So if you agree that "just say no" was already "out there", henceforth would be common sense, why would you argue against common sense???

...

ANSWER: Thanks for restating Abe's point. To it I would only add the following. The basic message of the 1980s was "greed is good."
QUESTION: Did you read his post? He blamed Pres Reagan for the re-emergance of crime. Do you actually believe thats true? Do you think crime was in a vacuum until 1980. I didnt argue his point because he didnt have one and if he did he negated it with his Capone and required reading for 12 yr olds reference. NEXT..

...

ANSWER: Boy, and you had the nerve to call US arrogant? That comment told our readers more about you as a man than you could have ever imagined. Do yourself a favor. Grow up. Get married. Have children. Take on some real life responsibilities beyond the very narrow confines of your bank account and stock portfolio. If you think financial gains are more important than human beings and doing the right things with your life, then I would submit that you are living a very lonely and superficial life.
QUESTION: You cant be serious? You will begrudge me for having pride in my success just because of the inner resentment you have for your own failings and for the fact I have no children? Sit down. Relax and think about the fallacy of your argument. I was a "victim" of Pres Reagans social cuts being that I am from a single parent, high crime, povery stricten background, and I genuinely sincerely thank him for restoring pride in this country that enabled me to succeed.I very easily could have been just another statistic that you "liberal thinkers" like to quote but never help.

TRUTH: Ronald Regan will be remembered as a GREAT President, but was he without sin, was he a saint. Of course not, name a man let alone a President that is. However it is absolutely ludicrous to insinuate that he was responsibel for crime, market crashes, terrorism, violence, drug use, cyclical interest rates etc etcetera. It is truly sad what has become of the modern day Democratic party, a party of rhetoric, name calling, and double speak. I challenge you to name me one original idea from the Democrats in the last 10 years that was not rooted in socialism.

Game Over. Turn off the lights!!!

Anonymous said...

Control your emotions, Donkey. They're revealing a personality disorder that's even deper than Rhino's And you are right about one thing--the game is indeed over.


Check and mate. We win

Anonymous said...

FRANK ZAPPA RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah. That's right. Al Gore ran in the Democratic Primaries, but was defeated by Michael Duckass. My GOD that was a terrible election. Two of the worst candidates I could have imagined. I voted for a third party that year.

Rhino-itall said...

yes anon, gore lost, so he DIDN'T run against Bush. But i was hoping someone else would correct dan, although i am a dastardly republican, however i don't like to pick on children.

Anonymous said...

You're both wrong. Gore ran against Duckass in the 1988 primary but the real opponent in mind was Daddy Bush. And if I recall correctly, Gore supported Duckass which means he technically opposed Bush. At the very least he didn't stump for Daddy Bush, who would have been a hell of a lot better than the letch we suffered under during the 90's.

Rhino-itall said...

Actually anon, we're not both wrong. i'm right, and correct as usual. As i said, Bush snr. never ran against gore. there is no technically, why would gore a democrat stump for Bush a republican? And yes clinton was a bad guy, but Bush snr. didn't deserve re election. He caved in and betrayed his Reagan legacy, that's why perot got 18% of the vote, and that's what gave clinton the victory. Have a good weekend everyone, and happy veterans day.

Daniel Gallagher said...

Right back at yah Rhino

Donkeyhue said...

Very intersting how 'enlightenment' disapears after his argument is discredited and 'anonymous' shows up spewing the same pyscho-babble about emotional disorders. Can all you 1st year psych students say Projecting?

Anonymous said...

Thank you!
[url=http://swpxzvaq.com/ysub/sxka.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://fblviaae.com/xtxv/aouv.html]Cool site[/url]

Anonymous said...

Well done!
My homepage | Please visit

Anonymous said...

Great work!
http://swpxzvaq.com/ysub/sxka.html | http://fjkxxplm.com/cabi/dhng.html