"RHF" wrote:

The Truth is all to apparent by your
postings that you simply like "Bad
Mouthing" the USofA. (snip)


No, the truth is that you just can't see, or don't want to see, that I'm
not "bad mouthing" the USA, but rather what has been done to it by recent
occupants of the White House.

By the way, the word is "too," not "to." Take care.

Stewart

In article . net,
"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote:

(snip) The best that can be said about you is that at least you
had the decency to wait until he was buried to denigrate him.


The truth doesn't denigrate. I was there at the time to see that
shift in
European thinking. And, by leaving this country not long before
Reagan took office and returning not long after he left, I was also
able to more clearly see what eight years of his presidency had done
to this country. I returned to see homeless people in the streets of
even small towns (something I had rarely seen outside the larger
cities before), violent crime like I had never seen before, stagnated
wages for workers (most were earning no more than when I left),
sharply increased prices for most everything, shocking corporate
greed, jobs moving overseas, a growing immigration problem, a
declining military, declining political freedoms, a country growing
more politically divided then I had ever seen it before in my
lifetime, and so on. In my opinion, anyone who actually thinks Reagan
was good for this country doesn't really give a damn about this
country. The same could probably be said of Bush Sr, Clinton, and
Bush Jr. Each have taken this country to a new low.

I can only agree with your first sentence "The truth doesn't
denigrate."

Unfortunately for you and your last post that you sniped the contents
of the world leaders of that time and current time do not agree with
what you call truth.

My best guess as to why you don't try to defend your last post because
it is indefensible and that this post is just a continuation of a
baseless rant.

Again as with the last post by you I would argue that except for a very
small group of far left wing looneys you are pretty much by yourself.

Don't forget the second election of Reagan for president carried 48 out
of 50 states. Don't forget the massive outpouring of affection for this
man upon his death. Don't forget most of what you pose as factual is
just BS.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote:

(snip) My best guess as to why you don't
try to defend your last post because it is
indefensible... (snip)


Since you didn't contradict anything said in that first post, there is
nothing to defend.


(snip) Don't forget the second election of
Reagan for president carried 48 out of 50
states. (snip)


In an election where only about half of the eligible voters in this
country even participated.


Don't forget the massive outpouring of affection
for this man upon his death.


From his supporters? Certainly. But, for the rest, you're confusing
politeness with affection. Or do you truly believe most non-Republicans are
just gushing with "affection for this man?"


(snip) Don't forget most of what you pose as
factual is just BS.


Most? Well at least you do admit some of what I said is factual. In
reality, it all is - even if that is difficult for you to admit to. Take
care, Telamon. Perhaps we'll have another discussion in this newsgroup
sometime in the future.

Stewart

= = = "Pete" wrote in message
= = = . rogers.com...
"James Nipper" wrote in message
...


As the majority of Americans will agree, I think Pres Reagan was one of
the
best, if not the very best, President that America has ever had.


On the other hand, I can see why so many liberals would hate him. The
reason
for this is that the liberals oppose all of the decent pro-American things
that he stood for. One can't hate America and the ideals of this
country
without hating Pres Reagan.

--James--


We often wonder how Hitler managed to get into power and convince so many
otherwise perfectly normal Germans. Well, this is exactly the kind of
thinking that can do that, ie. if someone voices a different opinion, it's
anti-American. That false path has been followed by many countries and
civilizations before.
Pete


PETE,

"if someone voices a different opinion, it's anti-American."

NO - If someone voices an anti-american opinion, It Is Anti-American [.]

~ RHF

..

DiverD,

"Just ask Jane Wyman"

Since you Begged the Question... Here is the Answer )

"America has lost a great president and a great,
kind and gentle man." - Jane Wyman

"First Wife Lauds Reagan"
Long Beach Press Telegram
Friday, June 11, 2004
http://www.presstelegram.com/Stories...208126,00.html
PALM SPRINGS Jane Wyman, the first wife of Ronald Reagan,
has released a statement through a friend praising the
nation's 40th president.

r e s p e c t ~ RHF
..
..
= = = (Diverd4777) wrote in message
= = = ...
Yeah, as a person he was probably an OK Guy;

(- Just ask Jane Wyman )

He was a B Movie actor / Lifeguard who had a good speech writer;

Probably a decent human being, politics aside..



In article ,
(RHF) writes:


DiverD,

Say what you will.

But that does not change the fact that anywhere from
2/3 to 3/4 of Americans in the last several years say:

That they "Liked" Ronald W Reagan as a person and thought
that he was a 'good' President and had respected him [.]

In article . net,
"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

Snip

Most? Well at least you do admit some of what I said is factual. In
reality, it all is - even if that is difficult for you to admit to.
Take care, Telamon. Perhaps we'll have another discussion in this
newsgroup sometime in the future.

What's the point Dwight. You can't have a substantive discussion if
basic fasts of a situation are not agree on. That you inhabit a
parallel universe to the one I live in is all I take away from this
"discussion."

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

Exactly, Pete. It's fanaticism devoid of
all rational thought. In all honesty, I suspect
if George Bush announced tomorrow that
he was disbanding Congress and assuming
all control of this country, the vast majority
of Republicans would support him, would
openly argue (even right here in this
newsgroup) in defense of that, and would
be willing, without hesitation, to go to war
and kill Americans who opposed his
takeover. Indeed, something very much like
this may actually be the future of America -
perhaps not with Bush, but a very real
possibility with some Republican leader in
the not so distant future.


Notice it has been more than a week since I posted the above and not a
single Republican in this newsgroup has denied any possibility of this, said
it was a bad idea, or objected in any way.

Stewart

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

Exactly, Pete. It's fanaticism devoid of
all rational thought. In all honesty, I suspect
if George Bush announced tomorrow that
he was disbanding Congress and assuming
all control of this country, the vast majority
of Republicans would support him, would
openly argue (even right here in this
newsgroup) in defense of that, and would
be willing, without hesitation, to go to war
and kill Americans who opposed his
takeover. Indeed, something very much like
this may actually be the future of America -
perhaps not with Bush, but a very real
possibility with some Republican leader in
the not so distant future.



Notice it has been more than a week since I posted the above and not a
single Republican in this newsgroup has denied any possibility of this, said
it was a bad idea, or objected in any way.

Stewart


The idea is so silly we didn't think we needed to.

Mark S. Holden wrote:
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote:
Exactly, Pete. It's fanaticism devoid of
all rational thought. bla bla yap yap

Notice it has been more than a week since I posted the above and not a
single Republican in this newsgroup has denied any possibility of this, said
it was a bad idea, or objected in any way.

The idea is so silly we didn't think we needed to.

I don't argue with my plants, either. But at least my plants know
better than to assert that silence equals assent.

--
Spammers are people who are too lazy and cowardly to rob liquor stores, but
still want to make money by stealing instead of working.
-- Morely Dotes, The Open Sourceror's Apprentice

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 23:21:08 -0400, "Mark S. Holden"
wrote:

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

Exactly, Pete. It's fanaticism devoid of
all rational thought. In all honesty, I suspect
if George Bush announced tomorrow that
he was disbanding Congress and assuming
all control of this country, the vast majority
of Republicans would support him, would
openly argue (even right here in this
newsgroup) in defense of that, and would
be willing, without hesitation, to go to war
and kill Americans who opposed his
takeover. Indeed, something very much like
this may actually be the future of America -
perhaps not with Bush, but a very real
possibility with some Republican leader in
the not so distant future.



Notice it has been more than a week since I posted the above and not a
single Republican in this newsgroup has denied any possibility of this, said
it was a bad idea, or objected in any way.

Stewart


The idea is so silly we didn't think we needed to.


Doesn't seem silly to me. It will happen. It's chilling.