Here is an interesting diatribe from RON REAGAN on why it is so important to reject the Liar in Chief, GW Bush.

http://www.esquire.com/cgi-bin/printtool/p...n.html&x=25&y=8

"Spin has long been the ligua franca of the political realm. But George W. Bush and his administration have taken 'normal' mendacity to a startling new level far beyond lies of convenience. On top of the usual massaging of public perception, they traffic in big lies, indulge in any number of symptomatic small lies, and, ultimately, have come to embody dishonesty itself. They are a lie. And people, finally, have started catching on."

"...It's one thing to get trashed by Michael Moore. But when Nobel laureates, a vast majority of the scientific community, and a host of current and former diplomats, intelligence operatives, and military officials line up against you, it becomes increasingly difficult to characterize the opposition as fringe wackos."

Ron Reagan

Ronald Regan would be out campaigning hard for Bush, Ronald Regan Jr. is a miserable failure and a disgrace to his family.

I've also noticed that you've made the decision to officially troll, oh well, I knew no one could actually believe that stuff, at least now I know your real game.

You and your conspiracy nut communist buddy Huey will have so much fun.

You libs really embarassed yourselves with this one

what about Nancy? she doesnt support Dubya either.

is she a "miserable failure" and a "disgrace" to the Gipper's family too?


im beginning to think you'd curse your own mother if she didnt support George Bush.

-smh-

We need to remember the basic disagreement between Ron Reagan and GWB is whether it is ethical and moral to promote stem cell research.

Not even the great President Reagan can control how his family speaks about future officeholders. I applaud Ron Reagan for having the guts to stand up for what he believes. I also applaud Michael Reagan for being willing to publicly disagree with his own family.

As I mentioned in another thread covering this, the annamosity goes back further and is deeper than what you all are thinking about. Nancy Reagan and Barbara Bush simply do not like each other. They are the matriarcs of their respective families.

And women can stir up more controversary than men can begin to even dream about. If your wife does not like someone, you BETTER NOT like them either, or your life will be miserable from there on out. After all, you will not be taking care of her needs.

Incorrect.
Ron Reagen is opposed to George W. Bush in every way. Not just on stem cell research. Read the article in the link.

Maybe Nancy's star charts and astrology books told her this Used to be liberals joked on Nancy for being 'out there' and didn't put much stock in her 'cosmic' opinions. Interesting how a person's credibility changes when you all of a sudden agree with them.

LOL!

The problem with democrats is they are opportunists who react to rather than act on problems. Thus, they set the country up for endless problems. They don't seem to have any long range reasoning abilities past the first step of their plans. But they are very tricky. They make open ended remarks and leave the public to their own assumptions of what they're talking about. People fill in the blanks with what makes them happy. Two words - delusional followers.

Au Contraire Jaybee. You are talking around yourself. Let me show you why. First you state that they only react. If that were the case, then how did we get into this Collectivist mess in the first place? It is through their own majority and leadership that this creeping Socialism has occurred.

Second, their goals are indeed long range. They are out to make the US a Collectivist nervana! And they know that this will only take time. Sort of like boiling the frog. You place it is cold water and then slowly turn up the heat over time.

And third, you state that they have faulty reasoning abilities, but then you go on and state that they are "very tricky". I think that that is an oxymoron. To be tricky automatically necessitates a certain amount of reasoning abilities.

I think what you were really trying to state was that their ability to view the world objectively, and not subjectively, is somewhat impared. Am I correct?

Hmm....let me try to clarify. You're exactly right that the creeping Socialism is a goal of the Democratic Party. So, in fact, they do have a plan. I have an old out-of-print book written by a defector from the Communist Party of the USSR in the early part of last century that outlines the plan as a specific plan of attack to covertly convert the US to Socialism. It's a scary read because what the author says will be the course of creeping action is and has been playing out for decades via the Democratic Party. We are now at a point in the process where it is like you mentioned in another thread.....an aircraft carrier trying to turn around in the ocean.....we will either see what is happening and turn it away or we will not see it and the process will all but unstoppable. The major thing used to take over is tricking the people to be emotionally involved instead of objectively involved in government issues and to want more and more issues to be government ruled.

So what I was trying to say, and didn't do too well, was that they are opportunists by design, deliberately to set up conditions which favor socialistic mindsets. They don't offer objectivity. They prey on emotions by not offering any real long term reasonings past saying they're going to do this and that, just leaving it that they are going to please everyone. It IS very tricky because many people believe they MUST have a plan and don't ask questions about it for the sole reason that they have offered nothing to question except to ask, what is the plan? whereby if anyone were to ask that question the answer would be 'better than the Republican one' as if there is something inherently wrong with the Republican one, whereby people then think, Yeah! Go Democrats! Make things better for me! So the plan is to leave things in the first step of the plan by stating meerly a goal which sounds good to anyone who would take a grab bag instead of selecting based on need. They don't say how the plan will be because it will involve socialistic stradegies which would not appeal to many of the very people who support them. Call it an open-ended stradegy to deceive as necessary to promote socialism.

I guess you're right. It boils down to objectivity versus subjectivity, but I think the plan is to create subjectivity through a very objective albeit unformally announced plan to turn our government toward socialism which would never happen if people didn't see things subjectively.

Thanks for the brain exercise! I'll try to do better if this didn't make sense!

Ok, here is the latest in this controversary. In the NewsMax piece, Nancy Reagan Strongly Endorses President Bush, the former First Lady is coming out in favour of President Bush.

I still stand by my earlier assessment about some bad blood between the Bush and Reagan families, but this latest statement should put the contentious issue to rest once and for all.