1. MrWindows says:

    #33: Yes, I mean the Reagan ideal that significantly reformed the tax code so as to enable the record surpluses that Clinton’s administration took credit for.
    The Reagan that pushed for a balanced budget amendment, and seriously considered assuming the existence of a line-item veto not explicitly mentioned in the constitution in order to balance the budget unilaterally. Unfortunately, no administration has dared to seriously test that theory.
    And since we’re on the subject, why don’t you mention the fact that revenues increased so dramatically during the Reagan administration specifically due to the tax cuts, that the Democrat-controlled House through all 8 years giddily increased entitlement programs (albeit with consent of a Republican-controlled Senate for 6 of 8 years) in exchange for the increases in defense spending.

  2. Phydeau says:

    #34 Riiiiiiiiight… those nice Republicans wanted to balance the budget, but those mean ol’ Democrats stopped them! Yeah, that’s the ticket, sure.

    And you’re giving credit to Reagan for stuff that happened four years after he left office???


  3. tcc3 says:

    Not just that Phydeau, but IIRC, there was a recession in there too. That’s some delayed reaction.

  4. Phydeau says:

    …hm, but now that I think about it, it does make sense, in a twisted wingnut way. Reagan was given credit for good things happening in the Clinton era. Clinton was blamed for the bad things happening in the Dubya era. And mere months after Dubya left office, Obama is being blamed for 8 years of Republican f*ckups. I got it:

    1. Anything good that happens during a Democratic administration is obviously because of some previous Republican administration.

    2. Anything bad that happens during a Democratic administration is in no way related to any previous Republican administration.

    3. Anything bad that happens during a Republican administration is obviously because of some previous Democratic administration.

    Makes perfect sense! To a wingnut, anyway. 🙂

  5. Shubee says:

    Clearly, Obama is a cowardly Bush clone when it comes to favoring Wall Street. I’m going to vote for Ralph Nader – again!

  6. deowll says:

    If she wins several people posting to this news group will have strokes so I guess for them the world really will end.

  7. amodedoma says:

    Hey, you guys might be on to something. I had exactly the same impression with Obama when he won the presidency. Oh shit, the end is near if they’re gonna let a black man be president. (not racist-just old)
    Sarah Palin’s about as offensive as a fart on a pig farm. Apart from being a republican with tits, I don’t see where she’s doing anything out of place for one of those.

  8. smartalix says:

    What I don’t get is the right-wing confusion with rhetoric. Don’t they understand complex concepts?

    Those that laugh at Palin do so because they find her stupid and amusing, not because htey fear her. She is dangerous, but not because she has any talents in that direction. She is dangerous because we’ve just recently gotten past an incompetent presidency, and have no desire to plunge into another one because the GOP needs another empty suit to front for the power brokers.

    Can you show me any language from any Palin despiser that shows fear? She could be any right-wing neo-fascist steath-racist poster child and get the same level of derision from me. Hell, Beck would be almost a better shot for her crown if he wasn’t mentally unstable to boot.

  9. chris says:

    I saw some promotional materials for her new show. The tag line is: “There’s always more on the Sarah Palin Show!”

  10. kscbear says:

    I think the Audio-Animatronics Ronald Reagan at the Walt Disney Hall of Presidents stands a better chance of winning than Sarah Palin. Oh, wait…that Reagan has already won… TWICE!! LOL

  11. Lol, that’s perfect.


Bad Behavior has blocked 5374 access attempts in the last 7 days.