Ron Reagan Jr Tells BCE to get off his dad's corpse

[FORD]

Reagan's Son Chides Administration For Invoking Reagan On Iraq
Fri Jun 18 2004 10:23:25 ET

(from closet boy Drudge's site)

Ronald Prescott Reagan has choice words for President Bush -- not words of approval.

He told Chris Matthews that administration officials have no business invoking the Reagan name to justify war in Iraq."

Reagan: "My father never felt the need to wrap himself in anybody else's mantle or pretend to be anybody else. I don't know what's wrong with these people -- they have to keep invoking him. It is their administration, their war. If they can't stand on their own two feet, they're no Ronald Reagans, for sure."

END

[Guitar Shark]

Is this the gay ballet dancer son or the other one?

[FORD]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Is this the gay ballet dancer son or the other one?

It's the ballet dancer, though apparently not gay, as he's married with kids now. Michael Reagan's the other one, and he's a Busheep talk radio host who apparently doesn't have a problem with the neocon shitbags cashing in on dad's legacy.

Which is probably why the rest of the Reagans don't seem to get along with him very well.

[jacksmar]

Neocon shitbags? I want to be just like you Ford. For anyone to do that follow the simple rules:

1) You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.
2) You have to be against capital punishment, but for abortion on demand, in short you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.
3) You have to believe that the same public school teacher who can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
4) You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and doctors are overpaid.
5) You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese.
6) You have to believe that global temperatures is not affected by cyclical, documented changes in the Sun, but is really affected by SUVs.
7) You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay is natural.
8)You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
9) You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but animal rights activists who've never been outside Seattle do.
10) You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
11) You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.
12) You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians start all wars.
13) You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels of entertainment can't deliver the quality that PBS does.
14) You have to believe the NRA is evil, because it stands up for the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they attempt to create a new Constitution out of thin air.
15) You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too high.
16) You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Dolly Madison or Thomas Edison.
17) You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.
18) You have to believe that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV.
19) You have to believe Hilary Clinton is really a lady and Rosie O'Donnell is really funny.
20) You have to believe that conservatives are racists, but that black people couldn't make it without your help.
21) You have to believe the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

Necon shitbags. I still don’t know what neocon means, but I want to espouse the ideas you have. It takes a shitbag to know one.
:rolleyes: )

[FORD]

That was too idiotic to warrant a response (plus it's been posted here 20 times already)

To answer your question though, the neocon shitbags are these traitourous PNAC pieces of shit who are trying to build a global fascist state under the cover of a war on (fictional) terrorism. It is not synonymous with, nor is it exclusive to, the Republican party, but up until recently, the majority of neocon shitbags were supposed Republicans. The neocon infiltration into the Democratic party through the DLC changed all of that however.

I have no problem with true conservatives, aside from legitimate policy differences. Neocons though are the enemy of all Americans, regardless of party affiliation. THEY did 9-11, THEY killed Paul Johnson, Nick Berg, and Daniel Pearl, and THEY are fucking liars and murderers, every last one of them.

[jacksmar]

20 times? Too close to the truth?
Well, fear not little man. I’m not at all a true conservative by your definition. Roth and I are gun owners for starters. So by your definition, Roth and I don’t measure up.

Liars and murderers? Was it murder when we (the US) killed 1300 in Bosnia?
By the way, the Berg video didn’t show Bush anywhere in there with a knife. You must have a different version.
And you win this war on terrorism or any other war by killing your enemy. I suggest you stay out of that argument and here’s why: Take a trip to Columbia or Chile and see what hasn’t been in the news lately. News flash: They hate the US down there too.

It doesn’t have anything to do with Iraq or Pakistan or the Middle East. People hate the US for their own reasons and that means they hate you, too. They see us as “murderers and liars”. I would think anyone that was too smart for response to the above list would have known that or is that conveniently forgotten for personal reasons. It’s nothing new. Here’s the headline from back in 1997 LA Times: Colombian drug lords bring terror to Caribbean paradise

“But some were rearrested last year at the request of U.S. authorities who wanted them extradited to face drug-trafficking charges in Miami. After their arrests, flyers and graffiti appeared all over town denouncing U.S. imperialism. “

Damn. Back in 1997, people hated us. Fast forward to 2004: They still do.

Now the supposed “they” won’t like the US anymore when we kill more of them. But believe it or not, there’s a point “they” get to where it’s not in their best interest to test the US. That happens when you systematically eliminate them and in this case in the middle east, that’s exactly what we’re doing. And it’s exactly what you’re doing, whether you believe that or not. No lie.

[FORD]

Originally posted by jacksmar
20 times? Too close to the truth?
Well, fear not little man. I’m not at all a true conservative by your definition. Roth and I are gun owners for starters. So by your definition, Roth and I don’t measure up.

What the fuck does gun ownership have to do with this? When did I say anything about gun ownership?

[quote]Liars and murderers? Was it murder when we (the US) killed 1300 in Bosnia?

There was genocide taking place in Bosnia. Last time that happenned in Europe, 12 million people were slaughtered. It was a wise thing to stop that before it progressed further.


By the way, the Berg video didn’t show Bush anywhere in there with a knife. You must have a different version.

For all you know, Bush could have been there. I doubt he was, but what you saw in the video were 4 guys in masks. At least 2 of them were over 6 feet tall, which isn't common among Arabs. And NONE of them were missing a leg, as Al Zaqwari supposedly .is Also, the background of the Berg video looks exactly like the now infamous Abu Grahib prison. And finally, Berg was KNOWN to be in custody of the US military, which was confirmed by e mails sent to his family.


And you win this war on terrorism or any other war by killing your enemy.

Doesn't work that way in this case, because there is NO defined enemy. In WWII, you aimed for the guys with swastikas on their uniforms. In the Revolutionary war you fired at the Redcoats once you saw the whites of their eyes. Good enough. As it has been in any war throughout history.

But what does a terrorist look like? What does an Al Qaeda member look like? You have an answer for that, other than a racist stereotype? Do you even have any proof Al Qaeda exists, apart from what the Bush Criminal Empire & PNAC have told you (and the corporate media)??


I suggest you stay out of that argument and here’s why: Take a trip to Columbia or Chile and see what hasn’t been in the news lately. News flash: They hate the US down there too. [/b]

What you fail to acknowlwedge is WHY that would be the case. Here's a hint - CIA sponsored coup d'etat's probably had something to do with it. And in Colombia's case there's the fact that the CIA hates competition in the drug business. And the CIA has been pulling the strings in the Middle East for a long time, along with their partners the Pakistani ISI and Israeli Mossad. CIA agent Tim Osman was at the center of many of those operations. Bet you can't guess what name he's better known by.....


It doesn’t have anything to do with Iraq or Pakistan or the Middle East. People hate the US for their own reasons and that means they hate you, too. They see us as “murderers and liars”. I would think anyone that was too smart for response to the above list would have known that or is that conveniently forgotten for personal reasons. It’s nothing new. Here’s the headline from back in 1997 LA Times: Colombian drug lords bring terror to Caribbean paradise

“But some were rearrested last year at the request of U.S. authorities who wanted them extradited to face drug-trafficking charges in Miami. After their arrests, flyers and graffiti appeared all over town denouncing U.S. imperialism. “

Damn. Back in 1997, people hated us. Fast forward to 2004: They still do.

Again, they have some valid reasons, thanks to the CIA, who have raped and pi8llaged their countries on behalf of corporate interests.


Now the supposed “they” won’t like the US anymore when we kill more of them. But believe it or not, there’s a point “they” get to where it’s not in their best interest to test the US. That happens when you systematically eliminate them and in this case in the middle east, that’s exactly what we’re doing. And it’s exactly what you’re doing, whether you believe that or not. No lie.

Define "they" and "them". The BCE can't and won't do this and you can't either. Because with no concrete enemy, this fictional "war" can be defined however they want. So how about it? Who is "they"??

Who is a terrorist? Tim McVeigh was certainly a terrorist, as is his partner Terry Nichols. Eric Rudolph is a terrorist. So does that mean we declare war on white right wing extremists in this country? What about the IRA? Or assholes who bomb abortion clinics and/or assassinate the doctors?

Those terrorists have done more damage to this country than any citizen of Iraq or Afghanistan. Or Syria, Iran, or any other country on the neocon hit list.

So how do you justifiy an illogical and often illegal war on an undefined "enemy"?

[Warham]

I'd like to know what John Kerry would do about terrorism. I haven't gotten a clear answer yet.

[jacksmar]

Bullshit, Ford. It was only wise because, apparently, your guy did it. Mass graves didn’t mean a thing to you then or now, nor does gassing people
Berg was the product of the loser free spirit tune in, turn on, drop out 60’s counter culture. Blame the parents and the killers.
You win the terrorism war by knowing who, what, and where are the enemy. Patriot Act Get it? Oh and Tim Osman was OBL at one point? Kook theory? Still, proves the connection and money with the drug cartels and terrorism. Still more typical bleat from a casual use sycophant. So it made you happy OBL was successful?
Get off the fence little man, pick a side. You’re allowed to be what ever you aspire to. Just leave the hard work to the grown ups.

I suggest you read about the first 100 pages of The Gathering Storm to understand how define any enemy and resolve to defeat them.

Gun ownership has everything to do with your side of a debate or argument. It defines what you believe and what you are. http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html
You can give me all the feedback you want and be sure to read the whole article before you respond. Peruse it. ( heh)