DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Are BHO's speeches more specific?
Ronald Reagan was a great man
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
Are BHO's speeches more specific?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Yes, in general.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Bullshit, in general.Yes, in general.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
well that's generally specific isn't it? Ya know, kinda like being totally partial.Bullshit, in general.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Like being that portly skinny guy?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Exactly!
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Depends on what he's talking about.
Why don't you ask the GOP'ers that were at that retreat in Baltimore? Better yet, read the transcript.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I'll go by his campaign speeches, you know that hopey-changy thing.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Yeah, a generalized campaign speech is by nature vague. However, policy speeches, etc. have to be a little more specific. Like I said, the speech Obama made in Baltimore put the kibosh on the accusation made against Obama in this instance.
Reagan was just acting...blowing off ideals with little substance based in reality. His controlled press conferences and such were legendary.
For more on Reagan, check out the book "There He Goes Again. Reagan's Reign of Error" by Mark Green published around 1981.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Wow Mark Green no wonder you're view of history is distorted. :lol:
I would say "tear down this wall" was sorta specific, doncha think?
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Wow Mark Green no wonder you're view of history is distorted. :lol:
I would say "tear down this wall" was sorta specific, doncha think?
Obviously, you didn't read the book....a collection of direct quotes, statements and speeches by Reagan that are compared to the actual facts of the time presented by the organizations envolved.
Your false hysterics cannot hide your willful ignorance. As for "tear down this wall"...another bit of posturing that belied the FACT that Reagans policies and lack of diplomacy DELAYED Gorbechev's endeavors to do just that. Do your homework before you type....I'm tired of doing it for you.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Again this is more of your opinion based on a distorted view of reality. Otherwise you'd come up with an actual quote followed up with some evidence instead of again asking me to read some book that distorted your reality in the first place.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Again this is more of your opinion based on a distorted view of reality. How would you know? By your own admission, you don't read any material that you perceive is wrong just based on the author or publisher or subject matter. Again, your willful ignorance is your own undoing, and renders your accusations illogical, if not absurd. Otherwise you'd come up with an actual quote followed up with some evidence instead of again asking me to read some book that distorted your reality in the first place.
Again, when I produce quotes or links to reference material, YOU DISMISS IT OUT OF HAND WITHOUT ACTUALLY READING SAID MATERIAL. Then you STILL blather on as if you're actually informed.
Sorry bunky, but I don't play by your double standard. When YOU are willing to practice what you preach, THEN you can demand same standards from others. Fair is fair.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Actually, the same pattern emerges with you. You link to a long article and expect me to figure out some point that you are trying to make. In this case you expect me to buy a book and read it, then figure out some point that you are trying to make.
Why don't you just make your point?
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
You're such a liar......I make a statement and supply proof of what I assert. If you're too damned stupid or lazy to READ the material, that's not my problem. You keep claiming that the linked material is not relevent....How would you know? By your own admission, you don't read any material that you perceive is wrong just based on the author or publisher or subject matter. Now you're saying the material I link is irrelevent....How would you know if you didn't read it? And if you don't discuss details, why the hell should I take your vague generalizations as a substitute for concrete, informative analysis and criticism. Again, your willful ignorance is your own undoing, and renders your accusations illogical, if not absurd.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
So by your logic, I can "prove" a point like, say, "Obama raised taxes on the poor and middle class", here's my link proving it:
www.irs.gov
This is going to be great, since I can win any argument this way without having to use logic and reason.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
So by your logic, I can "prove" a point like, say, "Obama raised taxes on the poor and middle class", here's my link proving it:
www.irs.gov
This is going to be great, since I can win any argument this way without having to use logic and reason.
No, because all you're doing is just giving a general reference to an index of a site to support your specific opinion. That is not only useless, but dishonest on your part.
Unlike your example, my links go to pages that actually discuss the specific topic in question, and if need be gives sub-links to further valid documentation and proof. As the chronological posts of this threads bare witness that I'm telling the truth on this, we come back to the FACT that YOU stated that YOU DID NOT EVEN READ THE INFORMATION ON THE LINK I PROVIDED. So you're still just lying, denying and dodging.....which I guess is about all you're capable of, as it would give you the last word (useless as it may be). My statements of Reagan stand, as you cannot logically or factually disprove them, despite your dislike of them. Carry on.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Ah, but to take your tactic to its logical conclusion, I can "prove" anything, just as I stated earlier: by linking to some web site. It makes no difference if your link is 10 paragraphs and mine is 100,000. In fact, the more information, the more unlikely that you will put forth the effort to prove me wrong.
This new debate tactic that you taught me is going to be awesome; thanks!
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Ah, but to take your tactic to its logical conclusion, I can "prove" anything, just as I stated earlier: by linking to some web site. It makes no difference if your link is 10 paragraphs and mine is 100,000. In fact, the more information, the more unlikely that you will put forth the effort to prove me wrong.
This new debate tactic that you taught me is going to be awesome; thanks!
There you have it folks...this idiot just post variations of the same illogical blathering, and then uses his own version of reality to justify his nonsense. All one has to do is just check the chronology of the exchanges on this thread to see what a liar he is...and how having the last lie/word is the extent of his insipid stubborness. He's done.
So by your logic, I can "prove" a point like, say, "Obama raised taxes on the poor and middle class", here's my link proving it:
www.irs.gov
This is going to be great, since I can win any argument this way without having to use logic and reason.
Nice job ....hes been pwned and boned by his own words....