Re: A ton of old lies

[Jim Topp <jtopp@ophelia.ucs.indiana.edu>]

>>So your definition of "damage" is winning the Cold War and lowering taxes,
>
>Jim:
>
>The culmination of decades of work by thousands, and HE gets the credit? I
>think not. You must have forgotten it happened during Bush's five minutes
>anyway.

During arms negotiation, Gorbachev wanted Reagan to stop the Strategic
Defense Initiative (SDI), Reagan said "No." The Soviets were forced to
spend money they couldn't afford to try to keep up militarily. This
spending weakened the Soviet Union and led to its downfall.

>As for taxes, most people's went up.

That's a lie.

>For the record. Most of us aren't in the top two percent, you see.
>I know it's hard for you to understand, but you must...you must...

I do understand. I have facts, truth, and reason on my side.

>As for my definition of damage, how much money does the greatest country on
>earth, leader of the free world, still owe because of this one man? How long
>will our children have to pay off his 12 year party, to which most of us
>were not invited? Don't even try me on this one.

What are you babbling about? The deficit? The spending of the Democratic
congress was responsible for the deficits of the '80s and '90s. The
Republican congress is responsible for the balanced budgets and budget
surpluses we have now.

>Reagan was a REAL criminal,
>not some guy getting a little consensual sex when he shouldn't. Reagan's
>lies were BIG, serious, and affected the entire population of this country.

I wasn't talking about his adultery. You think that was the worst thing he
did and the rest doesn't matter. Did you notice that when Clinton was
impeached, none of the charges dealt with adultery? They were perjury and
obstruction of justice, REAL crimes.

>>which gave us the economic prosperity we still enjoy today?
>
>THAT man is still in office now, and his partner will be in for the next 8,

So what has Clinton done to give us prosperity?

>so don't sweat it...I'm very relaxed. Happy, even. We have a ton of new Who
>coming, and today I'm off to the Smokies to camp this morning (despite the
>predicted 20 degree nights).

Stay warm and have a good time.

>>I second that!
>
>Tracy:
>
>OK, sorry. Just wanted to set the record straight.

That's funny.

>You know, we wouldn't be getting all this new Who if not for the current
>prosperity. How much new Who did we get during the Regan years? Hell, the
>situation was enough to make Pete throw in the towel!

That's a great example of the logic you're forced to use to defend your ideas.

Jim

P.S. I still have your last message of a couple of months ago when we were
discussing politics before. I've written replies to about half of it, but
there was so much there, I never finished it. I hope to get back to it
someday.