Are we talking about 'feelings' or 'facts'?

I think his approach to the Soviets was (notice I said I think...) perfect in its simplicity. He had faith (Liberals really hate that simple type of approach to challenges and trials) that our system was morally right, and theirs wrong. His investment in military spending broke their system and led to the end of the Cold War. He was a human being, he had flaws, no question, heck, he would have told you so.

But he was proud to be American and had faith in us, our system and defended it against other American's who wanted to compromise our values to accomplish peace with the Soviets. He knew better and didn't compromise on core values and American principles.

Flame me and insult me all you want, but he was a good man which is a lot more than we can say about other Presidents. He didn't insult his rivals, he made them laugh. You would know this if you really read about him. Check out his speeches on audio book sometime if you won't take my word for it.

In summary, we should all be proud of the way he represented this country.

The next President will take Global Warming as a serious crisis--like the rest of the world is. It's pretty disgraceful, in my view, that the American media has allowed this issue to be politicized. Because it isn't a "conservative" or "liberal" issue. It's a global issue. Hopefully, the Nobel Award to Gore and the others will finally legitimize the issue in the American media, and take the politics out of it.
My congratulations to Gore. Too bad he's such a lousy Presidential campaigner. Losing in 2000 has been a disaster for this country.

This post saddens me. I'm not trying to mock the original poster or make a comical jab, it seriously saddens me. In fact many of the posts in this thread are disturbing.

Never liked nor agreed with Reagan - I must be a steenkin' Liberal!

I don't pigeonhole people. Ya got me pigeonholed as a Liberal though, eh?

Do you hear me insulting Reagan?

I don't need to insult him. If you find it difficult to deal another's opinion that differs from yours and choose to relegate it to the realm of insults, that's your choice, not mine.

You're a funny guy - a little angry and perhaps a little close-minded, but hey - diversity is what makes us such a great nation (you are permitted to have your own opinion and interpretation of the facts - no need to attempt to justify that by pigeonholing others - did I get nasty and call you a Conservative?).

Cheers,

David

me to. Diversity sucks. Only a cohesive culture, a modern culture need exist. Diversity is code for liberal crap, thats spelled, CRAP. NO value there, only division, hate and contempt.

loosing was much betting than having him give away the rest of the country to the Chinese. It is good to have a President who puts this country 1st!!!
GW, don't you think that volcano's and the raging Forest fires might have something to do with it??? Cow farting in another proven cause, but you still see liberal vegans protesting our eating meat, even though it cuts down on cow farts. Anyone who really takes him seriously http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1192503278.jpg

has real problems with reality

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1192503395.jpg

Sig heil?

Nah - just an angry old guy quickly realizing he's as obsolete as dinosaurs.

You're all right! (except for your left side :))

You must have a much more limited experience than the average adult

Presenting the Steorn Orbo free energy device aka "Peace Machine"

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1192513695.jpg


:D

Best,

Kurt

Tobra, they don't know any better. They have Orwellian definitions of "tolerance" and "open mind".

It's driving me crazy, neighbor - can't get your link to play, and I need to find some PEACE!

Superman,

The above is oversimplified, unsubstantiated crap. Anthropological discoveries have proven that the level of UV exposure on the Earth's surface was more than 10 times higher during periods when the ozone layer was at its thinnest prior to human activity. There is strong evidence that the ozone layer has a natural cycle that is controlled by forces much stronger than that any contributions made by human activity. This information was made widely available to the public in a Time Magazine article, of all places. That's the same magazine that took until 1996 to decide that men and women are different!

Furthermore, your proof for CFC's destroying the stratospheric ozone is riddled with holes, as CFC's (very heavy molecules by the way) would need to find their way tens of thousands of feet into the stratosphere. With the exception ozone depleting compounds from volcanoes, the CFC's from the old hairspray cans or a leaky air conditioner have no means of transit to the stratosphere.

The only voodoo science I see is that which you are spewing and it came directly from the party handbook of 1995. Get the update.

The new voodoo is cherry picking history to only portray temperatures from the present back to the coldest period of the last 10,000 years, namely the Little Ice Age. Then, pick carbon dioxide as the culprit, even though the majority of climate scientists agree that it is the least likely factor in climate change (compared to water vapor, other greenhouse gases, solar activity, etc). Why carbon dioxide? because it provides the best way to legislate and tax people's activities "for the good of the planet". In reality, controlling CO2 emissions is for the good of the elitists who wish to enslave a population with their collectivist agenda.

Dave

You don't know me but if you read what I write you should know that I am not angry. For example, I don't insult people. I simply pointed out in a logical manner that insulting a person just because he or she doesn't agree with ones political views is not 'open minded'.

I also pointed out that Reagan was not a perfect person or President. So I am not a knee-jerk angry right wing person, etc.

What I've also noticed is that Liberal's don't like being labeled as Liberal's. This is just my personal opinion here, but I think that liberals really dislike 'black and white' type statements and positions that Reagan and others take.

Maybe you can explain why?

If you go back through this thread, you'll see a number of examples of left leaning folks insulting and bashing those opinions that are not in lock-step with their opinions - how is that open minded????

I am still hoping that some liberal will provide some clarity on this question.


It continues to be my personal view that lefty folks are more close minded than righty folks.

I still find the entire global warming dispute to be amusing. Particularly our arrogance. We think that we can extrapolate less than 100 years of tracking climatic conditions, and extrapolate it to the thousands of years that the earth has existed. By any measure, we are yet to have a statistically significant sample. Currently, all we know is what is happening today, the current trend. We cannot make an accurate prediction of what will happen tomorrow, because we don't know what happened yesterday.

Lothar's point is a good one. It can be shown that our planet goes through cycles, there is no proof that what we are seeing is not simply part of the natural ebb and flow of the earth.

Hytem, your point is profoundly ignorant. Do you honestly believe that this is not a highly political issue in other parts of the world? Everyone pushing the global warming issue has an agenda, and I rarely trust someone that is trying to sell me something.

Until the issue is agreed upon by a consensus of scientists (not 1/2 like we currently have), global warming is nothing but a hypothesis. A hypothesis that has been pounced upon by faltering politicians like Gore, desperate for an issue to hitch his horse to. This is not concern for the environment, this is pushing an agenda. By the way, is it a coincidence that "An Inconvenient Truth" has been found to have "significant errors" by a British court?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3719791&page=1

High Court Judge Michael Burton said that the film is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact" but that the errors were made in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration."


Yes, but he's simply concerned about mother earth. No agenda here.:rolleyes:

watch out Matt, you are not speaking to the 'appropriate' line of thought here ;-)

I know, God forbid I put some thought into it.

..

you just did what you said liberals 'think things through too well' to do: you made your points with generalized 'black and white' statements. What you conveyed was at the root of what makes liberals blow elections - arrogant behavior.

and maybe you are not that way, I have no idea. But I can tell you, I'd personally for a Democrat if they were for less gov't, less regulation and less taxation. I don't care about party.

I respect your views, but you clearly have formed (in my view) some 'black and white' generalizations about those you don't agree with, it probably makes it easier to dismiss them as being 'uninformed', notice what you said about global warmings detracters...