Interested In Lyle's Opinion of Sarah Palin

[Trainer Monkey]

Yeah, there are some differences, obviously, but the fundamentals are still the same. Big business still hands out tons of cash to further their own interests. The elites still have their priorities pushed to the fore etc. Everything I said before is true.

I'm not saying the Rep. and Dem. are the same in all ways, but fundamentally they are. The every recession was not purely a result of the Republican party either. Look at the economy when Carter was in change, that was one of, if not the, most important factions that lead to Reagan.

The DEms are better, no doubt, but they're not a bunch of white-cloaked saints. They're the lesser of two evils, but they're still a bunch of self-serving, interest-representing politicians.

That being said, I hope the Rep.'s never get elected again. Hell, I wouldn't shed a tear if each one of them was executed.

Actually,no
Every reliable poll says that without the hostage crisis,Carter beats Reagan.
Isnt it interesting how quickly the Iranians released the hostages after the election,almost like they had a deal or something.
And Im sure Reagan authorizing the sale of missile components to Iran later was strictly coincidental

That certainly was extremely influential, and one of the main reasons for Reagan ascention, but it was certainly not the only reason. Everything I have read and have been taught in school has stated that the economic situation was a primary reason, not the only one, but a very important one. Inflation soared in 1979, he gave his "malaise speech", scandals broke out in the while house. Carter was also unable to firmly establish his human rights policy, nor was he able to strike a deal with the Soviets on arms limitations.

Didnt read it in school,I was around for it
You take out the hostage mess,there is no Reagan Revolution,thats all anyone was talking about in 1979/1980
And the recession started in 1973 under Nixon with the Opec embargo

[CFH]

Actually,no
Every reliable poll says that without the hostage crisis,Carter beats Reagan.
Isnt it interesting how quickly the Iranians released the hostages after the election,almost like they had a deal or something.
And Im sure Reagan authorizing the sale of missile components to Iran later was strictly coincidental

That certainly was extremely influential, and one of the main reasons for Reagan ascention, but it was certainly not the only reason. Everything I have read and have been taught in school has stated that the economic situation was a primary reason, not the only one, but a very important one. Inflation soared in 1979, he gave his "malaise speech", scandals broke out in the while house. Carter was also unable to firmly establish his human rights policy, nor was he able to strike a deal with the Soviets on arms limitations.

Didnt read it in school,I was around for it
You take out the hostage mess,there is no Reagan Revolution,thats all anyone was talking about in 1979/1980
And the recession started in 1973 under Nixon with the Opec embargo

I can't help when I was born, and no offense intended but I'll take the opinions of experts who have spent their career's studying such things over the words of someone who happen to be "around for it". I don't for a second disagree that the hostage crises was very influential, but its not the sole reason Carter lost.

I'm also well aware of the OPEC situation, it starting under Nixon means nothing because it doesn't negate the fact that the Carter adminstration inherited the problems.

[Trainer Monkey]

That certainly was extremely influential, and one of the main reasons for Reagan ascention, but it was certainly not the only reason. Everything I have read and have been taught in school has stated that the economic situation was a primary reason, not the only one, but a very important one. Inflation soared in 1979, he gave his "malaise speech", scandals broke out in the while house. Carter was also unable to firmly establish his human rights policy, nor was he able to strike a deal with the Soviets on arms limitations.

Didnt read it in school,I was around for it
You take out the hostage mess,there is no Reagan Revolution,thats all anyone was talking about in 1979/1980
And the recession started in 1973 under Nixon with the Opec embargo

I can't help when I was born, and no offense intended but I'll take the opinions of experts who have spent their career's studying such things over the words of someone who happen to be "around for it". I don't for a second disagree that the hostage crises was very influential, but its not the sole reason Carter lost.

I'm also well aware of the OPEC situation, it starting under Nixon means nothing because it doesn't negate the fact that the Carter adminstration inherited the problems.

The "experts" have done a magnificent job of re-writing history, sorry it still stands,every reliable poll at the time had Carter winning the election without the Hostage Crisis
November 4 1980 Election
January 20th all Hostages released
January 20th Reagan Inaugural Address

[CFH]

Didnt read it in school,I was around for it
You take out the hostage mess,there is no Reagan Revolution,thats all anyone was talking about in 1979/1980
And the recession started in 1973 under Nixon with the Opec embargo

I can't help when I was born, and no offense intended but I'll take the opinions of experts who have spent their career's studying such things over the words of someone who happen to be "around for it". I don't for a second disagree that the hostage crises was very influential, but its not the sole reason Carter lost.

I'm also well aware of the OPEC situation, it starting under Nixon means nothing because it doesn't negate the fact that the Carter adminstration inherited the problems.

The "experts" have done a magnificent job of re-writing history, sorry it still stands,every reliable poll at the time had Carter winning the election without the Hostage Crisis
November 4 1980 Election
January 20th all Hostages released
January 20th Reagan Inaugural Address

What would a bunch of liberal, left-wing academics have to gain by re-writing history in favor of the Republicans? How exactly did they re-write history? Their interest is in facts.

So all my extremely liberal profs and the writers of the text books are all part of some right-wing conspiracy? ok....

What is a reliable poll? They are inherently flawed and far from reliable.

[Trainer Monkey]

I can't help when I was born, and no offense intended but I'll take the opinions of experts who have spent their career's studying such things over the words of someone who happen to be "around for it". I don't for a second disagree that the hostage crises was very influential, but its not the sole reason Carter lost.

I'm also well aware of the OPEC situation, it starting under Nixon means nothing because it doesn't negate the fact that the Carter adminstration inherited the problems.

The "experts" have done a magnificent job of re-writing history, sorry it still stands,every reliable poll at the time had Carter winning the election without the Hostage Crisis
November 4 1980 Election
January 20th all Hostages released
January 20th Reagan Inaugural Address

What would a bunch of liberal, left-wing academics have to gain by re-writing history in favor of the Republicans? How exactly did they re-write history? Their interest is in facts.

So all my extremely liberal profs and the writers of the text books are all part of some right-wing conspiracy? ok....

What is a reliable poll? They are inherently flawed and far from reliable.

Liberal,son you aint been paying attention,the William Kristols,and Milton Friendmans of the world have been taking over academia
When I was your age Ayn Rand was barely considered toilet paper,now its required reading
Well Michael Harrington is now forgotten,Mother Jones is nothing but a magazine,and Bill Buckley got everything he ever wanted
And the result on every single indicator,is absolute disaster.
No,I refuse to let the repugnants weasel out,saying its bad on both sides,or we didnt really want that.They got everything they ever wanted,have been striving for since 1968 and its a complete mess. Dont give me the defeatist "Oh well theyre all the same" or let them weasel out. You shit on your self your supposed to smell bad.
An old way of dealing with a chicken killing dog,you tie that last chicken around its neck,and let it rot.
That dog wont kill anymore chickens
I smell chicken

[CFH]

The "experts" have done a magnificent job of re-writing history, sorry it still stands,every reliable poll at the time had Carter winning the election without the Hostage Crisis
November 4 1980 Election
January 20th all Hostages released
January 20th Reagan Inaugural Address

What would a bunch of liberal, left-wing academics have to gain by re-writing history in favor of the Republicans? How exactly did they re-write history? Their interest is in facts.

So all my extremely liberal profs and the writers of the text books are all part of some right-wing conspiracy? ok....

What is a reliable poll? They are inherently flawed and far from reliable.

Liberal,son you aint been paying attention,the William Kristols,and Milton Friendmans of the world have been taking over academia
When I was your age Ayn Rand was barely considered toilet paper,now its required reading
Well Michael Harrington is now forgotten,Mother Jones is nothing but a magazine,and Bill Buckley got everything he ever wanted
And the result on every single indicator,is absolute disaster.
No,I refuse to let the repugnants weasel out,saying its bad on both sides,or we didnt really want that.They got everything they ever wanted,have been striving for since 1968 and its a complete mess. Dont give me the defeatist "Oh well theyre all the same" or let them weasel out. You shit on your self your supposed to smell bad.
An old way of dealing with a chicken killing dog,you tie that last chicken around its neck,and let it rot.
That dog wont kill anymore chickens
I smell chicken

What in the hell are you talking about? Seriously.

I've never read Ayn Rand, let alone have it been assigned as required reading. I've never heard or read anything from any of the people you mention.

I live and go to school in Canada, where, particularily in academia, liberalism is the norm. My profs are almost universally self-described left-wing liberal socialists, to the point where I find it bothersome at times. Who are you to tell me, and them, what their views are when you have no idea who they even are?

And it is bad on both sides. It's not defeatist to say that. It's defeatist to say, well, this is what we have and it's the best we can do. The democrats are slightly less fucked than the republicans, it doesn't make them good.

I really don't understand what you're trying to say. You can generalize all you want, but it's not applicable to my situation, which you know nothing about.

[CFH]

As an example, Johnny Got His Gun was required reading in one of my courses, what a piece of right-wing propaganda that is. In the same class, I had to write a paper essentially ripping apart the Reagan administration for my final.

[Trainer Monkey]

What would a bunch of liberal, left-wing academics have to gain by re-writing history in favor of the Republicans? How exactly did they re-write history? Their interest is in facts.

So all my extremely liberal profs and the writers of the text books are all part of some right-wing conspiracy? ok....

What is a reliable poll? They are inherently flawed and far from reliable.

Liberal,son you aint been paying attention,the William Kristols,and Milton Friendmans of the world have been taking over academia
When I was your age Ayn Rand was barely considered toilet paper,now its required reading
Well Michael Harrington is now forgotten,Mother Jones is nothing but a magazine,and Bill Buckley got everything he ever wanted
And the result on every single indicator,is absolute disaster.
No,I refuse to let the repugnants weasel out,saying its bad on both sides,or we didnt really want that.They got everything they ever wanted,have been striving for since 1968 and its a complete mess. Dont give me the defeatist "Oh well theyre all the same" or let them weasel out. You shit on your self your supposed to smell bad.
An old way of dealing with a chicken killing dog,you tie that last chicken around its neck,and let it rot.
That dog wont kill anymore chickens
I smell chicken

What in the hell are you talking about? Seriously.

I've never read Ayn Rand, let alone have it been assigned as required reading. I've never heard or read anything from any of the people you mention.

I live and go to school in Canada, where, particularily in academia, liberalism is the norm. My profs are almost universally self-described left-wing liberal socialists, to the point where I find it bothersome at times. Who are you to tell me, and them, what their views are when you have no idea who they even are?

And it is bad on both sides. It's not defeatist to say that. It's defeatist to say, well, this is what we have and it's the best we can do. The democrats are slightly less fucked than the republicans, it doesn't make them good.

I really don't understand what you're trying to say. You can generalize all you want, but it's not applicable to my situation, which you know nothing about.

Son you dont get it,as Ameica goes,so goeth the world
Lets look at some of our Academic shining lights,
Milton Friedman,resurrected the often failed idea of lazziez faire economics,often quoted as the source for "trickle down economic theory"
Irving Kristol,founder of the Neo-conservative movement,and 1992 recipient of the Medal Of Freedom from Bush 1
William Kristol founder of the ultra right Weekly Standard
Lets look at popular American Political commentators
Rush Limbaugh,often lies,failed sports commentator for the Kansas City Royals
Sean Hannity-Lies even more often,when he isnt yelling at people,former steel worker
Bill Orielly-Former tabloid reporter,he lies pretty often too
Michael Savage-Former herbalist
Michelle Malkin-Why is she famous again?
Ann Coulter-McCarthy Blacklist apologist
Dick Morris-Political advisor turned prostitute toe licker
William Bennet-Former drug Czar with a two pack a day habit,his gambling habit,a little more so
Andrea Peyser-Has one issue,"I hate losing my parking space to UN diplomats"
Neil Boortz-Speech writer for staunch segregationist Lestor Maddox

Man what a collection of great thought,this country listens to every day of its life

[Trainer Monkey]

We can make it even more fun
Why did they take the hostages?
Because the US had been allied with the Shah of Iran for 20 years,and if we didnt let him in to the states for cancer treatment,we would have come across as untrustworthy to the rest of the world,so Carter more or less had no choice but to let him in.
Now who supported his rise to power when he was President?
Dwight D Eisenhower
He also sent the first military advisers to Vietnam
Im not a huge fan of either party not owning up to their own messes,and Im adamantly opposed to history being re-written.
But if you compare records,there is a serious difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.
You want some flaws of the last three Democrat presidents
Clinton po'ed the old school party early
Carter won because he promised to end corruption,the ensconced corruption vowed to end him for it. He didnt play ball well
Johnson got handed a cluster F all around. He tried to do some good things,but he got handed a mess.First Nam was dropped right in his lap,and it was totally unwinnable,evidence suggests Nixon also tampered with the 68 Peace Negotiations which was so helpfull. On top of that he had a moral obligation to sign the Civil Rights Act,but that cost him all of the Dixiecrats

[CFH]

We can make it even more fun
Why did they take the hostages?
Because the US had been allied with the Shah of Iran for 20 years,and if we didnt let him in to the states for cancer treatment,we would have come across as untrustworthy to the rest of the world,so Carter more or less had no choice but to let him in.
Now who supported his rise to power when he was President?
Dwight D Eisenhower
He also sent the first military advisers to Vietnam
Im not a huge fan of either party not owning up to their own messes,and Im adamantly opposed to history being re-written.
But if you compare records,there is a serious difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.
You want some flaws of the last three Democrat presidents
Clinton po'ed the old school party early
Carter won because he promised to end corruption,the ensconced corruption vowed to end him for it. He didnt play ball well
Johnson got handed a cluster F all around. He tried to do some good things,but he got handed a mess.First Nam was dropped right in his lap,and it was totally unwinnable,evidence suggests Nixon also tampered with the 68 Peace Negotiations which was so helpfull. On top of that he had a moral obligation to sign the Civil Rights Act,but that cost him all of the Dixiecrats

For the 3rd time, I never said there weren't differences between the parties, I've also said I prefer the Dems., but they both operate in a similar manner. Representing the interests of business, helping their friends, helping the rich get richer or stay rich, and everything else. Clearly there are differences, that is why there are two parties.

IN MY OPINION, the Democrats are not the good guys, they are the slightly less bad guys, but both parties are seriously flawed.