fuel economy in car commercials

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:32:09 -0500, "Vendicar Decarian" >
wrote:

>
>"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
>> All I was
>> stating that "it worked for Reagan, so let's keep doing it for another
>> eight years" wasn't a particularly good plan nor justification.
>
> Reagan was a
>
> He was the beginning of the End for AmeriKKKa.
>
Let's see - Reagan corrected the poor economy that a democrat idiot
left, he managed to bring down the Soviet Union single handedly, he
managed to dissuade our new enemy Iran (yet again another issue left
by the peanut farmer) from creating any problems for us, he changed
world opinion about us (from those idiot Americans who won't defend
themselves to **** I AIN'T GOING TO MESS WITH THEM!!!!!), he caused
the greatest expansion in US economic history, he prevented communism
from gaining a larger foothold in our hemisphere.

I could go on, but you would only feel the need to brag about how
klinton sent Rangers to die in Somalia without any armor or enough men
to defend themselves, how he decimated Kosovo and then refused to
assist the people with rebuilding - which is where they still are
today, he became the largest laughing stock president wanna be in
history, he lied under oath, and sold nuclear secrets to the chinese
and NK.

Gee, is there any wonder why the republicans have spanked your
democrats in the last 6 elections?

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:44:37 -0600,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>In article >,
>Nate Nagel > wrote:
>>
>>Reagan never pretended that deficit spending was a viable long-term
>>practice, however - or if he did, I missed that speech. To paraphrase,
>>"Mr Cheney, you're no Ronald Reagan."
>
>In fact, the debt was one of his two regrets he said he had in his speech
>upon leaving office.

There wouldn't have been as much debt if he had a line item veto. The
majority of increased spending under Reagan was due to democratic
social programs and waste.

In article >,
DTJ > wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:32:09 -0500, "Vendicar Decarian" >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
>>> All I was
>>> stating that "it worked for Reagan, so let's keep doing it for another
>>> eight years" wasn't a particularly good plan nor justification.
>>
>> Reagan was a
>>
>> He was the beginning of the End for AmeriKKKa.
>>
>Let's see - Reagan corrected the poor economy that a democrat idiot
>left,

With massive borrowing. Give anybody a credit card with no limit and tell
them they don't have to worry about paying it off, and they can live well
too.


>he managed to bring down the Soviet Union single handedly,


Faster than a speeding bullet...

> he
>managed to dissuade our new enemy Iran (yet again another issue left
>by the peanut farmer) from creating any problems for us,


More powerful than a locomotive...

>he changed
>world opinion about us (from those idiot Americans who won't defend
>themselves to **** I AIN'T GOING TO MESS WITH THEM!!!!!),


Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound...

>he caused
>the greatest expansion in US economic history, he prevented communism
>from gaining a larger foothold in our hemisphere.

Wrong, Clinton's expansion was bigger and longer.

>
>I could go on, but you would only feel the need to brag about how
>klinton sent Rangers to die in Somalia without any armor or enough men
>to defend themselves, how he decimated Kosovo and then refused to
>assist the people with rebuilding - which is where they still are
>today, he became the largest laughing stock president wanna be in
>history, he lied under oath, and sold nuclear secrets to the chinese
>and NK.

Need I mention the Marines killed in Beirut under Reagan?

>
>Gee, is there any wonder why the republicans have spanked your
>democrats in the last 6 elections?

No, selfishness and mean spiritness often win out.

In article >,
DTJ > wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:44:37 -0600,
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>>Nate Nagel > wrote:
>>>
>>>Reagan never pretended that deficit spending was a viable long-term
>>>practice, however - or if he did, I missed that speech. To paraphrase,
>>>"Mr Cheney, you're no Ronald Reagan."
>>
>>In fact, the debt was one of his two regrets he said he had in his speech
>>upon leaving office.
>
>There wouldn't have been as much debt if he had a line item veto. The
>majority of increased spending under Reagan was due to democratic
>social programs and waste.

Yeah, sure, tell us more fairy tales. Even Stockman, Reagan's budget
director, fessed up in his book that nobody really believed you could (1)
cut taxes, (2) raise military spending, and (3) balance the budget.

In article >,
Big Bill > wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Mar 05 09:24:25 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>he caused
>>>the greatest expansion in US economic history, he prevented communism
>>>from gaining a larger foothold in our hemisphere.
>>
>>Wrong, Clinton's expansion was bigger and longer.
>
>Except, of course, that Clinton had nothing to do with it.
>
Then you can't credit Reagan for his either.

On Thu, 31 Mar 05 09:24:25 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>>he caused
>>the greatest expansion in US economic history, he prevented communism
>>from gaining a larger foothold in our hemisphere.
>
>Wrong, Clinton's expansion was bigger and longer.

Except, of course, that Clinton had nothing to do with it.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Thu, 31 Mar 05 15:06:54 GMT, Lloyd Parker > wrote:
>In article >,
> Big Bill > wrote:
>>On Thu, 31 Mar 05 09:24:25 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>he caused
>>>>the greatest expansion in US economic history, he prevented communism
>>>>from gaining a larger foothold in our hemisphere.
>>>
>>>Wrong, Clinton's expansion was bigger and longer.
>>
>>Except, of course, that Clinton had nothing to do with it.
>>
>Then you can't credit Reagan for his either.

Which expansion would that be? The deficit? The economic boom during the
reagon years was no more real than a thief with a credit card feeling
rich.

In article >,
Lloyd Parker > wrote:
>Wrong, Clinton's expansion was bigger and longer.

Can't we stop digging into the poor man's sex life?

--
John Carr )

> On Thu, 31 Mar 05 09:24:25 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
> wrote:
> >Wrong, Clinton's expansion was bigger and longer.

"Big Bill" > wrote in message
...
> Except, of course, that Clinton had nothing to do with it.

I see, it's just a remarkable coincidence that the economy has done better
under virtually every Democrat president than any Republican one.

Stupid... Stupid, Billieboy.

> In article >,
> Lloyd Parker > wrote:
> >Wrong, Clinton's expansion was bigger and longer.

"John F. Carr" > wrote in message
...
> Can't we stop digging into the poor man's sex life?

Well, Reagan did say that under him, his inflation was a "little thing".