# This is an American President



## towboater (Aug 19, 2013)

I think he was a great president also. He knew how to connect with the people.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Reagan was an excellent orator.


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

Great actor? Maybe

Great Prez? Definitely not, IMO.

You were not born. I was. I voted for the man, much to my eventual chagrin.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I voted for him too, happily! Turned the economy around after Jimmy "Malaise" Carter, defeated the Soviet Union...Great man!








​


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

Just because he was a good rider doesn't make him a good statesman. He played second to a chimp.....hmmm maybe more correlations than I thought.


I loved the MAN. I was hoping he would be a great a president as he was great at making people warm up to him. Sadly, he was lacking in his statesmanship, IMO


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Lacking in statesmanship? Hmmm...saw the fall of the Berlin Wall, drove the USSR into economic collapse, convinced Libya to give up terrorism (mostly), cut taxes, increased incentives for business, saw interest rates drop from 12.5 to 4.4, saw unemployment drop from 7.5 to 5.4......

There is a reason he won re-election in 84 with 59% of the vote and 525 electoral votes (Mondale carried his home state of Minnesota).

"We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

Reagan at Brandenburg Gate - "tear down this wall" - YouTube

And he loved horses and riding. Not bad, IMHO.

Riding With Reagan: From the White House to the Ranch: John R. Barletta: 9780806526805: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## bitinsane (Jun 5, 2013)

From my studies and knowledge of the man, I agree that he was a great president.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

"Thomas Jefferson once said, 'We should never judge a president by his age, only by his works.' And ever since he told me that, I stopped worrying." - Ronald Reagan


----------



## Roperchick (Feb 1, 2010)

well. I cant speak of whether he was a good president or not....like I said...I wasnt even thought up yet!

but I can say that he was a d**n good speaker from what I've watched. and my parents always spoke about him as if they liked him.

and from what ive read/studied think I would have liked serving under the man and appreciated hi as el presidente....unlike somebody in office. wchich I cant go into.


----------



## bitinsane (Jun 5, 2013)

Roperchick said:


> well. I cant speak of whether he was a good president or not....like I said...I wasnt even thought up yet!
> 
> but I can say that he was a d**n good speaker from what I've watched. and my parents always spoke about him as if they liked him.
> 
> and from what ive read/studied think I would have liked serving under the man and appreciated hi as el presidente....unlike somebody in office. wchich I cant go into.


Amen, lol


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

.

Horseperson as President or Community organizer?

I would take a Horseperson anytime :lol:

I was over the voting age when Reagan was President, he rode a Horse and cleaned up Jimmy Carter's Mess, anyone that could cleanup after Carter is great in my book, JC was/is still the worst Presidents in my lifetime :wink:

.


----------



## Darrin (Jul 11, 2011)

Roperchick said:


> well. I cant speak of whether he was a good president or not....like I said...I wasnt even thought up yet!
> 
> but I can say that he was a d**n good speaker from what I've watched. and my parents always spoke about him as if they liked him.
> 
> and from what ive read/studied think I would have liked serving under the man and appreciated hi as el presidente....unlike somebody in office. wchich I cant go into.


To Republicans he was one of the top 5 presidents, to Democrats he's in the bottom 5. 

I thought he was exactly what was needed to clean up after Carter and did a darn good job. Matter of fact I think the economic wave Clinton got to ride started with Reagan.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Darrin said:


> To Republicans he was one of the top 5 presidents, to Democrats he's in the bottom 5.
> 
> I thought he was exactly what was needed to clean up after Carter and did a darn good job. Matter of fact I think the economic wave Clinton got to ride started with Reagan.


The economic boom Clinton benefited from was the dot.com boom - Mickey Mouse could have been President and enjoyed a great economy. And yes, Reagan cleaned up after Carter - just as a Republican will have to clean up after Obama...either that or we just go bust as Europe did...


----------



## Joe4d (Sep 1, 2011)

Regan becomes better everyday looking at the sorry excuse for a leader we have now.
Wishy washy on egypt, Puttin thumbing his nose at him, and Obummers response, well Imm just not gonna talk to him. SOunds like a sppoiled little brat to me. Seriously ? the American president is gonna travel all the way to Russia and not have a meeting ? Completely unqualified for the job, but reelected anyway. I am ashamed for my country.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Joe4d said:


> Regan becomes better everyday looking at the sorry excuse for a leader we have now.


So are Clinton and Bush and Carter and Ford and Dubya and Eisenhower and Kennedy and Truman and Lincoln and Hoover and...and...and...and...

I figure the rodeo clown at our State Fair would likely do a far better job...


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

time makes the memory go sweet. oh for the good ol' days, huh?


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Odd, though, tinyliny...I don't consider CARTER to be part of the good ol' days. Time doesn't make the memory turn sweet for him! Hasn't made me long for Jerry "Whip Inflation Now" Ford, either.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

He had some good speech writers and being an actor knew how to deliver them!

I do not understand US politics, heck, I don't understand the British ones either!

All I do know is that nowadays there are few politicians who are there for the good of their country, majority are there for what they can get out of it either power and or wealth.


----------



## Joe4d (Sep 1, 2011)

for some reason I dont think Puttin would be thumbing his nose at Regan. Nor would he have allowed our diplomats to be slaughtered and done nothing about it.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

bsms said:


> Odd, though, tinyliny...I don't consider CARTER to be part of the good ol' days. Time doesn't make the memory turn sweet for him! Hasn't made me long for Jerry "Whip Inflation Now" Ford, either.


True, but at least they were Americans in spirit, believed in the Constitution, the Supreme Court, the Congress, the free market system, and all that this country used to stand for. Obama has none of those attributes. He doesn't like this country and his agenda, obvious to a 5th grader, is to change us into his utopian vision of a 300 million person commune where I assume we are all destined to sit around in togas playing harps and living off of a central benefactor that somehow will have the resources to provide - maybe we could call that benefactor Vaal...


----------



## RegalCharm (Jul 24, 2008)

Ride those trails, Mr. President, over the Rainbow Bridge with those glorious Arabian horses that symbolized the courage, honesty, dignity, grace, and goodness that you exemplified in your golden journey of life!


----------



## farmpony84 (Apr 21, 2008)

I loved Ronald Reagan. I personally thought he had good morals and I think that he truley loved this country and that to me, was huge. It's been a long time since we've had a president that LOVED this country.

I also think that Nancy Reagan did a terrific job in the "just say no" campaign in a time when it was really needed. I wish that we could have some focus on anti-bullying rather than lowering ones salt intake. I do like the excersize and get healthy idea though....

I loved Ronald Reagan, as an actor and a president.


----------



## farmpony84 (Apr 21, 2008)

Foxhunter said:


> He had some good speech writers and being an actor knew how to deliver them!
> 
> I do not understand US politics, heck, I don't understand the British ones either!
> 
> All I do know is that nowadays there are few politicians who are there for the good of their country, majority are there for what they can get out of it either power and or wealth.


 
He was an excellent speaker which is very important in my opinion. He also made decisions and stood behind them. He didn't lay blame, he took responsibilities for actions and mistakes he made and he really did a very good job mending fences and building relationships.

Can't say that for some...


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I think even the folks who disliked Reagan would admit he was sincere. He didn't hide or try to talk around his beliefs. He also spoke publicly about the evils of the communist system, and accepted change when some of those countries changed.

If Reagan was fighting a 'war on terror', he wouldn't pretend that people who want the right to kill their wives or daughters on a whim are just as moral as anyone else. He wouldn't pretend that everyone in Egypt (or Afghanistan) wants the same things we do. I sincerely doubt he would have talked about Putin the way GWB did. And he would NOT have gone on a world-wide Apology Tour, confessing our sins to other countries and asking forgiveness. He sure as heck would not have given THIS greeting:


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

bsms said:


> He sure as heck would not have given THIS greeting:


Pretty much makes you want to puke, doesn't it?


----------



## Zexious (Aug 2, 2013)

It's easy to stand back and bash or applaud presidents. 

But, the fact remains that they are there for a reason, and 'you' (the metaphorical, all encompassing 'you') are not.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Zexious said:


> It's easy to stand back and bash or applaud presidents.
> 
> But, the fact remains that they are there for a reason, and 'you' (the metaphorical, all encompassing 'you') are not.


Well don't tell that to us - email it to Obama...


----------



## Zexious (Aug 2, 2013)

As a moderate (level headed) liberal, I don't have all that much of an issue with Obama. Sure, I don't agree with all of his policies or actions, but I don't agree with all of /anyone's/ policies or actions.
I actually am a pretty big fan of Clinton...

Anyway, I wasn't alive for Reagan, so I can't comment too much. The state that we're in currently can't just be blamed on Obama. Or just on Democrats. Or just on Republicans. Or just on Bush. It's a compilation of many things and many people.


----------



## Joe4d (Sep 1, 2011)

unfortunaltely that reason is 51% of Americans are stupid, lazy and dont want to take responsibility for their own lives. Its the goverments fault they borrowed more than they could pay back and are losing their house. Its the governments fault they borrowed 100k to get a worthless liberal arts degree and now cant find a job, its the governments fault they bred with a loser and have more kids than they can feed. SO they vote for the guy they think will solve all there problems for them Too ignorant to realize what they are losing in the process.


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

Reagan looks good "after the fact" if you forget;

Iran contra (supporting real terrorists)

The illegal amnesty immigration debacle

The two mistakes that we are still paying for today both involve Islamic terrorism. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan during the Carter administration. Carter did very little in response to this. The Reagan administration armed the rebels with advanced weaponry and eventually the Soviets withdrew. Instead of staying and helping the Afghans to rebuild, the US also withdrew. This created a power vacuum that led to the creation of the Taliban. There are rumors that Osama bin Laudin was trained by the CIA while he was in Afghanistan but this is solely based on both having been in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Benghazi? Are you the HECK forgetting his ignoring warning about an attack in Lebanon? The attack where people were guarding the Marine barracks with empty rifles? Where 241 Marines were killed? After that happened Reagan packed up our troops and fled. Real backbone there!! Real convenient memories, folks. His contribution for showing terrorists our weak spots is worthy of thinking about.

As I said, he was a charismatic man who allowed us to like ourselves after an incredibly weak presidency under Carter. Great president? Not hardly.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Lebanon: The Wiki article on it is good (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing ). It took place shortly after I entered the military. In the years that followed, I took part in discussions about how to properly deal with terrorist attacks. I don't think many of us realized that we were already in a war with terrorists. I was in the Philippines when terrorists killed my neighbor across the street, another guy that I went to church with, and shot up the car and put a bullet thru the headrest of a guy in our squadron. We were caught flat-footed, because we didn't realize what was going on. And yes, military commanders made dumb decisions at times. A week after the terrorist attacks in the Philippines, I was ordered to take a big blue military truck and drive unarmed thru the area of biggest discontent on the way to the bombing range - to show we were not afraid. I said I personally would feel a bit less afraid in either a civilian car or with a couple of .45s with me...but nope! The Wing Commander thought that would look bad. So I saluted and went, and luckily survived - but it was a damned stupid decision. So was having guards without their magazines in their rifles in Lebanon...but I'd bet that didn't reach the level of a Presidential decision, any more than sending me out in a truck that might as well have had "TARGET" painted on it was.

The decisions made in Afghanistan made sense too, in the 1980s, when the Soviet Union WAS our main threat. I don't recall ANYONE predicting the threat of Islamic terrorists in the 1980s, other than in Iran.

I think the hope that Afghanistan could be ignored and left to its own devices made sense, given what we knew at the time.

Iran Contra was one of those deals dreamed up by idiots who thought they were smart. Reagan trusted his people to run it smart, and they did not. Having been a commander, I can say some of the best results I ever got came from trusting my guys to run things on their own, and some of my biggest failures had the same cause. Iran Contra finally resulted in this televised statement by Reagan:

"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind."

He screwed up, and admitted on TV that what he said before wasn't true. Let me know when Obama takes responsibility for ANYTHING going on in his Administration. 

Not everything Reagan did was flawless. He did a number of things that I didn't like. But overall - the Berlin Wall came down. Inflation plummeted, as did interest rates. Business expanded. People forgot Jimmy Carter, except when Carter did something stupid enough to get his face in the news again. Reagan exuded optimism, and America needed someone like that. We could use someone like that again...:-x

_"Real convenient memories, folks. His contribution for showing terrorists our weak spots is worthy of thinking about._"

Friends of mine flew in the Libya raid. He gave terrorists a few things to think about, too - and NOT just our weak spots. Also, remember the invasion of Grenada took place TWO DAYS after the Lebanon bombing. That was the first significant use of force since Vietnam. There are many ways to send a message. Bowing is only one of them...:shock:


----------



## farmpony84 (Apr 21, 2008)

BSMS - I was just searching for that statement. That's a great lesson - you screw up ... you own it....

you don't look straight at the camera and say.... "I did not have sex with that women."......


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

It's just interesting that these issues, if they had been done by Obama, would have bee a reason to crucify him. In my eye, these "gaffs" were FAR worse and had a much bigger toll on human lives than the issues being used to condemn Obama now.

You wrote;



> * Iran Contra was one of those deals dreamed up by idiots who thought they were smart. Reagan trusted his people to run it smart, and they did not. *Having been a commander, I can say some of the best results I ever got came from trusting my guys to run things on their own, and some of my biggest failures had the same cause.


Gee, why are you not willing to give Obama the same "consideration" of OTHERS making him look bad the way you are doing for Reagan? Interesting DUAL vision here.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

No, it isn't dual vision. Reagan and Congress both looked into Iran-Contra. What has Obama done to uncover what really happened in Benghazi, or with the IRS? Why was Obama happy with his subordinates going on TV and repeatedly blaming Benghazi on a video no one watched? Why did he not mind when Hillary Clinton blamed things on a video, when BOTH already knew it was a planned and organized attack? A year later, crickets.

What has Obama done to uncover the political persecution of conservatives by the IRS? Who has been fired? When did Obama discuss it, collect the facts and present them, or shown any interest at all?

And what are Obama's successes? Obamacare, with deadlines being slipped, and employers increasingly refusing to hire full time workers because they don't want to pay for benefits? Is it the booming American economy...which is only booming in energy states against the wishes of the federal government? His Apology Tour has been a great success, though. Egypt & the Russians love us now, don't they? I'm sure the Saudi king was impressed, looking at the top of Obama's noggin with a WTF expression on King Abdullah's face! Is it his success in closing Guantanamo? Oh wait - it was his success in destroying the Taliban! Heck, the world loves us now - so much that they burn our embassies, and we lock our embassies up in fear of the terrorists! Of course, unemployment has tumbled under Obama...and Obama is taking action! Just last month:

"I'm challenging CEOs from some of America's best companies to hire more Americans who've got what it takes to fill that job opening, but have been laid off so long no one will give their resume an honest look," Obama said."

Yeah. Hire Americans, not because your company can afford to do so, in spite of government policies driving jobs overseas, because Barack Obama wants you to. Maybe he could borrow a trick from Jerry Ford, and hand out buttons with "WUN" on them - "Whip Unemployment Now"! But look at the bright side. As the Huffington Post notes:

"What do Franklin Roosevelt and President Barack Obama have in common? Well, besides both attending Columbia and Harvard universities, they're two presidents who've been reelected with some of the highest unemployment rates in history." Gotta love a President who can get reelected with the highest unemployment rate since FDR was reelected!

Maybe it is his success in investing in Green Companies.

Wait, I've got one! Global Warming has been at a standstill during his time in office. Maybe he hasn't made the seas recede, but let's at least give Obama credit for stopping Global Warming...although it has been stopped for about 15 years now. But I'm sure Obama did his part. :?


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

bsms said:


> Maybe it is his success in investing in Green Companies.


List of Companies under Obama's watch that have lost or losing our Tax Money, stimulus money in ( ), * is for bankruptcies 



Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)
.


----------



## RegalCharm (Jul 24, 2008)

Allison Finch said:


> It's just interesting that these issues, if they had been done by Obama, would have bee a reason to crucify him. In my eye, these "gaffs" were FAR worse and had a much bigger toll on human lives than the issues being used to condemn Obama now.
> 
> You wrote;
> 
> ...


AF At this point in time, what difference does it make now.


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

bsms said:


> No, it isn't dual vision. Reagan and Congress both looked into Iran-Contra. What has Obama done to uncover what really happened in Benghazi, or with the IRS? Why was Obama happy with his subordinates going on TV and repeatedly blaming Benghazi on a video no one watched? Why did he not mind when Hillary Clinton blamed things on a video, when BOTH already knew it was a planned and organized attack? A year later, crickets.


He said "terror" the very next day. I heard the speech. He backed off because there was the need for an in-depth investigation about what really happened. Are you saying he was more involved that being given direct information, as Reagan was, that an attack was imminent and then IGNORING it? Costing so many lives. Reaction to an unknown attack is one thing. Allowing one to happen is another.



> What has Obama done to uncover the political persecution of conservatives by the IRS? Who has been fired? When did Obama discuss it, collect the facts and present them, or shown any interest at all?


I love how the fact that liberal organizations were also targeted has been totally glossed over by many conservative elements. This has been ignored because it makes them look like the sole victims. Yes, not as many groups as the conservatives, possibly, but targeted nonetheless.



> And what are Obama's successes?


There have been MANY successes. It is simply because either you decided to ignore them, listened to too many reports that twisted them, or simply don't agree with them. I am not going to list the many successes I believe there have been. I have posted them so many times I am tired. You can go back and find the posts yourself.

You are free to disagree. You are free to totally ignore or twist facts. You are free to continue to drive divisive wedges between Americans and their ideologies (yes, I am guilty here, too). However, history is not always blind to the faults of former presidents. Only the people who ignore that Reagan was not the end-all president may be considered, by some, to be blinded by his exceptional charm.


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

SouthernTrailsGA said:


> List of Companies under Obama's watch that have lost or losing our Tax Money, stimulus money in ( ), * is for bankruptcies
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So, since you are determined to make this an Obama thread instead of the Reagan thread it is supposed to be, how about comparing Obama's business failure rate to your beloved Romney's business failure rate? Romney will come up very short. 

Quite simply, under Mitt's leadership, Bain Capital had a worse investment record than the federal government's backing of alternative energy companies (e.g., Solyndra). 

In fact, Romney's record at Bain showed him picking firms that went into bankruptcy at three times the rate of the fed record.

Romney claimed a 50% failure of Obama backed "green" companies. At BEST, the facts are that less than 8% failed. Pretty good record, unless you only listen to FOX's news stories....

OOOps, now it will become a Romney thread? I hope not.


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

Allison Finch said:


> So, since you are determined to make this an Obama thread instead of the Reagan thread it is supposed to be, how about comparing Obama's business failure rate to your beloved Romney's business failure rate? Romney will come up very short.
> 
> OOOps, now it will become a Romney thread? I hope not.


Sorry, I guess I was the only one who mentioned Obama :-(

Curious did Romney's business failures involve all American's Federal Tax Money they paid to the IRS? if you check btw, Romneys success rate at business was several 1,000 times better than the few failures he had :wink:

.


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

Allison Finch said:


> Quite simply, under Mitt's leadership, Bain Capital had a worse investment record than the federal government's backing of alternative energy companies (e.g., Solyndra).
> 
> In fact, Romney's record at Bain showed him picking firms that went into bankruptcy at three times the rate of the fed record.
> 
> Romney claimed a 50% failure of Obama backed "green" companies. At BEST, the facts are that less than 8% failed. Pretty good record, unless you only listen to FOX's news stories....


Was not Bain Capitols job to buy near Bankrupt companies and turn them around, whether by liquidating or splitting them up to make a profit?

I am curious as to who the other 92% or 391 Green Companies that Obama invested our Tax Money in and they prospering.

.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

"_He said "terror" the very next day._"

He mentioned it thus: "...And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi. 
As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."

By this time, they already knew. Yet his reference to terror was to "acts of terror". He then kept silent while his underlings went on national TV and repeatedly LIED about what happened. Hillary "The Smartest Woman Ever" Clinton, a month later, explained that they still didn't know what happened. And she defended having UN Ambassador Susan Rice call it a demonstration.

"_the fact that liberal organizations were also targeted_"

No, they were not. That is an MSM myth.

"WASHINGTON -- In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked.That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months.

In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows."

IRS approved liberal groups while Tea Party in limbo

"A November 2010 version of the list obtained by National Review Online, however, suggests that while the list did contain the word “progressive,” screeners were in fact instructed to treat “progressive” groups differently from “tea party” groups. Whereas screeners were merely alerted that a designation of 501(c)(3) status “may not be appropriate” for applications containing the word ”progressive” – 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from conducting any political activities – they were told to send those of tea-party groups off IRS higher-ups for further scrutiny. 

That means the applications of progressive groups could be approved on the spot by line agents, while those of tea-party groups could not. Furthermore, the November 2010 list noted that tea-party cases were “currently being coordinated with EOT,” which stands for Exempt Organizations Technical, a group of tax lawyers in Washington, D.C. Those of progressive groups were not."

'Lookout List' Not Much Broader Than Originally Thought, Contrary to Reports | National Review Online

"_I am not going to list the many successes I believe there have been._"

OK. I doubt we would agree about what success meant...


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

Myth? Not hardly.

POLITICO surveyed the liberal groups from an IRS list of advocacy organizations that were approved after the tougher examinations started. The review found some examples of liberal groups facing scrutiny similar to their conservative counterparts — they were asked for copies of web pages, actions alerts, and written materials from all of their events.

Why were these groups left out of the reports blasted by FOX and others? Good question.

Inspector says IRS withheld info on targeting liberals

Your quote from USA today was written May of this year. My quote was written JULY of this year.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

"The AP reported earlier on Monday that “Terms including ‘Israel,’ ’Progressive’ and ‘Occupy’ were used by agency workers to help pick groups for closer examination.” That appears to be misleading, as there is no indication from the list examined by NRO that progressive groups were singled out for heightened scrutiny in a manner similar to tea-party groups."

There is a difference between a list of words used to require careful review at the local level, and one requiring the application go to Washington DC.

"But the IG explained that, while liberal groups were on those lists, agents did not then single them out for additional scrutiny. George said this repeatedly in his letter to Levin, noting Tea Party and other conservative groups were processed as "potential political cases" 100 percent of the time."

From your own link:

"George said IRS officials told him that the BOLO list was used by agents to select potential political cases. At no time did IRS officials provide additional information about progressive groups being screened, nor did they contradict his findings put forth in the IG's final report.

"IRS staff at multiple levels concurred with our analysis," George testified.
Republicans on the panel defended George and said there was still no evidence that progressive groups were subjected to the same high level of scrutiny as Tea Party groups. Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., said Tea Party groups were "singled out" and "systematically detained," with some groups' applications stuck in limbo for more than three years."

And:

“We know that this happened because Democrats in Congress found some documents, Neil, but when you actually look at the documents, it doesn’t say what they say it showed,” Erickson said. 

He noted that some organizations that were liberal groups sought improper classification, while conservative groups that were seeking proper status were targeted with unnecessary and onerous scrutiny in the pursuit of that status.http://www.mediaite.com/tv/scarboro...gressive-groups-doesnt-take-legs-off-scandal/


“We don’t know that that has happened to any liberal groups had that happen,” Erickson said. “None of them came forward to say it and it, thus far, doesn’t look like any of them did experience that level of harassment.” 



http://www.mediaite.com/tv/erick-er...-irs-like-conservative-groups-where-are-they/


And


"Russell George, the Treasury Department official who detailed the IRS targeting of conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status, says liberal groups faced far less scrutiny from the agency.

George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, told Democratic Rep. Sandy Levin of Michigan in a letter that just six progressive groups were targeted compared to 292 conservative groups, reports the Washington Examiner.

In Wednesday's letter to Levin, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, George also said that 100 percent of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status were scrutinized, compared to 30 percent of progressive groups."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/irs-targeting-conservative-groups/2013/06/27/id/512269


----------



## demonwolfmoon (Oct 31, 2011)

Since we are going to all argue, I will ask this;: 

OVERALL, are we, The American People, in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, better off nowadays, or back in the olden days with Reagan, etc?

I was little, no lie, so I do not remember too well. But I do know there were jobs to be had...that's more than I can say about now!  I am also fairly certain there was better morale. im just curious how older people see it, OVERALL.

(ets, Im asking overall because everyone makes mistakes and its easy to pick one and rip things apart)


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

that is not a fair question to ask. The whole world is changing. We are affected by many things that are taking place in the greater world, and even more than we were in Reagan's time. There are very large trends in economics , in population movements, in funky stock markets , in trade agreements, in terrorism that now reachs our shores. SO much affects our quality of life that can neither be laid at the feet of the president, not credited to him.


----------



## demonwolfmoon (Oct 31, 2011)

tinyliny said:


> that is not a fair question to ask. The whole world is changing. We are affected by many things that are taking place in the greater world, and even more than we were in Reagan's time. There are very large trends in economics , in population movements, in funky stock markets , in trade agreements, in terrorism that now reachs our shores. SO much affects our quality of life that can neither be laid at the feet of the president, not credited to him.


Its not a "fair" question, but people make these statements ALL THE TIME. Its Obamas fault this, its Dubyas fault that, republicans this, dems that, circling about endlessly.

I think all the **** infighting is strangling our country tbh, and at the current rate, Im not sure we will be able to fix it!

And btw, yes, the world IS changing...is our current way of dealing with it working for us?


----------



## towboater (Aug 19, 2013)

demonwolfmoon said:


> Since we are going to all argue, I will ask this;:
> 
> OVERALL, are we, The American People, in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, better off nowadays, or back in the olden days with Reagan, etc?
> 
> ...


We (the middle class) were much better off then. Socialism does not work. Bigger government does not work. Health care was affordable.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Good info on the IRS stuff:

National Review Online | Print

I think Presidents are overrated on their effect on the economy. As TL points out, there are trends that can make a bad President look good, or vice versa. The emerging of computers and information technology was going to create a lot of efficiencies in the economy, regardless of who the President was. And it ultimately may make a lot of low-education jobs disappear, regardless of who is President.

But there are some things a President is involved with that will be important. Domestically, taxes and regulations will decrease business, and reducing those will increase it. On foreign affairs, a President can have a huge impact. Does he understand the moral aspects? Will he stand by friends? Will he support bad things for enemies? Does he know how to negotiate? Reagan's time as a union head probably helped prepare him for negotiations with the USSR.

It is not a Republican/Democrat thing. Not always. Nixon imposed wage & price controls. I still have a hard time believing that was legal, or that anyone thought it would work. Clinton was a crook, but he understood business better than most in his party did. GWB supported bailing out the rich, which I find horrible.

I think Reagan was an anomaly. I think he actually HAD convictions, and I think his personality was as influential on America as his policies. And I'm not seeing anyone on the national scene who seems to have any core conservative beliefs, and I miss Reagan's optimism.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Haha...AF, I can't believe you are STILL harping on Bain Capital...:rofl::rofl::rofl:

One of these days a light bulb may come on and you may come to realize the difference between the federal government and a venture capital company, and the difference between private investment capital willing to accept high risk for a potential high return, and tax dollars, but I am seriously beginning to doubt it. It is not rocket science, but it is evidently beyond your ability to comprehend...


----------



## Roperchick (Feb 1, 2010)

Well this escalated quickly....


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

Faceman said:


> Haha...AF, I can't believe you are STILL harping on Bain Capital...:rofl::rofl::rofl:
> 
> One of these days a light bulb may come on and you may come to realize the difference between the federal government and a venture capital company, and the difference between private investment capital willing to accept high risk for a potential high return, and tax dollars, but I am seriously beginning to doubt it. It is not rocket science, but it is evidently beyond your ability to comprehend...


As much as the difference between the "business saavy" was the quote where Romney said that 50% of the green companies that Obama funded went down. A pure fabrication.

Many conservatives are the ones who point out the "failure rate" as being significant, just as it was here. Just pointing out that many conservatives, who loved R conveniently overlook many of the real facts. THEY are also the ones who don't separate "venture" capitalism with an attempt to promote needed technology. Needed technology that comes against STRONG opposition from protected industries such as gas and oil.....


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Allison Finch said:


> As much as the difference between the "business saavy" was the quote where Romney said that 50% of the green companies that Obama funded went down. A pure fabrication.
> 
> Many conservatives are the ones who point out the "failure rate" as being significant, just as it was here. Just pointing out that many conservatives, who loved R conveniently overlook many of the real facts. THEY are also the ones who don't separate "venture" capitalism with an attempt to promote needed technology. Needed technology that comes against STRONG opposition from protected industries such as gas and oil.....


You still don't get it, and I guess you never will, and evidently there is no way I can **** and Jane it so you can understand.

Investors take risks.
It is NOT the province of the government to take unreasonable risks with our money.

For crying out loud, I worked for SBA for 15 years - I know perfectly well the risk the government is supposed to take. I made those decisions every day on behalf of the government. If the government makes a debt or equity investment in a company, it is supposed to be done in an educated and intelligent way such that the return to the Treasury in job creation is larger than the losses incurred, resulting in a net gain. You do a financial analysis and a reasonable projection based upon the company and market conditions and make a decision based upon a reasonable expectation the company will succeed. YOU DON'T MAKE INVESTMENTS BASED UPON INDUSTRY TYPE, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE INDUSTRY TYPE IS SPECULATIVE AT BEST...that is Finance 101. Bush turned down Solyndra (just as an example), I would have turned down Solyndra - quite frankly anyone with an ounce of financial savvy would have turned them down. Only an idiot would have made that investment, and Obama, who you hopelessly insist on supporting, is an idiot for investing in those companies - and that is coming from a recognized expert in the field...


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

Faceman said:


> that is coming from a recognized expert in the field...


 
Oh, mighty omnipotent one........













:rofl:


----------



## RegalCharm (Jul 24, 2008)

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

got to admit that is a great come back AF


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Allison Finch said:


> Oh, mighty omnipotent one........
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you really want to go there? You know dang well I am a business finance expert. If you want to start throwing mud and insults, OK - I'll join right in...what the heck does a small town cop like YOU know about business finance? Oh, I know - absolutely nothing, which is glaringly obvious from your ignorant and obsessive comparison of Bain to the government. 

I could turn the tables and tell you how cops should do their jobs and tell you what cops are doing right and what they are doing wrong, but unlike you I know when I don't know a dang thing about something and I have too much pride to make a fool out of myself with ignorant posts...


----------



## BigNickMontana (Aug 5, 2013)

This: 










/that is all.


----------



## BigNickMontana (Aug 5, 2013)

This one is good too: (guess I am partial because I made it) 










It was the day he did a 13 hour filibusterer talking about liberty unscripted, no prompter. I'm hoping this man is the next POTUS, I think he may have it in him to raise the high water mark above Mr Reagan.


----------



## demonwolfmoon (Oct 31, 2011)

Jesus guys, can we not have a fairly civilized convo? we all get irritated every once and again, but it would help if we stay somewhat respectful of each other. Allison is a cop, Im sure she reads, but is probably not an expert like you, Face.
You in turn are no expert at the day to day of being a cop. 
We all read, and may have some familiarity with one anothers area of expertise.
If instead of getting all PO'd, we remained respectful, researched, and read up, then came back to debate a point with greater knowledge with the other, we would all learn more, may even AGREE in some matters, and if we carry this to the rest of the population, we might even be able to sift through this political mess!

Too often people disregard areas of expertise on this forum, and its a shame. No one is an expert at everything.... (and this isnt directed at any one person on this thread btw, I mean overall)


----------



## demonwolfmoon (Oct 31, 2011)

lol Nick, I will be honest, I dont know much about Rand Paul at the moment. I will do some reading.

I honestly dont give a rats hind end who the next POTUS is as long as they a) have some common sense, and b) arent a psycho extremist from either end of the political machine.

Itd also be nice if the next POTUS actually goes forth and gets something done, but I guess thats all perspective.


----------



## BigNickMontana (Aug 5, 2013)

demonwolfmoon said:


> lol Nick, I will be honest, I dont know much about Rand Paul at the moment. I will do some reading.
> 
> I honestly dont give a rats hind end who the next POTUS is as long as they a) have some common sense, and b) arent a psycho extremist from either end of the political machine.
> 
> Itd also be nice if the next POTUS actually goes forth and gets something done, but I guess thats all perspective.


He is the first politician in a while who I have seen actually honor his oath of office and take it seriously. He is a good guy. 

He would make a good POTUS because he will follow the constitution. 

Check out some of the you tube videos on him, it is hard not to like the guy.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I agree with Rand Paul on a number of issues, but he has no chance. Both parties run their primaries in a way that allows the establishment & media to shove aside any outsiders. The GOP Establishment hated Reagan, but Reagan's skill in speaking and two terms as Gov of California made it hard to ignore him. He still lost the primary in 76 to Jerry Ford, though.

The GOP likes to claim they care about middle America, but they have no use for anyone outside the Northeast or DC. In the years since Reagan, I can't recall any GOP candidates that conservatives loved. I mean...Bob Dole? John McCain? Mitt Romney? By 2004, I was disgusted with GWB, but since the alternative was John Kerry...:shock:


----------



## Darrin (Jul 11, 2011)

bsms said:


> I agree with Rand Paul on a number of issues, but he has no chance. Both parties run their primaries in a way that allows the establishment & media to shove aside any outsiders. The GOP Establishment hated Reagan, but Reagan's skill in speaking and two terms as Gov of California made it hard to ignore him. He still lost the primary in 76 to Jerry Ford, though.
> 
> The GOP likes to claim they care about middle America, but they have no use for anyone outside the Northeast or DC. In the years since Reagan, I can't recall any GOP candidates that conservatives loved. I mean...Bob Dole? John McCain? Mitt Romney? By 2004, I was disgusted with GWB, but since the alternative was John Kerry...:shock:


That's where I've been myself. Not liking either candidate at all so I vote for the one I think will do the least amount of damage. That's a **** poor way to elect a leader for our country.


----------



## BigNickMontana (Aug 5, 2013)

bsms said:


> I agree with Rand Paul on a number of issues, but he has no chance. Both parties run their primaries in a way that allows the establishment & media to shove aside any outsiders. The GOP Establishment hated Reagan, but Reagan's skill in speaking and two terms as Gov of California made it hard to ignore him. He still lost the primary in 76 to Jerry Ford, though.
> 
> The GOP likes to claim they care about middle America, but they have no use for anyone outside the Northeast or DC. In the years since Reagan, I can't recall any GOP candidates that conservatives loved. I mean...Bob Dole? John McCain? Mitt Romney? By 2004, I was disgusted with GWB, but since the alternative was John Kerry...:shock:


Well Rand is certainly a rising star, and people are paying attention to him, especially young people.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Did Rand Paul go to Harvard or Yale? Has he been in DC so long you can't tell the difference between him and a transgendered Nancy Pelosi? Does he kiss the media's butt? Can you actually figure out what he believes on a given subject?

He's screwed.


----------



## Roadyy (Feb 9, 2013)

As it stands now I don't think he has a chance even with the young people starting to like him. Alot of his policies are against a large portion of the minorities. He will lose the black and Latino community with his ways which will hurt him considerably. He doesn't have the experience in major floor debates so it will be a serious test for him on that. There are a couple of others that will be ahead of him for the GOP load since they don't like him already. He is from the wrong part of the US as there hasn't been a POTUS from this area in a long time.

I know I am paying alot more attention to all the candidates this go around than I have over the last few elections. I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils and will gladly for vote for an independent if they show me better than the front runners. It's time to stop looking at the front runners and look at who has our country in mind more than their or the money behind them's agenda.

We are so concerned with the top two or three runners that most people never even look at the platform of those lower in the running who would be alot better for our country.


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

Faceman said:


> Do you really want to go there? You know dang well I am a business finance expert. If you want to start throwing mud and insults, OK - I'll join right in...what the heck does a small town cop like YOU know about business finance?


 
I only started being a "small town cop" at the age of 40. I was in the corporate world before that, along with other side "jobs" like being a medic.



> Oh, I know - absolutely nothing, which is glaringly obvious from your ignorant and obsessive comparison of Bain to the government.


Face, what you DON'T know about me could fill the Grand Canyon. Unlike you, I don't go out of my way, all the time, trying to impress everyone with my knowledge of minutia.



> I could turn the tables and tell you how cops should do their jobs and tell you what cops are doing right and what they are doing wrong, but unlike you I know when I don't know a dang thing about something and I have too much pride to make a fool out of myself with ignorant posts...


You can tell me what you think cops should do any time you want. I could care less. However, as to the last sentence.....You might have hesitated there. If you want to throw a tantrum, fine. If you post rude and accusatory posts such as the one that preceded my reply, you have to expect to be countered.


----------

