Ronald Reagan Comes Out Against Kerry In New Ad

[RINGLEADER]

It's actually taken from his debate with Walter Mondale, but the points he makes are just as accurately applicable to Kerry.

http://www.thestakesarehigh.org/

[SNR]

I love the Bach B minor mass playing in the background ROFL

[Cochise]

Wow, that's a great ad.

[MadProphetMargin]

Ringleader,

So, it's okay to turf up corpses, and apply their words to the current candidates?

Cool. Cicero had a few things to say about Bush...

[StcChief]

Like registering Dead people, dogs, felons to vote.

[KCWolfman]

Ringleader,

So, it's okay to turf up corpses, and apply their words to the current candidates?

Cool. Cicero had a few things to say about Bush...
So does Christopher Reeves according to John Edwards.

[Bearcat2005]

Damn! Reagan owned John Kerry! LOL!

[penchief]

The GOP must be getting desperate. Bush got his ass handed to him so bad in those debates that his campaign had to bring Ronald Raygun back from the dead to make a point for the juvenile acting GW as if the eras were the same and the opponents were the same?

It supports my contention that Bush is a giant poser and that the GOP has forfeited all credibility in favor of style over substance.

[Donger]

The GOP must be getting desperate. Bush got his ass handed to him so bad in those debates that his campaign had to bring Ronald Raygun back from the dead to make a point for the juvenile acting GW as if the eras were the same and the opponents were the same?

It supports my contention that Bush is a giant poser and that the GOP has forfeited all credibility in favor of style over substance.

Style over substance? Are you talking about Bush or Kerry?

[Duck Dog]

The GOP must be getting desperate. Bush got his ass handed to him so bad in those debates that his campaign had to bring Ronald Raygun back from the dead to make a point for the juvenile acting GW as if the eras were the same and the opponents were the same?

It supports my contention that Bush is a giant poser and that the GOP has forfeited all credibility in favor of style over substance.

Pot meet kettle.

Calling GW juvenile right after spelling the name of the greatest President of our time, Raygun. :rolleyes:

It's Reagan.

[penchief]

Style over substance? Are you talking about Bush or Kerry?

Well, that's a tough call considering that Kerry has both style and substance over Bush.

However, how can it not be evident to all from the Bush campaign's emphasis on acrid one-liners which are supposed to be belittling and funny (NOT) over substance that they are trying to win the PR war instead of discussing the important issues facing this country? Or better yet, discussing the performance and veracity of this present administration?

[Pitt Gorilla]

So does Christopher Reeves according to John Edwards.I remember people on this board getting upset that Kerry talked about his mother; this ought to REALLY piss them off...

[Pitt Gorilla]

Pot meet kettle.

Calling GW juvenile right after spelling the name of the greatest President of our time, Raygun. :rolleyes:

It's Reagan.Oh no! Not the Bulleting Board spelling Nazis again... :)

[Duck Dog]

Oh no! Not the Bulleting Board spelling Nazis again... :)

Nope, I certainly wouldn't be the best spelling cop. Just pointing out the obvious.

[penchief]

Pot meet kettle.

Calling GW juvenile right after spelling the name of the greatest President of our time, Raygun. :rolleyes:

It's Reagan.

Would that be the Ronald Raygun that had a secret deal with the Iranians that ultimately cost Carter the election and possibly prolonged the captivity of the hostages?

Would that be the Ronald Raygun that subverted the Constitution of the United States in order to pursue a ideological agenda during the Iran-Contra scandal?

Would that be the very same Ronald Raygun that told the American people that Iran was our greatest enemy while selling that enemy weapons at the very same time he was selling WMD to Iraq and offering logistical support in the use of those inhumane weapons?

Is that the same Ronald Raygun that proved "Trickle Down Economics" does not work?

I could go on but I am just wondering. There is a reason that Ronald Raygun will never adorn pocket change nor Mount Rushmore. Even though the Reagan Myth exists within conservative circles, history punctures that myth for most reasonable people.

[Donger]

Well, that's a tough call considering that Kerry has both style and substance over Bush.

However, how can it not be evident to all from the Bush campaign's emphasis on acrid one-liners which are supposed to be belittling and funny (NOT) over substance that they are trying to win the PR war instead of discussing the important issues facing this country? Or better yet, discussing the performance and veracity of this present administration?

Please detail the "substance" that Kerry has provided during his 20 years in the Senate.

[HC_Chief]

Ringleader,

So, it's okay to turf up corpses, and apply their words to the current candidates?

Cool. Cicero had a few things to say about Bush...

Oh, so now you agree the war in Iraq is just? Cool.

[Loki]

Ringleader,

So, it's okay to turf up corpses, and apply their words to the current candidates?

Cool. Cicero had a few things to say about Bush...

and vince foster has a few things to say about the clintons....

[penchief]

Please detail the "substance" that Kerry has provided during his 20 years in the Senate.

Well, I would start with his criticisms about the president's policies and conduct of American policy. That is SUBSTANCE compared to the beligerent one-liners that the president and his ilk resort to that do a great disservice to voters and our country.

Kerry has confronted his critics. He has been steadfast in the line of fire, even in the face of false accusations. This president has ran from accountability, even when accountability is in order.

Hell, we don't even know if Halliburton or Enron had anything to do with America's energy policy or it's policy in Iraq.

[Donger]

Well, I would start with his criticisms about the president's policies and conduct of American policy. That is SUBSTANCE compared to the beligerent one-liners that the president and his ilk resort to that do a great disservice to voters and our country.

Kerry has confronted his critics. He has been steadfast in the line of fire, even in the face of false accusations. This president has ran from accountability, even when accountability is in order.

Hell, we don't even know if Halliburton or Enron had anything to do with America's energy policy or it's policy in Iraq.

Let me get this straight.

I ask you to give some evidence that Kerry is more "substance than style" and you respond with that he criticizes the POTUS?

[penchief]

Let me get this straight.

I ask you to give some evidence that Kerry is more "substance than style" and you respond with that he criticizes the POTUS?

When you actually discuss the issues that is more substantive than trying to personally attack the other person's character or belittle your opponent. Don't you think?

[penchief]

Let me get this straight.

I ask you to give some evidence that Kerry is more "substance than style" and you respond with that he criticizes the POTUS?

In reality, I don't have to provide examples when all one has to do is look at the debates. All three of them. That is the difference in discussing relevant issues and resorting to juvenile tactics (piss poor humor) intended to belittle Kerry.

[jcl-kcfan2]

Well, I would start with his criticisms about the president's policies and conduct of American policy. That is SUBSTANCE compared to the beligerent one-liners that the president and his ilk resort to that do a great disservice to voters and our country.

Kerry has confronted his critics. He has been steadfast in the line of fire, even in the face of false accusations. This president has ran from accountability, even when accountability is in order.

Hell, we don't even know if Halliburton or Enron had anything to do with America's energy policy or it's policy in Iraq.

You call that "substance"?

Kerry and accountability, thats a good one...

[Donger]

When you actually discuss the issues that is more substantive than trying to personally attack the other person's character or belittle your opponent. Don't you think?

I suppose that's subjective. I could point out wher both candidates have done so.

But, again, for me it's not so much what a person says or how they say that makes them more "substance" than "style." For me, it's how they act and what they DO.

[penchief]

You call that "substance"?

Kerry and accountability, thats a good one...

Give me one thing, considering the failures of this administration, that they have taken accountability for. This is the "point the finger at everyone but yourself" administration.

Better yet, give me one thing that is better than when this administration took over. Just one. And don't say terrorism because it is pretty much accepted that the Clinton Administration took the Al-Qaeda threat seriously when the Bush Administration didn't until after 9/11.

[Donger]

And don't say terrorism because it is pretty much accepted that the Clinton Administration took the Al-Qaeda threat seriously when the Bush Administration didn't until after 9/11.

Yeah. So seriously that Clinton rejected bin Laden's head on a plate, when so offered.

[penchief]

Yeah. So seriously that Clinton rejected bin Laden's head on a plate, when so offered.

Nice try. Can you explain the circumstance surrounding that offer? If you can do it honestly without leaving out any details then I might consider this as a legitimate example. However, if you can't then it is just another example of how conservatives pare away all the extenuating circumstances in order to paint a picture black and white for politial purposes.

[HC_Chief]

Yeah. So seriously that Clinton rejected bin Laden's head on a plate, when so offered.

Don't forget that devastating strike on the Sudanese asprin factory...

ranks right up there with disallowing armored vehicles in Somalia because it might send the wrong message

[Donger]

Nice try. Can you explain the circumstance surrounding that offer? If you can do it honestly without leaving out any details then I might consider this as a legitimate example. However, if you can't then it is just another example of how conservatives pare away all the extenuating circumstances in order to paint a picture black and white for politial purposes.

Sure. Would Clinton's own words suffice?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/25/124653.shtml

Near the bottom of the page is: "To listen to President Clinton explain why he turned the Sudanese offer down, Click here."

Enjoy.

[picasso]

For me, it's how they act and what they DO.

I believe that is the problem with Americas opinion towards Bush and this administration. Look at their record and what they have DONE.
I am so glad you feel you are personally better off now than when he took office, or maybe you have some hope that a loved one isn't over there in Iraq without cause (like four out of five republicans today still believe that Sadam has WMD) and that is your tie to this belief in this administration. Or maybe your belief system trickled down to you from your parents and you can't find it to voice your own opinion and find compassion in people to choose what is right and what is wrong with the leadership in this country. Your just one of the lead.
How they act and what they do says a lot about the character of both individuals but it also says a lot about you as a registered republican voter to close your eyes to what this administration has done if that is what you believe.

[Donger]

I believe that is the problem with Americas opinion towards Bush and this administration. Look at their record and what they have DONE.
I am so glad you feel you are personally better off now than when he took office, or maybe you have some hope that a loved one isn't over there in Iraq without cause (like four out of five republicans today still believe that Sadam has WMD) and that is your tie to this belief in this administration. Or maybe your belief system trickled down to you from your parents and you can't find it to voice your own opinion and find compassion in people to choose what is right and what is wrong with the leadership in this country. Your just one of the lead.
How they act and what they do says a lot about the character of both individuals but it also says a lot about you as a registered republican voter to close your eyes to what this administration has done if that is what you believe.

The issue penchief and I were discussing was which candidate offers more substance and which candidate offers more style.

I say that Bush offers more substance and Kerry offers more style. Why? Because I can't figure out what, if anything, Kerry has done, particularly in the Senate. Yes, someone told me that he served in Vietnam, but after that, what has he done?

I know what Bush has done; not all of it good. But I seriously have no idea what Kerry has done besides Vietnam. I know he's a solid debater. He likes wind surfing and bicycle riding. He married well.

But, what has he accomplished that makes anyone think that he is more "substance than style?"

[Cochise]

It's a great ad illustrating that the difference between sKerry and Mondull is negligable.

[KCWolfman]

Would that be the Ronald Raygun that had a secret deal with the Iranians that ultimately cost Carter the election and possibly prolonged the captivity of the hostages?

.

How did Reagan do so during the Carter administration? Are you going to have the nerve to use the "bad intel" excuse?

[KCWolfman]

Well, I would start with his criticisms about the president's policies and conduct of American policy. That is SUBSTANCE compared to the beligerent one-liners that the president and his ilk resort to that do a great disservice to voters and our country.

Kerry has confronted his critics. He has been steadfast in the line of fire, even in the face of false accusations. This president has ran from accountability, even when accountability is in order.

Hell, we don't even know if Halliburton or Enron had anything to do with America's energy policy or it's policy in Iraq.
That didn't answer the question.

[KCWolfman]

In reality, I don't have to provide examples when all one has to do is look at the debates. All three of them. That is the difference in discussing relevant issues and resorting to juvenile tactics (piss poor humor) intended to belittle Kerry.
You mean like "raygun", right?

[picasso]

But, what has he accomplished that makes anyone think that he is more "substance than style?"

1. Graduated from Boston College Law School in 1976
Prosecutor in Middlesex County, Massachusetts. Took on organized crime and put behind bars "one of the state's most notorious gangsters, the number two organized crime figure in New England."

2. He fought for victims' rights and created programs for rape counseling.

3. Elected Lieutenant Governor in 1982.

4. Elected to the United States Senate and has won reelection three-times since. He is now serving his fourth term, after winning again in 2002.
5. He helped provide health insurance for millions of low-income children.

6. He has fought to improve public education, protect our natural environment, and strengthen our economy. He has been praised as one of the leading environmentalists in the Senate, who stopped the Bush-Cheney plan to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

7. 19 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

8. Work on the Iran-Contra scandal

9. One of our nation's most respected voices on national security and international affairs.

10. Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs
Ranking Democrat on the East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee

11. John Kerry wrote The New War, an in-depth study of America's national security in the 21st Century. He worked on a bipartisan basis to craft the American response to September 11th and has been a leading voice on American policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war on terrorism, the Middle East peace process and Israel's security.

I think that is something more after the Vietnam War don't you?

Tell me what Bush has done in terms of substance? Because the only thing that I know that he had done was to make sure that the death penalty in the state of Texas was strictly enforced while he was Governor. Many very questionable. And don't talk of his presidency, talk about what he did previously. Because the last four years he really hasn't done all that well in the first place.
And don't go to far back to his Yale years because he wasn't the greatest student in the world either. C student I believe regardless of his IQ. I won't mention anything about his 3 DUI's or getting busted for cocaine posession if you don't belittle what Kerry's decorations were for the service he gave his country.

[Ugly Duck]

"Ronald Reagan Comes Out Against Kerry In New Ad"

Huh? He has and Altzheimers and he's dead..... something is awfully fishy with this...

[Calcountry]

The GOP must be getting desperate. Bush got his ass handed to him so bad in those debates that his campaign had to bring Ronald Raygun back from the dead to make a point for the juvenile acting GW as if the eras were the same and the opponents were the same?

It supports my contention that Bush is a giant poser and that the GOP has forfeited all credibility in favor of style over substance.
When the boys are up against it, tell em to win just one for the gipper.

[Calcountry]

Would that be the Ronald Raygun that had a secret deal with the Iranians that ultimately cost Carter the election and possibly prolonged the captivity of the hostages?

Would that be the Ronald Raygun that subverted the Constitution of the United States in order to pursue a ideological agenda during the Iran-Contra scandal?

Would that be the very same Ronald Raygun that told the American people that Iran was our greatest enemy while selling that enemy weapons at the very same time he was selling WMD to Iraq and offering logistical support in the use of those inhumane weapons?

Is that the same Ronald Raygun that proved "Trickle Down Economics" does not work?

I could go on but I am just wondering. There is a reason that Ronald Raygun will never adorn pocket change nor Mount Rushmore. Even though the Reagan Myth exists within conservative circles, history punctures that myth for most reasonable people.
Aparently you didn't notice all the love he got at his funeral?

[Calcountry]

and vince foster has a few things to say about the clintons....
Shakespear had this to say about the Clintons, "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark"

[KCWolfman]

1. Graduated from Boston College Law School in 1976
Prosecutor in Middlesex County, Massachusetts. Took on organized crime and put behind bars "one of the state's most notorious gangsters, the number two organized crime figure in New England."

2. He fought for victims' rights and created programs for rape counseling.

3. Elected Lieutenant Governor in 1982.

4. Elected to the United States Senate and has won reelection three-times since. He is now serving his fourth term, after winning again in 2002.
5. He helped provide health insurance for millions of low-income children.

6. He has fought to improve public education, protect our natural environment, and strengthen our economy. He has been praised as one of the leading environmentalists in the Senate, who stopped the Bush-Cheney plan to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

7. 19 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

8. Work on the Iran-Contra scandal

9. One of our nation's most respected voices on national security and international affairs.

10. Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs
Ranking Democrat on the East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee

11. John Kerry wrote The New War, an in-depth study of America's national security in the 21st Century. He worked on a bipartisan basis to craft the American response to September 11th and has been a leading voice on American policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war on terrorism, the Middle East peace process and Israel's security.

I think that is something more after the Vietnam War don't you?

Tell me what Bush has done in terms of substance? Because the only thing that I know that he had done was to make sure that the death penalty in the state of Texas was strictly enforced while he was Governor. Many very questionable. And don't talk of his presidency, talk about what he did previously. Because the last four years he really hasn't done all that well in the first place.
And don't go to far back to his Yale years because he wasn't the greatest student in the world either. C student I believe regardless of his IQ. I won't mention anything about his 3 DUI's or getting busted for cocaine posession if you don't belittle what Kerry's decorations were for the service he gave his country.


1. Kerry was ASSISTANT prosecutor and he was named thus only one year after serving in Middlesex. He bought his position over many other qualified candidates who had been there a great deal longer.

2. He created a program by hiring a grant writer to garner money from the Federal Programs. His nickname was "live shot Kerry" because he always "accidently" managed to be around cameras when more money was taken from federal programs slated for other counties in Mass.

3. Bush was elected Governor of Texas (if you haven't heard, being Governor is a step up from LT. Governor) which kinda blows your "I don't know what Bush has done theory.

4. Massachusetts elects a liberal senator? Wow!! Stop the presses. I bet Kennedy might even stand a chance there.

5. What program?

6. What has he done to stregthen "our" economy?

7. The same committe that warned us of the Russian Mafia being the real threat to the US? The same committee that sat stunned 8 times longer than what has been blamed on GWB while doing nothing?

8. Given. Thanks to the superior work of the Leader of that group, Richard Lugar, he was a success

9. Mere opinion, and a weak one at that.

10. And the entire time he served in that capacity he insisted his enemy was sincere and honest and there were no more POW-MIAs. His report stated hundreds may be dead, but he insisted no more were alive and did nothing to track done how, when, why, where, or to get the bodies back.

11. The book was a joke. It is now out of print. See #7 to see what it was based upon. Russian Mafia threats and Yassir Arafat a "statesman". What a freakin' joke.

[SNR]

Kerry has confronted his critics. What critics? Has ANYONE besides conservative talk radio, internet personalities, and sometimes on occasion FoxNews grilled Kerry on his record and WHY the things he will do differently than president Bush will work out?

I use getting more nations to join the US in the War on Terror as an example. Does Kerry really think that just because his name is not George Bush that France, Germany, and every other whacked-up European nation will be itching to deploy their troops to help us out? If so, that is very ignorant and arrogant. These countries don't want ANYTHING TO DO WITH WAR WHATSOEVER. They don't care if Mother Teresa comes back from the dead and urges them to send their troops to Iraq. They don't want any part of it.

And they especially don't care if Mother DUHresa is telling them to do so as well

[penchief]

Aparently you didn't notice all the love he got at his funeral?

No doubt "Mr. Reagan" was a beloved figure. In ways similar to Bush2, he had a job to do as a the frontman; be "down to earth," humorous, and personable. His job was to sell the unsellable. Just like Bush is likely to get re-elected even though the majority of people in this country fundamentally disagree with his domestic and foriegn policies, it's all about PR.

The Reagan Administration oversaw some of the most blatant of human rights and constitutional violations that have ever eminated from America's government. But if you can spin the frontman as "down-home," you can sell the American public a lot of bullshit. You can throw pragmatism out the window in favor of ideological extremism. You can utilize fear to sway the sheep. You can warm their hearts while you pull the rug out from underneath their livelihood and their families' well-being.

I liked Reagan as a person but he was a bane to that which promotes progress and evolution.

You can talk about the Berlin Wall all you want but the tearing down of the Berlin Wall was not Reagan's doing as much as it was Gorbachev's. Washington monitored the rise of progressives like Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin inside the Kremlin only to claim credit in this country for something that was profound on the other side of the globe. You don't hear Eastern Europe singing Reagan's praises even though they are the ones that benefitted most. The fall of the Berlin Wall didn't change anything in this country other than halt spending on the wasteful "Star Wars" initiative.

Reagan was an OK dude but a counterwieght to progress when you evaluate those things that measure humanitarian progress the most (i.e. the environment, human rights, honesty, the spread of WMD, etc.)

[NewPhin]

Oh no! Not the Bulleting Board spelling Nazis again... :)

:deevee:
Stop comparing the right wing to Nazis you mean leftist bully.


BTW, where is the righteous indignation over the right wing digging up corpses for their political ends? SHAMEFUL! ROFL

The DC forum has become a joke in the last week.

[SNR]

No doubt "Mr. Reagan" was a beloved figure. In ways similar to Bush2, he had a job to do as a the frontman; be "down to earth," humorous, and personable. His job was to sell the unsellable. Just like Bush is likely to get re-elected even though the majority of people in this country fundamentally disagree with his domestic and foriegn policies, it's all about PR.

The Reagan Administration oversaw some of the most blatant of human rights and constitutional violations that have ever eminated from America's government. But if you can spin the frontman as "down-home," you can sell the American public a lot of bullshit. You can throw pragmatism out the window in favor of ideological extremism. You can utilize fear to sway the sheep. You can warm their hearts while you pull the rug out from underneath their livelihood and their families' well-being.

I liked Reagan as a person but he was a bane to that which promotes progress and evolution.

You can talk about the Berlin Wall all you want but the tearing down of the Berlin Wall was not Reagan's doing as much as it was Gorbachev's. Washington monitored the rise of progressives like Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin inside the Kremlin only to claim credit in this country for something that was profound on the other side of the globe. You don't hear Eastern Europe singing Reagan's praises even though they are the ones that benefitted most. The fall of the Berlin Wall didn't change anything in this country other than halt spending on the wasteful "Star Wars" initiative.

Reagan was an OK dude but a counterwieght to progress when you evaluate those things that measure humanitarian progress the most (i.e. the environment, human rights, honesty, the spread of WMD, etc.)So missle defense and everything was whose responsibility?

Oh yeah, Reagan also spent his first term cleaning up the giant turd that Carter left after his presidency.

[Inspector]

Maybe a few of you are too young and didn't see Kerry talking on national TV shortly after his return from Vietnam.

That told me everything I need to know about this guy.

[listopencil]

:deevee:

The DC forum has become a joke in the last week.


Hasn't this forum always been pretty much a joke?