heh

Shippingport, PA

#32176 Jul 28, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
You too. Trying to discuss these matters with you is like trying to explain them to a four year old.
"You too." Wow. Debate point of the thread.

Not.

You fail.
heh

Shippingport, PA

#32177 Jul 28, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, the dreaded "I know you are but what am I" gambit. The true mark of the mature.
See your own response in the previous post.
heh

Shippingport, PA

#32178 Jul 28, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
That's pretty much the way it works, isn't it? I don't remember GOP presidents advancing liberal agendas, do you?
Either your memory or your history or both pretty much suck then.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#32179 Jul 28, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
I admit I have a difficult time dumbing down my discourse so you can understand it. When I try, sometimes things get lost in translation. My bad.
how do you dumb down your posts?

when you try, they appear as they always do.

flies hovering a fresh pile of crap.
ino

Waverly, OH

#32180 Jul 28, 2014
http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2014/07/2...

Harry needs to go home and be admitted to the nursing home this November.
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#32181 Jul 28, 2014
They cannot kill a Spook wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a truck queation for you since this thread has left the topic of the 2010 ohio governor race.
Have you driven trucks with the Freightliner / Sterling tuff trak suspension. It is spring suspension that looks like a cross between an after market replacement for a Mack camelback and a volvo T-ride. How did you like them and what were they on?
Not sure of that one unless I actually have one on my tractor. Mine is less than three years old so perhaps I do. I would have to check.

My job is not a slip-seat so I don't get to drive a lot of different tractors around. We lease ours through Penkse because with all this pollution crap they have to put on these trucks, they are almost unaffordable, so with everything involved, it's just cheaper for my employer to lease them. In fact, he just started to lease our trailers and is thinking of leasing the straight trucks too.

It is a Freightliner Cascadia though so again, it may be on there. But during my pre-trip, I haven't noticed anything strange about the springs or suspension. It seems to ride no different than any other truck I drove since they started to use air bags. But if it's an expensive system, then without a doubt, it's definitely not on there. LOL!
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#32182 Jul 28, 2014
Pops wrote:
<quoted text> IF Obama had told the truth about his true goals, he may not have been elected. We'll never know. But it was obvious from the very beginning that Obama was/is a very polarizing person. He doesn't work across the aisle either, he doesn't pay attention to polls, he doesn't even pay attention to electronic request for whatever topic.
He didn't pay attention to Benghazi either. He went campaigning less than 12 hours after the event ended. I guess he thinks he's too above everybody TO pay attention.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#32183 Jul 28, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
He didn't pay attention to Benghazi either.
Are you old enough to remember the Beirut bombings that happened during Reagan's presidency? Do you remember the Democratic response?

"Around dawn on October 23, 1983, I was in Beirut, Lebanon, when a suicide bomber drove a truck laden with the equivalent of twenty-one thousand pounds of TNT into the heart of a U.S. Marine compound, killing two hundred and forty-one servicemen. The U.S. military command, which regarded the Marines’ presence as a non-combative,“peace-keeping mission,” had left a vehicle gate wide open, and ordered the sentries to keep their weapons unloaded. The only real resistance the suicide bomber had encountered was a scrim of concertina wire. When I arrived on the scene a short while later to report on it for the Wall Street Journal, the Marine barracks were flattened. From beneath the dusty, smoking slabs of collapsed concrete, piteous American voices could be heard, begging for help. Thirteen more American servicemen later died from injuries, making it the single deadliest attack on American Marines since the Battle of Iwo Jima."

"There were more than enough opportunities to lay blame for the horrific losses at high U.S. officials’ feet. But unlike today’s Congress, congressmen did not talk of impeaching Ronald Reagan, who was then President, nor were any subpoenas sent to cabinet members. This was true even though then, as now, the opposition party controlled the majority in the House. Tip O’Neill, the Democratic Speaker of the House, was no pushover. He, like today’s opposition leaders in the House, demanded an investigation—but a real one, and only one. Instead of playing it for political points, a House committee undertook a serious investigation into what went wrong at the barracks in Beirut. Two months later, it issued a report finding “very serious errors in judgment” by officers on the ground, as well as responsibility up through the military chain of command, and called for better security measures against terrorism in U.S. government installations throughout the world.

In other words, Congress actually undertook a useful investigation and made helpful recommendations. The report’s findings, by the way, were bipartisan.(The Pentagon, too, launched an investigation, issuing a report that was widely accepted by both parties.)

In March of 1984, three months after Congress issued its report, militants struck American officials in Beirut again, this time kidnapping the C.I.A.’s station chief, Bill Buckley. Buckley was tortured and, eventually, murdered. Reagan, who was tormented by a tape of Buckley being tortured, blamed himself. Congress held no public hearings, and pointed fingers at the perpetrators, not at political rivals.

If you compare the costs of the Reagan Administration’s serial security lapses in Beirut to the costs of Benghazi, it’s clear what has really deteriorated in the intervening three decades. It’s not the security of American government personnel working abroad. It’s the behavior of American congressmen at home.

The story in Beirut wasn’t over. In September of 1984, for the third time in eighteen months, jihadists bombed a U.S. government outpost in Beirut yet again. President Reagan acknowledged that the new security precautions that had been advocated by Congress hadn’t yet been implemented at the U.S. embassy annex that had been hit. The problem, the President admitted, was that the repairs hadn’t quite been completed on time. As he put it,“Anyone who’s ever had their kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would.” Imagine how Congressman Issa and Fox News would react to a similar explanation from President Obama today."

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/r...
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#32184 Jul 28, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
He didn't pay attention to Benghazi either.
Are you old enough to remember the attacks on Marines in Lebanon, which happened during Reagan's presidency? It's interesting to see how the Democratic leaders reacted then, versus the Republican response today.

" Around dawn on October 23, 1983, I was in Beirut, Lebanon, when a suicide bomber drove a truck laden with the equivalent of twenty-one thousand pounds of TNT into the heart of a U.S. Marine compound, killing two hundred and forty-one servicemen. The U.S. military command, which regarded the Marines’ presence as a non-combative,“peace-keeping mission,” had left a vehicle gate wide open, and ordered the sentries to keep their weapons unloaded. The only real resistance the suicide bomber had encountered was a scrim of concertina wire. When I arrived on the scene a short while later to report on it for the Wall Street Journal, the Marine barracks were flattened. From beneath the dusty, smoking slabs of collapsed concrete, piteous American voices could be heard, begging for help. Thirteen more American servicemen later died from injuries, making it the single deadliest attack on American Marines since the Battle of Iwo Jima."

"There were more than enough opportunities to lay blame for the horrific losses at high U.S. officials’ feet. But unlike today’s Congress, congressmen did not talk of impeaching Ronald Reagan, who was then President, nor were any subpoenas sent to cabinet members. This was true even though then, as now, the opposition party controlled the majority in the House. Tip O’Neill, the Democratic Speaker of the House, was no pushover. He, like today’s opposition leaders in the House, demanded an investigation—but a real one, and only one. Instead of playing it for political points, a House committee undertook a serious investigation into what went wrong at the barracks in Beirut. Two months later, it issued a report finding “very serious errors in judgment” by officers on the ground, as well as responsibility up through the military chain of command, and called for better security measures against terrorism in U.S. government installations throughout the world.

In other words, Congress actually undertook a useful investigation and made helpful recommendations. The report’s findings, by the way, were bipartisan.(The Pentagon, too, launched an investigation, issuing a report that was widely accepted by both parties.)

In March of 1984, three months after Congress issued its report, militants struck American officials in Beirut again, this time kidnapping the C.I.A.’s station chief, Bill Buckley. Buckley was tortured and, eventually, murdered. Reagan, who was tormented by a tape of Buckley being tortured, blamed himself. Congress held no public hearings, and pointed fingers at the perpetrators, not at political rivals.

If you compare the costs of the Reagan Administration’s serial security lapses in Beirut to the costs of Benghazi, it’s clear what has really deteriorated in the intervening three decades. It’s not the security of American government personnel working abroad. It’s the behavior of American congressmen at home.

The story in Beirut wasn’t over. In September of 1984, for the third time in eighteen months, jihadists bombed a U.S. government outpost in Beirut yet again. President Reagan acknowledged that the new security precautions that had been advocated by Congress hadn’t yet been implemented at the U.S. embassy annex that had been hit. The problem, the President admitted, was that the repairs hadn’t quite been completed on time. As he put it,“Anyone who’s ever had their kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would.” Imagine how Congressman Issa and Fox News would react to a similar explanation from President Obama today. "

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/r...
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

#32185 Jul 28, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
A CEO is typically hired by the Board of Directors of a company. He is supposed to represent the interests of the stockholders, who are the ultimate owners of the company.
"Both the board of directors and the CEO of a small business have a fiduciary responsibility to the business's shareholders. The fiduciary duties are legal concepts that form the basis of a CEO's legal relationship with his company's owners. According to the American Bar Association, courts have ruled that a CEO's relationship with his small business's shareholders carries more legal responsibility than his relationship with his company's creditors. This is because the creditors' relationship with the company exists purely as a result of a legal contract. The shareholders' relationship with the CEO, by contrast, entails both a binding contract and the trust of that CEO in controlling the shareholders' property."
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/legal-relation...
Come on OG. I was born in the morning but not this morning.
My example was not intended to be a clone comparison. Just to point out to a small minded person that although selected by a certain number of people, that a CEO & the pres still represent ALL of the people. You mention shareholders, are not U.S. citizens shareholders of this country? Of course we are, we invest our tax dollars & expect a proper return.
Does that make some sort of sense?
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#32186 Jul 28, 2014
Pops wrote:
<quoted text> Come on OG. I was born in the morning but not this morning.
My example was not intended to be a clone comparison. Just to point out to a small minded person that although selected by a certain number of people, that a CEO & the pres still represent ALL of the people. You mention shareholders, are not U.S. citizens shareholders of this country? Of course we are, we invest our tax dollars & expect a proper return.
Does that make some sort of sense?
Nope.
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#32187 Jul 28, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you old enough to remember the attacks on Marines in Lebanon, which happened during Reagan's presidency? It's interesting to see how the Democratic leaders reacted then, versus the Republican response today.
I don't know what one has to do with the other.

Nobody ever blamed DumBama for the attack, they blamed DumBama for what took place during and after the attack.

As for blaming Obama, what party was it that tried to blame the lack of security on the Republicans in Congress?

All Americans wanted to know was the truth. Even if DumBama came out and said "We couldn't supply help to the victims for security reason that cannot be revealed due to it's top secret nature." That would have been enough. But when he sent out his minions to lie about the tragedy, that's quite another thing. To add insult to injury, they locked up the guy that made the tape which had nothing to do with the attack in the first place. I think he spent a year or so behind bars for political reasons.

You posted your story to make the point that people didn't politicize tragedies during Reagan's time, but I think the larger point is that Reagan didn't behave anything like DumBama did.
woo-boy

Waverly, OH

#32188 Jul 28, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Not sure of that one unless I actually have one on my tractor. Mine is less than three years old so perhaps I do. I would have to check.
My job is not a slip-seat so I don't get to drive a lot of different tractors around. We lease ours through Penkse because with all this pollution crap they have to put on these trucks, they are almost unaffordable, so with everything involved, it's just cheaper for my employer to lease them. In fact, he just started to lease our trailers and is thinking of leasing the straight trucks too.
It is a Freightliner Cascadia though so again, it may be on there. But during my pre-trip, I haven't noticed anything strange about the springs or suspension. It seems to ride no different than any other truck I drove since they started to use air bags. But if it's an expensive system, then without a doubt, it's definitely not on there. LOL!
Just as I predicted.
woo-boy

Waverly, OH

#32189 Jul 28, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you old enough to remember the Beirut bombings that happened during Reagan's presidency? Do you remember the Democratic response?
"Around dawn on October 23, 1983, I was in Beirut, Lebanon, when a suicide bomber drove a truck laden with the equivalent of twenty-one thousand pounds of TNT into the heart of a U.S. Marine compound, killing two hundred and forty-one servicemen. The U.S. military command, which regarded the Marines’ presence as a non-combative,“peace-keeping mission,” had left a vehicle gate wide open, and ordered the sentries to keep their weapons unloaded. The only real resistance the suicide bomber had encountered was a scrim of concertina wire. When I arrived on the scene a short while later to report on it for the Wall Street Journal, the Marine barracks were flattened. From beneath the dusty, smoking slabs of collapsed concrete, piteous American voices could be heard, begging for help. Thirteen more American servicemen later died from injuries, making it the single deadliest attack on American Marines since the Battle of Iwo Jima."
"There were more than enough opportunities to lay blame for the horrific losses at high U.S. officials’ feet. But unlike today’s Congress, congressmen did not talk of impeaching Ronald Reagan, who was then President, nor were any subpoenas sent to cabinet members. This was true even though then, as now, the opposition party controlled the majority in the House. Tip O’Neill, the Democratic Speaker of the House, was no pushover. He, like today’s opposition leaders in the House, demanded an investigation—but a real one, and only one. Instead of playing it for political points, a House committee undertook a serious investigation into what went wrong at the barracks in Beirut. Two months later, it issued a report finding “very serious errors in judgment” by officers on the ground, as well as responsibility up through the military chain of command, and called for better security measures against terrorism in U.S. government installations throughout the world.
In other words, Congress actually undertook a useful investigation and made helpful recommendations. The report’s findings, by the way, were bipartisan.(The Pentagon, too, launched an investigation, issuing a report that was widely accepted by both parties.)
In March of 1984, three months after Congress issued its report, militants struck American officials in Beirut again, this time kidnapping the C.I.A.’s station chief, Bill Buckley. Buckley was tortured and, eventually, murdered. Reagan, who was tormented by a tape of Buckley being tortured, blamed himself. Congress held no public hearings, and pointed fingers at the perpetrators, not at political rivals.
If you compare the costs of the Reagan Administration’s serial security lapses in Beirut to the costs of Benghazi, it’s clear what has really deteriorated in the intervening three decades. It’s not the security of American government personnel working abroad. It’s the behavior of American congressmen at home.
The story in Beirut wasn’t over. In September of 1984, for the third time in eighteen months, jihadists bombed a U.S. government outpost in Beirut yet again. President Reagan acknowledged that the new security precautions that had been advocated by Congress hadn’t yet been implemented at the U.S. embassy annex that had been hit. The problem, the President admitted, was that the repairs hadn’t quite been completed on time. As he put it,“Anyone who’s ever had their kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would.” Imagine how Congressman Issa and Fox News would react to a similar explanation from President Obama today."
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/r...
They keep forgetting about all of the attacks during the Bush Administration. No scandals there.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#32190 Jul 28, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know what one has to do with the other.
Nobody ever blamed DumBama for the attack, they blamed DumBama for what took place during and after the attack.
As for blaming Obama, what party was it that tried to blame the lack of security on the Republicans in Congress?
All Americans wanted to know was the truth. Even if DumBama came out and said "We couldn't supply help to the victims for security reason that cannot be revealed due to it's top secret nature." That would have been enough. But when he sent out his minions to lie about the tragedy, that's quite another thing. To add insult to injury, they locked up the guy that made the tape which had nothing to do with the attack in the first place. I think he spent a year or so behind bars for political reasons.
You posted your story to make the point that people didn't politicize tragedies during Reagan's time, but I think the larger point is that Reagan didn't behave anything like DumBama did.
Do you write this stuff with a straight face?
DEMSRULE

Ashland, KY

#32191 Jul 28, 2014
Well, there was that one unpleasant day when 3000 citizens were killed in New York City. But that was before anything that happened anywhere on the planet was the president's fault. Before the tea party, back when our presidents were always white guys.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#32192 Jul 28, 2014
Pops wrote:
<quoted text> I think that Hillary is qualified enough but she may be too polarizing. While gaining her experiences, she also created a lot of baggage.
Pops, that's a perfect description of Richard Nixon. Back in the day, you either loved him or hated him. He got smacked down pretty bad, but he re-emerged as the "new" Nixon and got elected President. Twice.

Nixon did definitely not represent ALL the people. Nixon had friends and enemies. He used government to reward his friends and punish his enemies. He hated "the Jews", didn't trust the blacks and he wasn't crazy about those pacifist hippies, either. He was quite willing to tap your phone, steal your medical records, or employ "dirty tricks" to make your life miserable.

Do you think I'm happy at the prospect of Hillary turning into that kind of President? Guess again. Nixon was scary, we were lucky to escape his corrosive influence.

(But, I must admit, after hearing the right wing "cry wolf" for so long during the milquetoast Obama presidency, it might be fun to see how they would react to a genuine threat.) Here's an article from 1972, that explains how "Tricky Dick" operated, back in the day:

"FBI agents have established that the Watergate bugging incident stemmed from a massive campaign of political spying and sabotage conducted on behalf of President Nixon's re-election and directed by officials of the White House and the Committee for the Re-election of the President.

The activities, according to information in FBI and Department of Justice files, were aimed at all the major Democratic presidential contenders and -- since 1971 -- represented a basic strategy of the Nixon re-election effort.

During their Watergate investigation, federal agents established that hundreds of thousands of dollars in Nixon campaign contributions had been set aside to pay for an extensive undercover campaign aimed at discrediting individual Democratic presidential candidates and disrupting their campaigns.

"Intelligence work" is normal during a campaign and is said to be carried out by both political parties. But federal investigators said what they uncovered being done by the Nixon forces is unprecedented in scope and intensity.

They said it included:

Following members of Democratic candidates' families and assembling dossiers on their personal lives; forging letters and distributing them under the candidates' letterheads; leaking false and manufactured items to the press; throwing campaign schedules into disarray; seizing confidential campaign files; and investigating the lives of dozens of Democratic campaign workers.

In addition, investigators said the activities included planting provocateurs in the ranks of organizations expected to demonstrate at the Republican and Democratic conventions; and investigating potential donors to the Nixon campaign before their contributions were solicited."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national...
d pantz

Toledo, OH

#32193 Jul 29, 2014
woo-boy wrote:
<quoted text>They keep forgetting about all of the attacks during the Bush Administration. No scandals there.
That was a long time ago son.
woo-boy

Waverly, OH

#32195 Jul 29, 2014
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> That was a long time ago son.
There was not millions of wasted dollars thrown away on false scandal investigation's like there is now by the 'We have to slash spending party'. Who get's to pay for this upcoming bullcrap lawsuit? The party of nothing unless it's for the rich or the taxpayers? As of June 23 this year Boehner himself has headlined more than 150 fundraisers and to date $88 million for the party. In August he will embark on a 14-state fundraising tour. That doesn't leave much time for him to be doing what he was elected for. That puts him on pace for 300 fundraisers in a year. How many has Obama done? Oh, yeah, most of those include rounds of GOLF. You can't maintain the handicap he has without playing A LOT.
woo-boy

Waverly, OH

#32196 Jul 29, 2014
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> That was a long time ago son.
I forgot to add, the body count was a lot higher than 4 brave Americans that have these panties all bunched up in a wad.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

North-Georgetown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Chad Kroeger reportedly dumped girlfriend for A... (Aug '12) Mon Patty Ann 6
Puppies for sale Sep 25 Desireenicole22 1
Sydney? Sep 21 Just curious 1
OH Who do you support for Auditor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) Sep 19 Vic 231
Stefani Schaefer (Oct '09) Sep 19 Bvarrecchia 55
Porter Kilmer Sep 18 Lawrence 3
OH Who do you support for Treasurer in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) Sep 13 They cannot kill ... 191

North-Georgetown Jobs

North-Georgetown People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

North-Georgetown News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in North-Georgetown

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]