Who do you support for Governor in Oh...
d pantz

Taylor, MI

#32172 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.
In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about anyway, even when you try to use an expanded vocabulary
d pantz

Taylor, MI

#32173 Jul 28, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
The POTUS is elected ..........Your "he's not representing the people" charge is naïve and uninformed.
What? You make yourself into a complete boob within one post.
woo-boy

Van Wert, OH

#32174 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?
He has no idea, Freightliner doesn't build hi-cube box vans. I'm sure he'll make something up about it though or get it off of you-tube.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Medina, OH

#32175 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 has promised to address issues with 'X' number of signatures & has instead raised 'X' number of signatures up to 'Z' number of signatures & still can not be properly responsible..
The man is as honest as the scorpion on the back of the Fox swimming across the waterway..
As far as your 1st question...the repubs behaved just as one might expect to the comment...'they can ride in the back'...Put the Kool Aide down dude
You have your chronology screwed up. Another big surprise.
heh

Akron, OH

#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

Akron, OH

#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

Akron, OH

#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

Clyde, 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

Mason, 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

Mason, 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

Medina, 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

Van Wert, 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

Van Wert, 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

Medina, 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.

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.

Springboro Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
one of Agenbroads cronies bites the dust...AGAIN (Nov '15) 1 hr GUILTY 2
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 1 hr GUILTY 31,933
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 2 hr stupid republicans 20,391
The US empire and military are much too large! 11 hr The New Cool Warrior 1
Save Mother Earth! 21 hr Leon Harrison 4
News Grand jury clears police in Wal-Mart shooting (Sep '14) 21 hr Gun Nut 8
Adult movie theaters (Sep '12) Tue Mike 5

Springboro Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Springboro Mortgages