|
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
"Jim Carter" wrote in message ... "Len" wrote in message ... On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 08:30:04 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote: Not once did I flame you during our brief exchange. You did, yet had the gall to previously call us on the carpet for our behavior. Not nice Lenny. Well, i don't think saying one act's like a boring child when the same statement is repeatedly posed is much different from saying looney lefts or bull**** when one has made a serious remark. You can't blame me for seeing that as the normal level of "intensity" in this group. What you can say is I don't keep books with what everybody individually has been saying but I think that is a bit too much to ask. But as you're hurt that easily, please accept my apologies... Len, I do not think that a lot of the Americans on this newsgroup can comprehend what an "Ugly American" really is. They look into the mirror and only see a reflection of what they want to see. Why don't you paint a picture for us of an "Ugly American." We, "Ugly Americans", will then respond with a poratriat of an Ugly Canadian and an Ugly European. |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
"Len" wrote in message ... On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 08:30:04 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote: Not once did I flame you during our brief exchange. You did, yet had the gall to previously call us on the carpet for our behavior. Not nice Lenny. Well, i don't think saying one act's like a boring child when the same statement is repeatedly posed is much different from saying looney lefts or bull**** when one has made a serious remark. The problem is, what you call serious remarks are nothing more than serious fiction, or in other words, bull****. And where did I call you a loonie left? You can't blame me for seeing that as the normal level of "intensity" in this group. And in just over 24 hours at this NG you have let yourself sink to the bottom with the rest of the folks who choose to flame and insult. Weren't you the one whining about those very folks just yesterday? What you can say is I don't keep books with what everybody individually has been saying but I think that is a bit too much to ask. No, what I do say is you like to rewrite history based on your Socialist views. |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
You want facts?
Fact: Reagan inherited an economy from Carter with double digit inflation, double digit interest rates and gas shortages. Is not a fact, but the way you set your period-boundaries and focus on Carter. You don't relate to previous presidencies. You just pick what you can use. Presenting this statement as a fact also denies other influences like world economy. Such simplifications usually deminish the value of an argument. It doesn't deserve the term fact. All I will say here is: Carter had no megalomane, expensive plans like Reagan. But I admit I have no extensive knowledge of the Carter economic performance. Fact: Ronald Reagan's tax cuts resulted in a financial boom with government revenue substantially increasing during his 2 terms. You can say that but where is the proof? In your words this is interpretation cause there may have been other explanations for the development you mention, if it was there in the first place. Sorry, still no fact, even by your own standards... Fact: Reagan cut federal spending as a share of the GDP almost 1% during his 2 terms. Fact: Reagan is the only president in the last forty years to cut inflation-adjusted non-defense outlays, which fell by 9.7 percent during his first term. Fact: Reagan cut the budget of 8 agencies out of 15 during his first term and the budget of 10 out of 15 during his second term. You can tell me anything here. I see your declarations but I see no proof. But I guess you expect me just to believe what you say... Fact: Reagan brought the USSR to its feet (financially) with them trying to compete with our Strategic Defense Initiative and a continued space program. This was one factor in bringing out the collapse of the USSR. Interpretation and immense speculation. Sorry, no fact, not even close. Fact: Reagan was one of the most popular US Presidents in history, getting 525 of 538 electoral votes and 59% of the popular votes in the 1984 election. Does that say something about Reagan or about the american public or about the tv show the us political process really is...? How about 'dem apples Len? As far as facts were remotely in sight (most of your post was speculation, selective use of history and interpretation): where can I find the proof, Jim? And all done without an attack on you or an insult to you. Well in that case, you must feel you're a better person than I am.... Now come back once you learn to play nice. I don' take orders. But seriously Jim. You are blowing my using the term "acting like a boring child" out of proportion. Your roleplaying like being that much offended ( "attack" is way too strong a word for this, "insult" is also too strong) for gaining moral territory in our discussion is indeed really childish.... And that is no longer a term used jokingly but now is an empirical fact for me. When we take a little distance we will have to conclude that we're not going to be soulmates. You will probably keep using your "being offended" and we'll both grab useable facts or what is presented as facts to prove our point. Maybe we'd better leave it at that. |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
Len wrote:
You want facts? Fact: Reagan inherited an economy from Carter with double digit inflation, double digit interest rates and gas shortages. Is not a fact...(bull**** deleted) That is a fact, jack. Fact: Ronald Reagan's tax cuts resulted in a financial boom with government revenue substantially increasing during his 2 terms. You can say that but where is the proof? Presented with facts and you want further "proof"? YOU are proof that the Looney Left will not let facts and data interfere with their spewing of bull****. I don' take orders... ....nor do you listen to reason. -- Skipper |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
"Len" wrote in message ... You want facts? Fact: Reagan inherited an economy from Carter with double digit inflation, double digit interest rates and gas shortages. Is not a fact, but the way you set your period-boundaries and focus on Carter. You don't relate to previous presidencies. You just pick what you can use. Presenting this statement as a fact also denies other influences like world economy. Such simplifications usually deminish the value of an argument. It doesn't deserve the term fact. All I will say here is: Carter had no megalomane, expensive plans like Reagan. But I admit I have no extensive knowledge of the Carter economic performance. LOL! Do you realize what you just said? Fact: Ronald Reagan's tax cuts resulted in a financial boom with government revenue substantially increasing during his 2 terms. You can say that but where is the proof? In your words this is interpretation cause there may have been other explanations for the development you mention, if it was there in the first place. Sorry, still no fact, even by your own standards... Sure it is. Show where it is not true. Fact: Reagan cut federal spending as a share of the GDP almost 1% during his 2 terms. No comment from you. Good, so we agree on this fact. Fact: Reagan is the only president in the last forty years to cut inflation-adjusted non-defense outlays, which fell by 9.7 percent during his first term. Again, no comment from you. You must once again agree with this fact. Fact: Reagan cut the budget of 8 agencies out of 15 during his first term and the budget of 10 out of 15 during his second term. You can tell me anything here. I see your declarations but I see no proof. But I guess you expect me just to believe what you say... Are you saying that Reagan did not cut the budget of 8 agencies out of 15 during his first term and the budget of 10 out of 15 during his second term? Fact: Reagan brought the USSR to its feet (financially) with them trying to compete with our Strategic Defense Initiative and a continued space program. This was one factor in bringing out the collapse of the USSR. Interpretation and immense speculation. Sorry, no fact, not even close. You can choose to ignore those facts. You previously argued against facts I made about the Carter economy then closed with a statement you really know nothing about it. Such is the case once again my friend. You really don't know what you are talking about. Fact: Reagan was one of the most popular US Presidents in history, getting 525 of 538 electoral votes and 59% of the popular votes in the 1984 election. Does that say something about Reagan or about the american public or about the tv show the us political process really is...? LOL!! How about 'dem apples Len? As far as facts were remotely in sight (most of your post was speculation, selective use of history and interpretation): where can I find the proof, Jim? Try google.........it is a great search tool and quite easy to use. Let me know if you need help figuring out how to use it. The proof is there. And all done without an attack on you or an insult to you. Well in that case, you must feel you're a better person than I am.... If you say so. Now come back once you learn to play nice. I don' take orders. Fine. Do as you want. But seriously Jim. You are blowing my using the term "acting like a boring child" out of proportion. Your roleplaying like being that much offended ( "attack" is way too strong a word for this, "insult" is also too strong) for gaining moral territory in our discussion is indeed really childish.... And that is no longer a term used jokingly but now is an empirical fact for me. When we take a little distance we will have to conclude that we're not going to be soulmates. You will probably keep using your "being offended" and we'll both grab useable facts or what is presented as facts to prove our point. Maybe we'd better leave it at that. Whining again Len? |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... Why don't you paint a picture for us of an "Ugly American." We, "Ugly Americans", will then respond with a poratriat of an Ugly Canadian and an Ugly European. There was a book all about "The Ugly American". Below is a short description of the book which coined the phrase. The Ugly American The multi-million-copy bestseller that coined the phrase for tragic American blunders abroad. First published in 1958, The Ugly American became a runaway national bestseller for its slashing exposé of American arrogance, incompetence, and corruption in Southeast Asia. Based on fact, the book's eye-opening stories and sketches drew a devastating picture of how the United States was losing the struggle with Communism in Asia. |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
"Jim Carter" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... Why don't you paint a picture for us of an "Ugly American." We, "Ugly Americans", will then respond with a poratriat of an Ugly Canadian and an Ugly European. There was a book all about "The Ugly American". Below is a short description of the book which coined the phrase. The Ugly American The multi-million-copy bestseller that coined the phrase for tragic American blunders abroad. First published in 1958, The Ugly American became a runaway national bestseller for its slashing exposé of American arrogance, incompetence, and corruption in Southeast Asia. Based on fact, the book's eye-opening stories and sketches drew a devastating picture of how the United States was losing the struggle with Communism in Asia. That was not the question Jim. What is *your* impression of what you call an "Ugly American" is? |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
|
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
|
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:51 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com