"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.

"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.

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.

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

"Len" wrote in message
news
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?

"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.

"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?

In article ,
says...

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.

Shame is among Jim's favorite ploys.

His family life must be pretty interesting. I wonder if he plays this
game with his wife and kids.

jps

In article , says...

...nor do you listen to reason.

Are you under the impression that reason has any effect on you?

Your history of cultural hatred has a long trail here.

jps

In article , says...

Fact: Reagan cut federal spending as a share of the GDP almost 1% during
his 2 terms.

How'd he do that?

I noticed that you talked about slashing non-defense spending. Doesn't
surprise me at all. The beginnings of compassionate conservatism and
tinkle down economics. Bullets, bombs, Jesus and the thousand points of
light.

Oh, one of the ways was closing down mental health facilities so
psychotic people who needed supervision were all of a sudden on the
street.

**** the average American, we're headin' back to the days of Madison.

It's not the dems or the reps who know best, it's the folks with money.

jps