Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

smitty_one_each's Journal: "What's even more interesting is how you can distinguish Obama from [Reagan]" 72

Journal by smitty_one_each

Let's see. . .
For a random example, Reagan's leadership directly led to the fall of the Berlin wall, indirectly to the fall of the Soviet Union.
Obama's has led to. . .a golf course.
Your juxtaposition of the two is so farcical as to rate a JE, so more people can laugh at it.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

"What's even more interesting is how you can distinguish Obama from [Reagan]"

Comments Filter:
  • Now, to give credit where credit is due, Reagan was (as far as we know) the only president we have had to date with the ability to shoot laser-deathbeams out of his eyes. This was undoubtedly a distinct advantage in negotiation. There is simply no comparison between that and President Lawnchair's unique strategy of consistently caving in to GOP demands.

    Equally important though is the undeniable facts that
    • East Germany was never particularly stable
      • And
    • The Soviet Union was already well on its way to coll
  • Link [wikipedia.org]

    Elwin Ransom ultimately reached the correct way to deal with the diabolically inspired.
  • Now that's a good one. More proof that you still adore him as your political deity to measure all others against. He was asleep at the wheel from the very beginning, and the second term was "president Bush" (or Nancy ("mommy") as mass media would have you believe). The people around him did all the work, and like all the others before and since he is a wooden dummy, the same one they've been using for 50 years, a little paint and a new suit and wig, and voila!

    You should give Ted Turner more credit for bring

    • The people around him did all the work

      Indeed, delegation is a crucial skill for managerial success. Please cite specific examples of Presidents ever doing "the work".

      • Reagan didn't manage. He was managed. I truly marvel at your infatuation with this man.

        • I truly marvel at your insistence that I'm infatuated. Do you really think RWR was more/less managed than any other POTUS?
          • No, I've been telling you all along that he is the same mannequin as Obama and the rest. It is you who has him up on the pedestal. You idolize the man. It couldn't be more obvious, which is maybe why you don't notice.

            • No, I think you idolize your insistence that I idolize RWR. I think he's among our better Presidents, but I repeat: he left no useful intellectual heir.
              So, what difference, at this point, did he make?
              • I think he's among our better Presidents...

                And that's how I know you know nuttin' about nuttin'. To even conceive such absurd thing is totally beyond that could be considered real. You obviously have no idea of the damage that was done during that time period. See, I remember single income families...

                • To even conceive such absurd thing is totally beyond that could be considered real.

                  You're right. In keeping with d_r's policy of Perpetual Inversion, we should call Reagan a liberal, in addition to call Obama a conservative. Because it's important to blow up the meaning of all terminology in pursuit of Nirvana In Nihilism (NIN).

                  • Reagan/Thatcher were indeed neo-liberals, just like your Milton Friedman that they blindly followed. I suggest you look up the term if you don't believe me. And Obama is "conserving" the old ways. He, too is a neo-liberal. That's pretty much all we've had since Nixon. d_r is not far off the mark on that one. No more than you, that's for sure.

                    Anyway, you go ahead and keep up your Reagan devotion, it only proves that your views haven't changed one bit. I fully expect to hear you pimping the republicans and th

                    • And you shouldn't knock nihilism, unless of course, you can actually find something wrong with it.

                      True nihilism would lack any such self-awareness. You've made a funny.

                    • True nihilism would lack any such self-awareness.

                      Nihilism is simply a belief. Now, from what I can gather, you have to be self aware to be able to believe anything.

                    • I mean, it's easy to just contain everything in a hyper-materialist "nature" label, but then how do you become "self aware to be able to believe anything".
                      Oh, that's right: you're just throwing out conundrums for the sake of trolling.
                    • No, you're just trying to make something out of nothing. What's "unnatural" about self-awareness? And since man is nature, what is unnatural about belief? Accept what you are. And end the tribal idol worship... it's very unbecoming.

                      You know, speaking of "trying to have it both ways", that's exactly what you are doing with your Reagan/Obama - Love/Hate spiel that you are trolling with. It's purely style with you, the substance of the dirty deals with the devil made by all goes entirely unnoticed overhead. Wi

                    • And since man is nature, what is unnatural about belief?

                      The object of the belief exists outside of the scope of nature, which you seem to be denying.

                    • The object of the belief exists outside of the scope of nature...

                      Impossible...

                    • You say this with absolute certainty.
                    • Only for me. You do what you think is best.

                    • See, the gorgeous thing about solipsism and moral relativism is that, for example, they let radical feminists continue to tear down manhood in the West, and turn a blind eye toward the kinds of atrocities perpetuated by the likes of ISIS.
                      I'm I support your constitutional right to buffoonery, but do hope we can manage to filter your ilk out of public office, as, in a leadership position, such moral blindness is destructive.
                    • Again, you're trying to be funny, talking about "morality" in politics, after your idol turned out to be one of the most corrupt ever to occupy the office. Blind eye indeed!! And why do you want to go to war against your own mercenaries? That makes no sense.

                      And dude! You really went all Rush Limbaugh (feminazis, thanks for keeping that one alive)-Jerry Falwell [about.com] there. Are you taking what he's taking? Don't do drugs, man...

                    • after your idol turned out to be one of the most corrupt ever to occupy the office

                      Neither my idol, nor "one of the most" corrupt. Fine double negative. And the only Rush I know much about is the six-legged band from Toronto. So just keep flinging poo; perhaps something will stick one day.

                    • Yes, you do consistently idolize him in every post his name comes up, or when comparing other politicians. And yes, he is provably the most corrupt. No other administration had a cabinet so full of indicted and convicted criminals. Your eye remains totally blind to what he was because, you adore and idolize him. I'm not flinging poo. I'm pointing out the poo that you apply to yourself.

                    • If I idolized him at half the rate you claim, you might have a point.
                    • It's okay. I really don't expect you to notice. That's how conditioned response is supposed to work. But yeah, your feelings about him are quite clear, without any exaggeration on my part. It is precisely the polar opposite of your "distaste" for Obama. It's your ying and yang that give you balance. If we could cycle back and forth between them quick enough, we would have you flip-flopping faster than a fresh caught trout.

                    • This is kinda funny: http://liberalslikechrist.org/about/Reagan.html [liberalslikechrist.org]
                      On the one hand, I don't doubt that there is substantial truth to the litany of allegations. Even if you want to try to be an Ollie North apologist, he and old "photographic memory" Poindexter really jacked it through the roof.
                      However, the list is hardly complete:
                      • Paul Wolfowitz, then Director of Policy Planning at the Department of State, was caught jaywalking in DC. "That's what you do on J Street," said Paul, "J walk."
                      • David Stockman i
  • Has been measurably worse than the one before.

    That includes Nixon, Ford, Carter and St. Ronnie, but I'd gladly take those crooks over the sleezebags of Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama.

    • I have to ask you, too. How do you tell them apart?

      • I do not know what happened to this original post, but you can tell them apart by their crimes. Starting with the Law and Order President who hired burglars, the unelected vice President who pardoned him, the peanut farmer commander in chief who sent helicopters into a sandstorm, the old Grandfather who couldn't stay awake in meetings, the "No New Taxes" guy who was forced to raise taxes, the bozo who couldn't keep his pants on, the druggie who wanted revenge for daddy, and now the anti-white racist who ha

        • ...you can tell them apart by their crimes.

          It's really been all one big crime, since before Ancient Rome, but keep in mind they all did the job they were hired to do. They kept you focused on them, instead of the people they evict and blow up.

          However, yes, we are on the steady decline, growing a little steeper every cycle. This is the path humans have chosen. Eventually the reset button will get hit, and it will start all over again. Birth, Life, Death...

          • However, yes, we are on the steady decline, growing a little steeper every cycle.

            Wait, I thought you were just giving it the plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose [wiktionary.org]. What's it gonna be, man?

            • He ran into somebody more disillusioned and in despair than he is, and he doesn't know how to handle it.

            • Th decline is part of the show. I see nothing abnormal here. It's all still within regular shit. Nothing really has changed at all. Plain old animal psychology still rules over the cortex. And contrary what he or you might want to believe, I am not any more disillusioned than anybody else. I just just don't enjoy the benefits of willful ignorance as much as most of the world. And unlike most of you, I am very aware of and willing to admit to the privileges I enjoy by location, and other circumstances of bir

              • Th[e] decline is part of the show. I see nothing abnormal here. It's all still within regular shit

                Then is it really a decline? You've been dancing around Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem for so long now. . .

                • That wasn't me, but I'll take his reply for the time being.

                  It's a decline in general well being. A "malaise" that is on the increase, if you will. The funny thing is that it's not really difficult to identify the cause, but some people don't want to know, so they put up silly barriers to avoid seeing/hearing it, they dismiss it as absurd, and claim they're not part of it. Dig? No, probably not. The social club is all that matters. I understand. Everyone wants to feel like they "belong" and feel needed/wante

                  • I really can't process A/C's incoherence, sorry.

                    It's a decline in general well being. A "malaise" that is on the increase, if you will.

                    Thebes is in decline because OediPOTUS is a M'F'er.

                    • ...OediPOTUS is a M'F'er.

                      Like those before him, including (especially) you-know-who. Tell us something we (aside from d_r, who, like you, wallows in superfluous abstractions and nuance) didn't expect, already know and anticipate for the future under the present circumstances. Do you, or do you not condemn a man for following orders? That's all they've ever done, so feel free to remind us why this one is special. I have yet to see where anyone has been able to spell that out without lighting the firecracker

                    • I really can't process A/C's incoherence, sorry.

                      Yes yes, we all know how you like to play dumb there when someone comes across more direct than I do, then cop out with lame excuses about the person being an AC, gives you a nice way of avoiding the issue.

                      Anyway, it would appear he's kinda paraphrasing Zappa... No, it's not Bow Tie Daddy...

                    • Zappa I understand, and even substantially agree with.
                    • Except that this particular President was presented in soteriological terms. I guess you can say that Reagan's "Morning Again in America" schtick was some kind of quasi-hymn.
                      If you want to go geo-synchronous tinfoil hat, you could contend that Obama is Carter II, and "the boys" running "the show" are going to "allow" a happy episode to follow this one. Is that the kind of argument you're floating?
                    • Is that the kind of argument you're floating?

                      Of course not. I'm just telling you that you and your partner there are entirely tribal in your respective spiels. The dirty deeds they do mean absolutely nothing. It's all about who does it. This has been your story all along. How can I be any more bloody obvious?!

                    • Could've fooled me.. You don't show it here, and from all indications you give, at the ballot box either.

                    • How can I be any more bloody obvious?!

                      Well, carried to full bloom, you hyper-materialist arguments should mean that you can't tell the difference between dirt, barking like a dog, and interacting on /.
                      I mean, if it's all the same, isn't it ALL the same?

                    • I quote Zappa all the time, and am a huge fan of Joe's Garage.

                      Could've fooled me.

                      [cheap shot goes here]

                    • ...you hyper-materialist arguments should mean...

                      Whatever I say is going to mean whatever you want it to mean. It is clear you are not hearing.

                      The brain creates a sequence of events, so it can "understand", so yes, the dirty dog is barking. The dog came from dirt, dust, what have you, and it will return to its dusty state in a very short time. And so will you! Next thing you know, you're somewhere else, the same way you came here, by pure luck of the draw. What you do here will stay here.

                    • Yes, you also quote the bible and pj media. It's more like parroting, saying the words without comprehension.

                    • without comprehension

                      Really?

                    • The brain creates a sequence of events, so it can "understand", so yes, the dirty dog is barking. The dog came from dirt, dust, what have you, and it will return to its dusty state in a very short time. And so will you! Next thing you know, you're somewhere else, the same way you came here, by pure luck of the draw. What you do here will stay here.

                      Wait, are you trying to sneak in some sort of reincarnation into your solipsism here? If so, you're about the most eclectic crapflooder I've ever encountered. Bravo!

                    • When you're in a fog like yours, all differences are nothing but crapflooding. Face it, you're scared.

                    • Yes... You are simply looking for punchlines. It's a typical evasive technique.

                    • I fear the Almighty and precious little else, sir.
                    • So, combining your two threads, I'm on a fearful quest for punchlines. And you are a beautiful man.
                    • Like I said, you fear your own shadow. You create an "almighty" as rationalization for your fears, but they are totally earth bound. Your fear change, it might alter your status amongst men.

                    • I'm glad you think so, but you're not my type...

                    • You speak with such a divine certainty on this one. What's interesting is that I actually embrace change, where change is a correction bringing me closer to that of the Christ, the ultimate truth.
                      Your fables notwithstanding.
                    • You can at least remain beautiful, can't you?
                    • Always have been, babe.

                    • No, you embrace "stability" and "order". Change is most dreadful. And you know what Frank said about things coming up and biting you on the ass. Your "Christ" is a celluloid hero. The real one lies far outside the overton window of your culture. A true radical you would find it to be. Th at blind eye of yours doesn't see what is in plain sight. You will die waiting for what is right here right now.

                    • Clichés without substance.
                    • Substance you ask for? Oh, please do tell me all about "substance".

                    • I'll assume your position and tell you that it's all before you, you just have to open your eyes. The Zen Bozo role being a relatively straightforward algorithm.
                    • Yes, it is. That is why I ask you what is the issue.

                    • The issue is that, after half a dozen reps, you veer into Broken Recordism.
                    • Ha, funny.. A broken record that parrots propaganda is exactly what I'm responding to. Heh, I guess it would make sense. I am linguistically challenged. I only know one way to respond to the same nonsense that I keep hearing over and over. You're imagining things.

                    • I was wondering if I couldn't mirror your results by pasting your posts into the Emacs psychiatrist.
                    • Same here. Eliza, right?

Wishing without work is like fishing without bait. -- Frank Tyger

Working...