[Wildcatk23]

This is the kind of thing at which liberals excel - changing the subject. What do war casualties have to do with Obama's socialist agenda? Nothing. The thread is not about Bush and it is not about the wars. The thread is about the American people finally figuring out that Obama is a socialist.

No you excel at changing the subject when the argument topic is no longer in your favor.

[Wildcatk23]

This is the kind of thing at which liberals excel - changing the subject. What do war casualties have to do with Obama's socialist agenda? Nothing. The thread is not about Bush and it is not about the wars. The thread is about the American people finally figuring out that Obama is a socialist.

And when is the last time a thread on here stayed on topic.

[Hoot Gibson]

And when is the last time a thread on here stayed on topic.

Well, here's the thing. I am not looking up any stats on the wars at your request. If you want to dodge the issue of 0bama wrecking the private sector economy and bankrupting the federal government, go right ahead. But do not expect me to do your off topic research for you.

[Wildcatk23]

Well, here's the thing. I am not looking up any stats on the wars at your request. If you want to dodge the issue of 0bama wrecking the private sector economy and bankrupting the federal government, go right ahead. But do not expect me to do your off topic research for you.

Hoot, we ended up talking about the war, At my request. For its one reason i disagreed with bush. Had the war stats been in your favor you would had pointed them out, As you did with the Afghanistan war stats. I never once denied obama bankrupting anything.

I said give him 8 to fix it. Once again your putting words in my mouth, i said hes doing something.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/war.casualties/index.html
http://www.icasualties.org/

Afghanistan deaths have increased as Iraq deaths have decreased.

[Hoot Gibson]

Hoot, we ended up talking about the war, At my request. For its one reason i disagreed with bush. Had the war stats been in your favor you would had pointed them out, As you did with the Afghanistan war stats. I never once denied obama bankrupting anything.

I didnt say he was fixing the economy. Once again your putting words in my mouth, i said hes doing something.

I only mentioned the Afghan casualties because you tried to change the subject to Bush and the war. People die in wars and they always will. However, 0bama, just like Carter and Clinton before him has slashed spending on advanced weapons research and development - the very kind of technology that has always given American troops an edge on the battlefield since.

How many lives will be lost in the future because of 0bama slashing defense spending as he expands domestic spending at a record pace? As Americans, we should all want to see our troops equipped with the best weapons on the planet to minimize our own casualties while maximizing those of our enemies. 0bama seems more interested in leveling the battlefield for our enemies than properly equipping our troops for future battles.

As for giving 8 years to 0bama to fix a mess that he is creating, we hold a referendum on our presidents every four years. If 0bama is still viewed as a socialist in two years and unemployment remains sky high, would you really want to give him four more years to implement his recipe for failure?

[Wildcatk23]

I only mentioned the Afghan casualties because you tried to change the subject to Bush and the war. People die in wars and they always will. However, 0bama, just like Carter and Clinton before him has slashed spending on advanced weapons research and development - the very kind of technology that has always given American troops an edge on the battlefield since.

How many lives will be lost in the future because of 0bama slashing defense spending as he expands domestic spending at a record pace? As Americans, we should all want to see our troops equipped with the best weapons on the planet to minimize our own casualties while maximizing those of our enemies. 0bama seems more interested in leveling the battlefield for our enemies than properly equipping our troops for future battles.

How many lives was lost for an Iraq war that was never necessary.

As Americans we shouldnt want to see our families fighting a war for no reason.

The Afghanistan war was the one of the few things i agreed with bush on. But more and more the only place you seen on the news was Iraq. I'm still curios to were the W.O.M.D Are.

Obama shouldn't cut Defense Military Budgets the way he did, I Agree There. but I love the fact that the fatalities are going down in Iraq. Hopefully they slow in Afghan soon.

[Hoot Gibson]

How many lives was lost for an Iraq war that was never necessary.

As Americans we shouldnt want to see our families fighting a war for no reason.

The Afghanistan war was the one of the few things i agreed with bush on. But more and more the only place you seen on the news was Iraq. I'm still curios to were the W.O.M.D Are.

Obama shouldn't cut Defense Military Budgets the way he did, I Agree There. but I love the fact that the fatalities are going down in Iraq. Hopefully they slow in Afghan soon.

Deterrence is the best way to maintain peace. When you weaken the military by slashing advanced weapons development, you invite war and that is exactly what 0bama is doing. As for Iraq, I am not going to debate the war with you. You will not change my mind about it and I will not change yours. However, it is strange how the people who demanded immediate withdrawal from Iraq have become mute or, like you, have begun praising 0bama for basically following the same Iraq strategy as Bush did.

[Wildcatk23]

Deterrence is the best way to maintain peace. When you weaken the military by slashing advanced weapons development, you invite war and that is exactly what 0bama is doing. As for Iraq, I am not going to debate the war with you. You will not change my mind about it and I will not change yours. However, it is strange how the people who demanded immediate withdrawal from Iraq have become mute or, like you, have begun praising 0bama for basically following the same Iraq strategy as Bush did.

Not Praising him, why is it that casualties have gone way down since he came in? If you can blame him for the increase in afghan, does he get no applause for the decrease in iraq?


And im never Mute,

[Hoot Gibson]

Not Praising him, why is it that casualties have gone way down since he came in? If you can blame him for the increase in afghan, does he get no applause for the decrease in iraq?


And im never Mute,

Do you recall the "surge" that took place under Bush over the objections of 0bama and the Democrats? Casualties dropped after the surge and the surge happened over 0bama's objections. (Remember the rough treatment that General Petreaus received in Congressional hearings? Remember liberals calling him "Gen. Betray Us" over the surge? The war in Iraq was won before 0bama took office and I never expected that he would keep his promise to withdraw quickly and risk being remembered for losing a winnable war.

I give credit to 0bama for not keeping his promise to withdraw from Iraq and for continuing to execute the Petraeus strategy there. I never believed his promise to withdraw anyway, but I suspect that you thought it was sincere.

[Wildcatk23]

Do you recall the "surge" that took place under Bush over the objections of 0bama and the Democrats? Casualties dropped after the surge and the surge happened over 0bama's objections. (Remember the rough treatment that General Petreaus received in Congressional hearings? Remember liberals calling him "Gen. Betray Us" over the surge? The war in Iraq was won before 0bama took office and I never expected that he would keep his promise to withdraw quickly and risk being remembered for losing a winnable war.

I give credit to 0bama for not keeping his promise to withdraw from Iraq and for continuing to execute the Petraeus strategy there. I never believed his promise to withdraw anyway, but I suspect that you thought it was sincere.

A winnable War? What exactly are we fighting for?

[Hoot Gibson]

A winnable War? What exactly are we fighting for?

We should never fight wars without an intention of winning them. The goal in Iraq is to leave a stable, friendly, and hopefully democratic ally behind - a country that we will not be revisiting with American troops again. Liberals politicization of the war has been a shameful spectacle, including Harry Reid's declaration that the war was lost soon after the surge strategy began.

The goal in Afghanistan was to take away a safe haven for Al Qaeda. Ridding the world of the Taliban regime was an added bonus.

Those who advocated bringing the troops home at all costs up until the day that Bush left office but refuse to criticize 0bama for reneging on his promise to bring them home quickly (i.e., most liberal 0bama supporters) should be ashamed of themselves. But we all know that will never happen.

[Matman]

i dont believe the war casualties have anything to do with the economy. I never said they did, I said it caused american families pain.



http://www.icasualties.org/

I am not for sure if the website is a reliable source. But if it is, Then the casualties in Iraq have really gone done huh?

The casualties have gone down. I was there during the peak of deaths. Obama can not be given credit. Its the surge that gets the credit and the Gernerals that came up with the plan. Getting rid of Rumsfeild also helped.

[Matman]

How many lives was lost for an Iraq war that was never necessary.

As Americans we shouldnt want to see our families fighting a war for no reason.

The Afghanistan war was the one of the few things i agreed with bush on. But more and more the only place you seen on the news was Iraq. I'm still curios to were the W.O.M.D Are.

Obama shouldn't cut Defense Military Budgets the way he did, I Agree There. but I love the fact that the fatalities are going down in Iraq. Hopefully they slow in Afghan soon.

Again Obama does not get the credit. The surge that he did not support gets the credit. Its WMD by the way. So what do you think Iraq would have done? Just let us sit in the middle east? You don't think they would have supported our enemies? What about the people of Iraq. Should we have let them continue to be treated that way? I don't believe we were ready for the fallout that happened. But i do believe we should have been there.

[thecavemaster]

Global, profit-is-all-that-matters capitalism is ruining this planet, its people and its ecology, flattening the earth into one universal chicken factory or oil field or Walmart store, constantly defining life as what one possesses, what one owns, over who one is. Fair scales capitalism is a farmer's market, a fair price for a good product, a living wage for a day's work. One would think "Christians" would recognize this. Apparently, they think knowing who jesus was stops at virgin birth and cross and resurrection and has nothing to do with his spiritual vision. Strange days, indeed...very peculiar, Momma...

[Hoot Gibson]

Global, profit-is-all-that-matters capitalism is ruining this planet, its people and its ecology, flattening the earth into one universal chicken factory or oil field or Walmart store, constantly defining life as what one possesses, what one owns, over who one is. Fair scales capitalism is a farmer's market, a fair price for a good product, a living wage for a day's work. One would think "Christians" would recognize this. Apparently, they think knowing who jesus was stops at virgin birth and cross and resurrection and has nothing to do with his spiritual vision. Strange days, indeed...very peculiar, Momma...

Your "fair scales capitalism" euphemism for socialism does not appear to be catching on with anybody else, CM. For most people the word "socialism" conjures up images of 0bama with his nose stuck high in the air (and vice-versa). Think 0bama...think socialism.

[thecavemaster]

Your "fair scales capitalism" euphemism for socialism does not appear to be catching on with anybody else, CM. For most people the word "socialism" conjures up images of 0bama with his nose stuck high in the air (and vice-versa). Think 0bama...think socialism.

Euphemism would be calling your debating merits mildly challenged. Pollsters seldom accurately measure Hispanics and African-Americans, who will turn out in droves in 2012...keep crowing, Black Bird... we'll see. See, Hoot, you concern yourself with 50.1%... I am talking about truth and reality beyond talk radio and talking head TV's ratings via mud sling and hate. Oh well, once a hack, always a hack I guess. I applaud your foolish consistency.

[Hoot Gibson]

Euphemism would be calling your debating merits mildly challenged. Pollsters seldom accurately measure Hispanics and African-Americans, who will turn out in droves in 2012...keep crowing, Black Bird... we'll see. See, Hoot, you concern yourself with 50.1%... I am talking about truth and reality beyond talk radio and talking head TV's ratings via mud sling and hate. Oh well, once a hack, always a hack I guess. I applaud your foolish consistency.

So, are James Carville and his firm now part of the vast conspiracy to paint 0bama as a socialist? This is a clear cut case of the shoe fitting snugly and all you can think of doing is to blame the messenger - only the real messenger in this case is Carville - not me. to be more accurate, the real messenger is the 55 percent of the people Carville's firm polled who think socialism when they think 0bama. :lmao:

[Hoot Gibson]

For those of you who are still evaluating 0bama's dismal performance on the economy based on the mistaken belief that FDR guided the country out of the Great Depression by creating jobs through federal spending, please read the column linked below. Don't feel bad, I too learned in a government/NEA school that FDR rescued the country from the Great Depression but it just is not so. Don't blame your teachers, they were just teaching what the socialists running the NEA managed to have inserted into the text books of the time.

[INDENT]

A Failed Obama Hero
Walter E. Williams

Let's think about President Obama's failed economic stimulus program. Before getting to the nitty-gritty of why stimulus packages fail, let's look at the failed stimulus program of Obama's hero, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. FDR's Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, wrote in his diary: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. ... We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt to boot!"

Morgenthau was being a bit gracious. The unemployment figures for FDR's first eight years were: 18 percent in 1935; 14 percent in 1936; by 1938, unemployment was back to 20 percent. The stock market fell nearly 50 percent between August 1937 and March 1938. Columnist Walter Lippmann wrote, "With almost no important exception every measure he (Roosevelt) has been interested in for the past five months has been to reduce or discourage the production of wealth." The last year of the Herbert Hoover administration, the top marginal income tax rate was raised from 24 to 63 percent. During the Roosevelt administration, the top rate was raised at first to 79 percent and then later to 90 percent. Hillsdale College economic historian Professor Burton Folsom notes that in 1941, Roosevelt even proposed a whopping 99.5 percent marginal rate on all incomes over $100,000. Much more of the Hoover/FDR fiasco can be found in "Great Myths of the Great Depression".

[/INDENT]

[Stardust]

^ GREAT Post!

[thecavemaster]

So, are James Carville and his firm now part of the vast conspiracy to paint 0bama as a socialist? This is a clear cut case of the shoe fitting snugly and all you can think of doing is to blame the messenger - only the real messenger in this case is Carville - not me. to be more accurate, the real messenger is the 55 percent of the people Carville's firm polled who think socialism when they think 0bama. :lmao:

Frankly, I doubt James Carville (Bill and Hillary's "boy wonder") has any intense love for Barack Obama, or particularly Rahn Emmanuel (know your recent history, Hack). I'm not blaming the messenger, simply suggesting the repeated message of "He's a socialist" has been effective in the same way propoganda is effective when cranked out incessantly. It's not a conspiracy, Hoot, and you know that... it's a political strategy...you know, like using Willie Horton in campaign ads. Barack Obama is a fair scales capitalist. One could do the same with Reagan's policies as you do with FDR's... however, both men made the majority of Americans feel better about the country, the economy, and, as good economists will confirm, a people that feel better about the country, about themselves, will begin to conduct themselves in ways that pull the economy along, BEFORE the numbers reveal the shift taking place. Here is Obama's struggle in my opinion: he has been unable, to this point, to light a fire under the country, so to speak. If he fails in this regard, he becomes an underdog in 2012... if he even marginally succeeds, he is the favorite.

[Hoot Gibson]

Frankly, I doubt James Carville (Bill and Hillary's "boy wonder") has any intense love for Barack Obama, or particularly Rahn Emmanuel (know your recent history, Hack). I'm not blaming the messenger, simply suggesting the repeated message of "He's a socialist" has been effective in the same way propoganda is effective when cranked out incessantly. It's not a conspiracy, Hoot, and you know that... it's a political strategy...you know, like using Willie Horton in campaign ads. Barack Obama is a fair scales capitalist. One could do the same with Reagan's policies as you do with FDR's... however, both men made the majority of Americans feel better about the country, the economy, and, as good economists will confirm, a people that feel better about the country, about themselves, will begin to conduct themselves in ways that pull the economy along, BEFORE the numbers reveal the shift taking place. Here is Obama's struggle in my opinion: he has been unable, to this point, to light a fire under the country, so to speak. If he fails in this regard, he becomes an underdog in 2012... if he even marginally succeeds, he is the favorite.

Do it then - put the money where your mouth is. Show that Reagan's policies made the economy that he inherited from Barack 0bama I (a/k/a Jimmy Carter) worse. The economy did suffer a recession early in Reagan's first term but in less than 8 years, our economy went from dismal to great and Reagan did not need an $800 trillion+ stimulus.

Your answer to every criticism of 0bama is to bash a conservative poster or Bush, or Reagan. 0bama's record on the economy is indefensible - so I understand why you do not really ever try to defend it. Your theory seems to be that the best defense is to be offensive...

[thecavemaster]

Do it then - put the money where your mouth is. Show that Reagan's policies made the economy that he inherited from Barack 0bama I (a/k/a Jimmy Carter) worse. The economy did suffer a recession early in Reagan's first term but in less than 8 years, our economy went from dismal to great and Reagan did not need an $800 trillion+ stimulus.

Your answer to every criticism of 0bama is to bash a conservative poster or Bush, or Reagan. 0bama's record on the economy is indefensible - so I understand why you do not really ever try to defend it. Your theory seems to be that the best defense is to be offensive...

When managing a crisis of the magnitude Obama inherited, it's tough. Without Obama's interventions, how low would we have gone? how many more would have lost everything? how defunct would our economic system have become? As for Reagan, come on, are you that deaf to the voices of legitimate dissent. Reagan grew the rich, shrunk or maintained the middle, and increased the poor. It wasn't a "rising tide" economic policy... some soared, others drifted, bunches took on water, and a lot sunk. You know that, in my opinion. However, Reagan did exude a pride and love for America, and communicated it, and gained the trust of the people, and thereby buoyed the spirits (figuratively and literally) of the country, and thus the economy.

[Hoot Gibson]

When managing a crisis of the magnitude Obama inherited, it's tough. Without Obama's interventions, how low would we have gone? how many more would have lost everything? how defunct would our economic system have become? As for Reagan, come on, are you that deaf to the voices of legitimate dissent. Reagan grew the rich, shrunk or maintained the middle, and increased the poor. It wasn't a "rising tide" economic policy... some soared, others drifted, bunches took on water, and a lot sunk. You know that, in my opinion. However, Reagan did exude a pride and love for America, and communicated it, and gained the trust of the people, and thereby buoyed the spirits (figuratively and literally) of the country, and thus the economy.

Your response is about what I expected. Nothing but liberal talking points. No statistics showing that Reagan's policies did not produce a dramatic economic turnaround. You cannot make the case because in a mere 8 years, our economy made one of the sharpest U-turns in US history. Who was hurt by the sharp drop in mortgage rates, the jobless rate, and the inflation rate under Reagan? Who was worse off after 8 years of Reagan than they were under four miserable years of Carter, who made the "misery index" a household phrase?

[thecavemaster]

Your response is about what I expected. Nothing but liberal talking points. No statistics showing that Reagan's policies did not produce a dramatic economic turnaround. You cannot make the case because in a mere 8 years, our economy made one of the sharpest U-turns in US history. Who was hurt by the sharp drop in mortgage rates, the jobless rate, and the inflation rate under Reagan? Who was worse off after 8 years of Reagan than they were under four miserable years of Carter, who made the "misery index" a household phrase?

For God's sake, Hoot, when's the last time you ever read anything that didn't parrot or reinforce how you've come to view the world? Geez... As if not laminating one's posts with "statistics" suggests that thousands of articles, books. etc. aren't out there full of a tide that didn't lift all boats evidence about Reagan's economic policies. Juvenile, infantile, hackophant....

[thecavemaster]

From Reagan: The American Experience

"The rising economic tide of the 1980's did not lift all boats. By 1984, 13 million children lived below the poverty line. Conditions in the inner cities grew more desperate as relief services were cut off. While corporate executives enjoyed record profits, legions of blue collar workers saw their jobs shipped to other countries where wages were lower. Observers used the term "Social Darwinism" to describe an economy where the strong survived." Also, "Black Monday," October 19, 1987, the stock market dropped 500 points, debatedly owing to a lot of Reagan era deregulation of the financial services area...and we ought to know, circa 2010, something about that... Poor children, inner city minorities, blue collar workers... now, why, is the Republican Party known as the party for corporate fat cats? Reagan gave a lot of Americans a renewed sense of pride in the country, and that's a good thing, but, Hoot, don't sugercoat reality to serve your worldview needs.

[Hoot Gibson]

From Reagan: The American Experience

"The rising economic tide of the 1980's did not lift all boats. By 1984, 13 million children lived below the poverty line. Conditions in the inner cities grew more desperate as relief services were cut off. While corporate executives enjoyed record profits, legions of blue collar workers saw their jobs shipped to other countries where wages were lower. Observers used the term "Social Darwinism" to describe an economy where the strong survived." Also, "Black Monday," October 19, 1987, the stock market dropped 500 points, debatedly owing to a lot of Reagan era deregulation of the financial services area...and we ought to know, circa 2010, something about that... Poor children, inner city minorities, blue collar workers... now, why, is the Republican Party known as the party for corporate fat cats? Reagan gave a lot of Americans a renewed sense of pride in the country, and that's a good thing, but, Hoot, don't sugercoat reality to serve your worldview needs.

More liberal talking points...this time from PBS. Why choose 1984 for your first statistic? Reagan's second term ended in Jan. 1989. What was the Dow Jones average on the day Reagan left office, as compared to the day that he took office? What were interest rates at the end of Reagan's term vs. the end of Carter's term? How about the rate of inflation at the same points in history>

The fact that liberals continue to lie so much about Reagan's impact on the economy during his to terms is a testament to how effective he was at relieving the misery that Jimmy Carter inflicted on this nation. American's faith in government and our economy did not drastically improve during the 1980s simply because Reagan was a likable sort and a great communicator. The overwhelming majority of Americans knew that by 1984 they were much better off than in 1980, which resulted in his landslide reelection.

Reagan took a train wreck economy and turned it around in only four years, yet you liberals claim that it is only "fair" that 0bama get a full two terms before being judged on his performance. I can already hear the excuses being made for 0bama. Americans just did not give his policies time to work.... :eyeroll:

[thecavemaster]

More liberal talking points...this time from PBS. Why choose 1984 for your first statistic? Reagan's second term ended in Jan. 1989. What was the Dow Jones average on the day Reagan left office, as compared to the day that he took office? What were interest rates at the end of Reagan's term vs. the end of Carter's term? How about the rate of inflation at the same points in history>

The fact that liberals continue to lie so much about Reagan's impact on the economy during his to terms is a testament to how effective he was at relieving the misery that Jimmy Carter inflicted on this nation. American's faith in government and our economy did not drastically improve during the 1980s simply because Reagan was a likable sort and a great communicator. The overwhelming majority of Americans knew that by 1984 they were much better off than in 1980, which resulted in his landslide reelection.

Reagan took a train wreck economy and turned it around in only four years, yet you liberals claim that it is only "fair" that 0bama get a full two terms before being judged on his performance. I can already hear the excuses being made for 0bama. Americans just did not give his policies time to work.... :eyeroll:

There will be no need for excuses: here's a little wager, Hoot: if Obama loses in 2012, I will buy you dinner at Bonefish Grill. If Obama wins, you buy me dinner? How about it? Shall we take it up a notch and put our pocketbooks where our mouth is? Why choose PBS? Are you suggesting I can't find the same analysis elsewhere? Surely not. The very name "Trickle Down" economics is suggestive isn't it? Depending upon the largesse and greed of the highendtoppers to benefit the middle and bottom? Reagan's economic theory/policy doesn't lift all boats, Hoot. It doesn't, and no amount of namby-pamby rhetoric changes that.

[Hoot Gibson]

There will be no need for excuses: here's a little wager, Hoot: if Obama loses in 2012, I will buy you dinner at Bonefish Grill. If Obama wins, you buy me dinner? How about it? Shall we take it up a notch and put our pocketbooks where our mouth is? Why choose PBS? Are you suggesting I can't find the same analysis elsewhere? Surely not. The very name "Trickle Down" economics is suggestive isn't it? Depending upon the largesse and greed of the highendtoppers to benefit the middle and bottom? Reagan's economic theory/policy doesn't lift all boats, Hoot. It doesn't, and no amount of namby-pamby rhetoric changes that.

Thank you for your generous offer of a free meal but let's wait to see if 0bama runs for a second term before talking about a wager. Right now, I would say that the chances of him running are no better than 50-50.

As for boats, no economic system will lift them all. Some are weighted down by local liberal governments and community organizers who exploit poverty for their own gain. The prime interest rate had soared to 21.5 percent and the inflation rate was 12.5 percent by the end of 1980, Carter's last full year in office. The prime interest rate was 10.5 percent and the inflation rate had dropped to 4.4 percent when Reagan left office 8 years later. With double digit mortgage inflation rates, how many boats do you think were floating on Jimmy Carter's watch?

Liberals have no understanding of basic economics and that is why socialism sounds so appealing to them.

[Old School]

I know Christmas is over 5 months away, but here's a great gift for those liberal's that have seen the light. :biggrin:

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eODr63uDwM"]YouTube- Obama Bumper Sticker Removal Kit (feat. Brad Stine)[/nomedia]

[thecavemaster]

Thank you for your generous offer of a free meal but let's wait to see if 0bama runs for a second term before talking about a wager. Right now, I would say that the chances of him running are no better than 50-50.

As for boats, no economic system will lift them all. Some are weighted down by local liberal governments and community organizers who exploit poverty for their own gain. The prime interest rate had soared to 21.5 percent and the inflation rate was 12.5 percent by the end of 1980, Carter's last full year in office. The prime interest rate was 10.5 percent and the inflation rate had dropped to 4.4 percent when Reagan left office 8 years later. With double digit mortgage inflation rates, how many boats do you think were floating on Jimmy Carter's watch?

Liberals have no understanding of basic economics and that is why socialism sounds so appealing to them.

Obama will run in 2012...to think an incumbent won't run, minus horrendous scandal... wouldn't be worrying about liberals and understanding, Hoot... you've got enough work to do. As for an offer of a free meal, you're dreaming in your smug little Hack world. Ronald Reagan's legacy is a mixed bag, his love affair with the American people is solid, his place in history secure. Focusing on the middle class is what Clinton did. It's smart.