Registered, as in my voting card says "Republican". My state has a closed primary.m3thod wrote:
cancelled your subscription?Kmarion wrote:
I was a registered republican for about 15 years. Never once have I seen Macbeth as the GOP type. I think he would have a tough time fitting in at the local young Republican society.
http://www.youngrepublicans.com/
START I was also Reagans idea right?Kmarion wrote:
Nuclear devastation eh?ruisleipa wrote:
not sure it was reagan or specifically his finger over the button of worldwide nuclear devastation that was taken seriously. tbh reagan was often seen as a bit of a fool surrounded by evil and diabolical power-hungry pigs with their snouts in all kinds of dodgy troughs. A bit like Bush, in fact.Kmarion wrote:
Reagan had what most politicians don't. The ability to by taken seriously be his enemies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/2iscd8l.jpg
His plan, for those of you too young to remember, was to reduce offensive weapons and strengthen defense.Macbeth wrote:
START I was also Reagans idea right?Kmarion wrote:
Nuclear devastation eh?ruisleipa wrote:
not sure it was reagan or specifically his finger over the button of worldwide nuclear devastation that was taken seriously. tbh reagan was often seen as a bit of a fool surrounded by evil and diabolical power-hungry pigs with their snouts in all kinds of dodgy troughs. A bit like Bush, in fact.
http://i36.tinypic.com/2iscd8l.jpg
Yeah well, the non-proliferation treaty seemed to be designed to make sure everyone else EXCEPT the USA had to not have nukes. How many you guys still have? Really good job on the non-prpliferation. Anyway, while he was president you had nukes, you still do now, so my point wasn't anything to do with reagan's personal opinion of nukes but as a man he was not particularly well-respected except by lovers of bad western movies. But he had the potential to destroy the world, which concentrates the mind beautifully. I quote myself again: tbh reagan was often seen as a bit of a fool surrounded by evil and diabolical power-hungry pigs with their snouts in all kinds of dodgy troughs.Kmarion wrote:
His plan, for those of you too young to remember, was to reduce offensive weapons and strengthen defense.Macbeth wrote:
START I was also Reagans idea right?
START treaties and SALT treaties would strongly disagree with you. Learn your history then come back.ruisleipa wrote:
Yeah well, the non-proliferation treaty seemed to be designed to make sure everyone else EXCEPT the USA had to not have nukes. How many you guys still have? Really good job on the non-prpliferation. Anyway, while he was president you had nukes, you still do now, so my point wasn't anything to do with reagan's personal opinion of nukes but as a man he was not particularly well-respected except by lovers of bad western movies. But he had the potential to destroy the world, which concentrates the mind beautifully. I quote myself again: tbh reagan was often seen as a bit of a fool surrounded by evil and diabolical power-hungry pigs with their snouts in all kinds of dodgy troughs.Kmarion wrote:
His plan, for those of you too young to remember, was to reduce offensive weapons and strengthen defense.Macbeth wrote:
START I was also Reagans idea right?
Still sums it up.
I quote myself again: tbh reagan was often seen as a bit of a fool surrounded by evil and diabolical power-hungry pigs with their snouts in all kinds of dodgy troughs.Cybargs wrote:
START treaties and SALT treaties would strongly disagree with you. Learn your history then come back.ruisleipa wrote:
I quote myself again: tbh reagan was often seen as a bit of a fool surrounded by evil and diabolical power-hungry pigs with their snouts in all kinds of dodgy troughs.
Still sums it up.
and you're wrong... repeated quoting of yourself doesn't change that.ruisleipa wrote:
I quote myself again: tbh reagan was often seen as a bit of a fool surrounded by evil and diabolical power-hungry pigs with their snouts in all kinds of dodgy troughs.Cybargs wrote:
START treaties and SALT treaties would strongly disagree with you. Learn your history then come back.ruisleipa wrote:
I quote myself again: tbh reagan was often seen as a bit of a fool surrounded by evil and diabolical power-hungry pigs with their snouts in all kinds of dodgy troughs.
Still sums it up.
wrong how? This is what I originally posted in response tio the suggestion that Reagan was respected around the world. Perhaps concentrate on my original point rather than talking about stuff I never even brought up???ruisleipa wrote:
not sure it was reagan or specifically his finger over the button of worldwide nuclear devastation that was taken seriously. tbh reagan was often seen as a bit of a fool surrounded by evil and diabolical power-hungry pigs with their snouts in all kinds of dodgy troughs. A bit like Bush, in fact.
The original statement was he was taken seriously, not feared or respected. There is a difference.ruisleipa wrote:
wrong how? This is what I originally posted in response tio the suggestion that Reagan was respected around the world. Perhaps concentrate on my original point rather than talking about stuff I never even brought up???ruisleipa wrote:
not sure it was reagan or specifically his finger over the button of worldwide nuclear devastation that was taken seriously. tbh reagan was often seen as a bit of a fool surrounded by evil and diabolical power-hungry pigs with their snouts in all kinds of dodgy troughs. A bit like Bush, in fact.
Last edited by ruisleipa (2009-10-14 02:24:24)
I feel there is huge difference between being respected and taken seriously. If I came up to you with a gun and pointed it at you, you would both fear me and take me seriously, but you would not respect me now would you?ruisleipa wrote:
I never said he was feared. There's not much difference between being respected and being taken seriously now is there? Being feared and respected isn't the same thing on the other hand. Or can you explain it otherwise?
the nuclear non-proliferation treaty just says that the nuclear powers do not give nuclear weapons to a country that doesn't have such weapons (which was clearly in the interest of all the countries with nuclear weapons) and that the nuclear powers agree to negotiate about disarming their nuclear weapons some day...Kmarion wrote:
Nuclear devastation eh?ruisleipa wrote:
not sure it was reagan or specifically his finger over the button of worldwide nuclear devastation that was taken seriously. tbh reagan was often seen as a bit of a fool surrounded by evil and diabolical power-hungry pigs with their snouts in all kinds of dodgy troughs. A bit like Bush, in fact.Kmarion wrote:
Reagan had what most politicians don't. The ability to by taken seriously be his enemies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/2iscd8l.jpg
OK this is getting rather semantic Personally, if you pointed a gun at me I might take you seriously, if I thought you might shoot me. But if you are someone I know who jokes, or I think you've not loaded it, or it's not a real gun, or whatever, then I won't think you're serious. And you are right, I wouldn't respect you! At least, not just because of that. Maybe we can agree that being respected/feared/taken seriously are often coexistant but are not mutually inclusive, yeah? But anyway, just consider my original use of 'taken seriously' to be the final version, OK?LividBovine wrote:
I feel there is huge difference between being respected and taken seriously. If I came up to you with a gun and pointed it at you, you would both fear me and take me seriously, but you would not respect me now would you?ruisleipa wrote:
I never said he was feared. There's not much difference between being respected and being taken seriously now is there? Being feared and respected isn't the same thing on the other hand. Or can you explain it otherwise?
