SHOCKING: Britain's Defence Minister under fire for lying (BBC Radio)

"john" wrote in message Why were they
released on Reagan's inaugrual day? It was because
Reagan's handlers secretly negotiated with the Iranians to WITHHOLD
release of the hostages until then so that Reagan would be elected.

Yet another conspiracy theory. I swear if the posts here are any indication
I must be the only person who isn't involved in one.

Care to prove this one?

Jarg

"Jarg" wrote in message
. com...

"john" wrote in message Why were they
released on Reagan's inaugrual day? It was because
Reagan's handlers secretly negotiated with the Iranians to WITHHOLD
release of the hostages until then so that Reagan would be elected.

Yet another conspiracy theory. I swear if the posts here are any
indication
I must be the only person who isn't involved in one.

Care to prove this one?

That conspiracy features an SR-71 trip by GHWB.

Quite hillarious.

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 19:12:42 GMT, "Jarg"
wrote:


"john" wrote in message Why were they
released on Reagan's inaugrual day? It was because
Reagan's handlers secretly negotiated with the Iranians to WITHHOLD
release of the hostages until then so that Reagan would be elected.

Yet another conspiracy theory. I swear if the posts here are any indication
I must be the only person who isn't involved in one.

Care to prove this one?

Jarg


http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/Bush/bush69.html

"john" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 19:12:42 GMT, "Jarg"
wrote:


"john" wrote in message Why were
they
released on Reagan's inaugrual day? It was because
Reagan's handlers secretly negotiated with the Iranians to WITHHOLD
release of the hostages until then so that Reagan would be elected.

Yet another conspiracy theory. I swear if the posts here are any
indication
I must be the only person who isn't involved in one.

Care to prove this one?

Jarg


http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/Bush/bush69.html


I particularly like the Written by "Anonymous."

I can also find web pages swearing to that Elvis and Hitler are alive,
aliens are among us, Jackie shot JFK, etc. Just because something has been
written doesn't mean it is credible. The ability to distinguish between
good and bad information is a very useful skill, but one you have not yet
demonstrated.

Jarg

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:31:28 GMT, "Jarg"
wrote:


"john" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 19:12:42 GMT, "Jarg"
wrote:


"john" wrote in message Why were
they
released on Reagan's inaugrual day? It was because
Reagan's handlers secretly negotiated with the Iranians to WITHHOLD
release of the hostages until then so that Reagan would be elected.

Yet another conspiracy theory. I swear if the posts here are any
indication
I must be the only person who isn't involved in one.

Care to prove this one?

Jarg


http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/Bush/bush69.html


I particularly like the Written by "Anonymous."

I can also find web pages swearing to that Elvis and Hitler are alive,
aliens are among us, Jackie shot JFK, etc. Just because something has been
written doesn't mean it is credible. The ability to distinguish between
good and bad information is a very useful skill, but one you have not yet
demonstrated.

Jarg


Get your freaken head out of the sand.

So you don't believe the Iran-Contra scandal?

So you don't believe that North and Poindexter were convicted of
crimes for there leadership in this scandal?

"devil" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:14:53 +0000, Jarg wrote:


The dirty trick that Reagan played with Iran helped too. But at the end
of the day, the perception that the economy was terrible did it.

Honestly I never understood why Regan was so incredible popular in the US.
He left the Federal economy in such a bad shape that it took the present
president to do worse. And still people from the US I have met get tears
running out their eyes when his name is mentioned. Beyond my comprehension!


Nik

"Nik" wrote in
:

Honestly I never understood why Regan was so incredible popular in
the US. He left the Federal economy in such a bad shape that it
took the present president to do worse. And still people from the
US I have met get tears running out their eyes when his name is
mentioned. Beyond my comprehension!

As an outside observer, all I can say is that it seems irrational.
Some in this group have even made claims for Reagan that he was an
economist and that it was he in person who "destroyed kamminizum",
not the state of the world at the time.

Republicans tend to view their presidents as demigods from the moment
they step into office. No matter what damage the incumbent wreaks
upon humanity, that's ok by them. They'll even claim that these
people are representatives of the common man. An actor, a very rich
man who ran the CIA and his idiot son...these are their
representatives of the common man. Good luck!

Democrats prefer to elect more human persons with flaws and foibles
that make them interesting. But when a Democrat is in office (and
even afterwards), the Republicans will do everything they can to
revile him, talk about the size of his wife's behind (as though that
was a policy statement) and indulge in the basest ad hominems.

It is an observable fact that left of the right-wing government are
more fiscally responsible, but Republicans refuse to believe that and
blame Democrats for the damage the previous Republican did. And they
even push the limits of good taste by calling the theft of an
election "winning an election".

I'm so happy I don't live there...believe me.

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

In rec.food.cooking Nik wrote:

Honestly I never understood why Regan was so incredible popular in the US.
He left the Federal economy in such a bad shape that it took the present
president to do worse. And still people from the US I have met get tears
running out their eyes when his name is mentioned. Beyond my comprehension!

I agree, and I live in the states. Still, if you're referring to the president
who preceded George H. W. Bush, his name is "Reagan."

In rec.food.cooking Tarver Engineering wrote:

"nobody" wrote in message
...
Stark Raven wrote:
Sorry but it's the American people that history will look unkindly on.
We were terrible, petulant followers during Carter's Presidency,
unworthy of being led anywhere other than death valley.

You forgot that Carter got Egypt and Israel to sign a real, long lasting
peace
agreement that has lasted to this day. That is quite an achievement
considering that none of the other presidents were able to get anything
real done.

It has only cost American taxpayers $5 billion a year since 1979.

Do you have any cites for that claim?

In rec.food.cooking Oelewapper wrote:

So how is it that Carter was such a failure, and that W. Bush is such a
success in the strive for a more human/humane/humanistic and peaceful world
and in America's strive for "world peace", solidarity, 'compassion', freedom
and prosperity ???

Not enough time has passed for history to judge GWB's reign, but I suspect history
will look very poorly on Bush's presidency.

As far as I can see, GWB is nothing else than the wrong answer for the wrong
questions.
At least Jimmy Carter got the questions right.

Exactly. And just look at the elder Bush. While Carter is spending his life in
service to other people, the elder Bush is jumping out of airplanes. Who's the
better man?