Dear plainolamerican:  Hi!  My detailed handwriting analysis indicates
Reagan's character.  If you happen to disagree with a "White
House" (not always just Reagan) decision,that doesn't reflect on his
character.  With Reagan, what you saw is what you got!  — John A.
Armistead —  Patriot

On Feb 3, 8:11 pm, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote:
>  Reagan never compromised his
> principles!
> ----
> LMAO!!!
>
> Reagan was a liar and an idiot. The Iran-Contra Affair and amnesty for
> illegals in the USA is proof enough.
>
> On Jan 30, 10:38 pm, NoEinstein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Folks:  Understanding the fix the USA is in will be easier if more of
> > you can read my highly expert analysis of Barack Obama's and Ronald
> > Reagan's handwriting.  Please talk about what I'm saying.  For too
> > long, people in this country have been letting the media crooks do
> > most of the talking.
>
> > 8/05/08
>
> > Dear Tom:  No two people could be more different than Ronald Reagan
> > and Barack Obama!  If you haven’t read, I am a lifelong graphologist—
> > one of, if not the best analyzers of handwriting in the entire World!
> > Ronald Reagan’s handwriting shows someone with a nervous temperament.
> > But that’s not a “losing it” nervous temperament like John McCain
> > has.  Reagan was a conventional thinking man; i.e., his value system
> > was like that of most good people.  His personality showed that he was
> > responding to pressures from various fronts, but he could bend rather
> > than break.  What that means is: Reagan never compromised his
> > principles!  Those who show a legible, normal-sized and formed
> > writing, that also have a nervous but controlled temperament, are salt-
> > of-the-Earth people!
> >      Reagan’s letter forms were legible, but not fussily exact.  That
> > means that he was practical-minded and not overly concerned with
> > details.  Writers like that are like the majority of good executives:
> > They can delegate authority, and are trusting enough to leave the
> > ‘petty details’ to subordinates.  Reagan’s signature and the body of
> > his texts were similar and conventional.  His letter forms were
> > consistently rounded and easy-flowing.  So, I know that he was
> > friendly and well liked.  The latter was the primary social trait of
> > Reagan, which was evident in his smile, humor, easy body language, and
> > gestures.  Those things caused Reagan to inspire trust and confidence!
> >      On the personal side, Reagan was lonely.  That fact is indicated
> > by the above average space between his words.  He’d speak his mind,
> > then leave people alone to do the work required.  His relationship
> > with his family was more detached than he wanted.  He had simple, non-
> > materialistic ideals.  The achieving of worthy goals meant more to him
> > than riches.  And those were off-the-table if there were family
> > pressures.  The goals came first, the family second.  He was a
> > trusting parent—not an overly doting one.  To him, hard knocks helped
> > build strong character.  Sometimes that was tough-love, but it was
> > love!
>
> >      Barack Obama is as artificial and unconventional as his biracial
> > parentage tells.  From birth, he had identity issues that are ruling
> > him to this day.  He has an almost schizophrenia-like way of bottling-
> > up his emotions.  As a kid, he learned to keep his true feelings to
> > himself.  That’s why he never developed the facial expressions and
> > body language of a normal person.  Such a lack was the first abnormal
> > thing I noticed about him when he addressed the 2004 Democratic
> > Convention.
> >      Obama’s inferiority complex demanded that he rise above his
> > heritage.  With each little success, his ego swelled—as did his
> > capital letters.  Those with huge egos make very poor executives.
> > It’s their way or no way.  Obama would be a misfit in any group
> > dynamic such as in the Executive Office.  He would keep getting in the
> > way of even desirable goals.  People will resist him, because he is so
> > cock sure.  The ideas of others seem small by comparison.
> >      Yes, Obama has charisma.  Basically, that means that he draws
> > attention to himself because of his bearing and “poise” in public
> > situations.  But the majority of what passes as “poise” with Obama is
> > his from-birth, personality flaw of not showing appropriate emotions.
> > Many must be impressed that he doesn’t show nervousness.  His control
> > over his outward emotions is so developed—but is actually pathological—
> > that he could pass any lie detector test with ease.  The man is
> > emotionally dead.  Obama’s dominant ‘tone’ is that of someone who
> > isn’t happy.  He seems to be successful in rallying those who are too
> > shy to express their own unhappiness.
> >      Obama PRINTS too many of his letters.  Even in the body of his
> > writing he uses printed letters.  He makes those forms with such
> > exactness that he reveals himself to be a pedant and a perfectionist.
> > Both of those characteristics mean that he has few if any friends.
> > He’s an individualistic, loner.  His best contribution would be to be
> > left alone to work out the details, but he insists on controlling
> > every aspect of every activity around him.  Obama has the personality
> > of a dictator and a demagogue, not a “Reagan-like” delegater and
> > listener.
> >      Most people with unique personalities, whose writing shows flare
> > that’s lacking in average people, have superior intelligence.  But
> > Obama has excessive deliberateness in his writing.  Deliberateness
> > means artificiality, lack of spontaneity, phoniness, self-centeredness
> > and being overbearing.  It also shows someone who places form above
> > substance.  Because printing is slower than cursive writing, his IQ
> > isn’t as high as his verbal fluency hints.  When Obama must express
> > his feelings, extemporaneously, he does so in a most broken and
> > halting matter, and his talking speed is much too slow!  Some view
> > that as his being “really affected” by what he is saying.  But I view
> > it as the expressions of someone with such mixed emotions about things
> > that he must PLAN his words.  People who do that are UNTRUSTWORTHY.
> > That’s why I keep referring to Obama as: THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE.
> > Those who are too impressed by his poise-under-fire need to realize
> > that he’s got the selfish ego of the anti Christ.  With Obama,
> > disaster will be omnipresent!
>
> >      So, Tom, how is it that someone smart like you, who now lives in
> > China, has the idea that Obama has a snowball's-chance-in-hell of
> > improving the World condition?  The US Congress—with the majority,
> > there, having huge egos, too—won’t be swayed by rhetoric.  Every day,
> > rhetoric slides off of their backs like water on ducks.  His “I’m
> > angry-toned” speeches appeal to some would-be voters.  But after his
> > first term bogs down, words won’t be enough.  Obama doesn’t have the
> > LIKABLE personality of a “bridge builder”.  He doesn’t have the
> > character and the “knows the difference between right and wrong”
> > aptitude to be a respected leader.  For the good of the nation, Barack
> > Obama should never be allowed to “get his picture” on any of our
> > currency, or on any paintings hung on the Capital walls.  The survival
> > of the World is depending on it!
> >      Your damning characterization of “McCain” are equally true of
> > Obama.  Obama has already addressed those Jewish jerks, live, while
> > standing in front of that rusting war junk in Israel.  In unambiguous
> > words, Obama promised to “support” Israel (with our military might).
> > He is being held captive by those &@$#1 Jews, too.  But I’m using
> > every ounce of my being to see to it that NEITHER Obama nor McCain
> > become President!  Electing LIBERTARIANS will send a massage to the
> > World that we Americans are as fed-up with our government as those in
> > foreign countries are.  My New Constitution will instate—for the first
> > time in our history—democracy and FAIR PLAY in America!  And there
> > will be swift consequences to any American business not being fair and
> > respectful to those less fortunate in other lands.  By “cleaning-up-
> > our-own-act”, here, the World will soon know that the USA is its best
> > friend.
> >      Obama promises ‘changes’… while he is leading us to our doom.
> > But be it known: “A fair, just and pro democracy NEW CONSTITUTION is
> > the only ‘change’ that we need!”  Pass it on!  — NoEinstein —  AKA
> > John A. Armistead, Patriot
>
> > On Jan 29, 11:47 am, NoEinstein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Dear Readers:
>
> > > It continues to enlighten me how “right-on” many of my previous
> > > essays, relating to my odyssey to save the USA, have been.  Here is
> > > one which I wrote to counter the LIE that Tim Russert had been an
> > > admirable public figure:
>
> > > 6/24/08
>
> > > TIM RUSSERT PERSONIFIED WHAT’S WRONG ABOUT THE MEDIA.
>
> > > Many would suppose that it is… the ‘American way’ to advance from a
> > > lowly Washington reporter to have been one of the ‘most watched’
> > > leaders of the media.  But Tim Russert was about as anti-American as
> > > they come.  Yes, he used smiles to punctuate his trademark attacks on
> > > the ‘weaknesses’ of his many guests.  And he sometimes punctuated
> > > those attacks with looks of cynicism.  But, getting good Nelson
> > > Ratings shouldn’t be the standard by which any media figure is judged.
>
> > > While Russet’s star was just rising, I had the ‘inside scoop’ on
> > > felonious acts committed by one of our most notorious US senators.
> > > Sounds like… ‘news’, doesn’t it?  But over several years—while I kept
> > > trying to get my story out—I learned that the media is corrupt-to-the-
> > > core.  To wit: The media assumes that so-called ‘public figures’
> > > aren’t required to live by the same standards of lawfulness as other
> > > citizens.
>
> > > Because Tim Russert seemed to be someone who ‘attacked’ his news
> > > stories, I poured-my-heart-out to him in a letter that also included
>
> ...
>
> read more »

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Reply via email to