Keith:  I couldn't agree more!  — NE —

On Feb 4, 2:33 am, Keith In Köln <[email protected]> wrote:
> Oh,  PlainOl, PlainOl, PlainOl.......Bless your heart,  you just had a
> moment of Moonbattery!  It can happen to the best of us!
>
> Let's review:
>
>  When Reagan ran for office,  and won with a clear mandate from the People
> of the United States,  one of his platforms, was that he would do away with
> the Sandanistas and Manuel Noreiga,
>
> He Did.
>
> The American People saluted him for it.
>
> Personally,  I don't think that Reagan new of the plan to trade hostages for
> ammo and arms.  But even if he did,  So?  What specifically are you oppsed
> to with regard to arms for American hostages?  At the time, we had an
> abundance of both,  hostages that Muslim terrorists were snatching all over
> the world (under the Carter Administration)  and we had plenty of arms.
>
> With regard to the amnesty for illegals;  yep, Reagan fucked up.   Little
> did he, or the rest of the American people realize what a mistake that was.
> If you recall, the one time amnesty was to end all illegal border crossings,
> and our laws were to be enforced.  you might recalll that this was when the
> "I-9"  form went into effect, and companies were to be penalized if they
> hired illegal aliens.  (some actually were, under Republican
> Administrations)
>
> No, the problem wasn't Reagan, and amnmesty for illegal's, the problem was
> that we have a large, far left extremist minority in this nation, (See the
> Kennedys, especially Ted Kennedy) who have done all that they can do to push
> for these illegals to enter into our Nation, in order to change the very
> face of our Country.  These people are traitors,  not Ronald Reagan.
>
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 2:11 AM, 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
>
> ...
>
> 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