Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook Watch us on YouTube
Register
Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Hang 'Em High Wray's Avatar
    Join Date
    08.17.03
    Posts
    6,596
    Last Online

    08.16.15 @ 10:29 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    What Would Reagan Really Do?

    Some Republicans want to impose a Reaganite purity test on this fall’s candidates. Today, though, the 40th president himself wouldn’t pass it.


    Grown men don’t tend to worship other grown men—unless, of course, they happen to be professional Republicans, in which case no bow is too deep, and no praise too fawning, for the 40th president of the United States: Saint Ronald Reagan.

    His name is invoked by candidates for offices high and low, from aspiring state assemblyman Anthony Riley of Hesperia, Calif., who constantly referred to himself as a “Reagan Republican” before losing in the 59th district last month, to Danny Tarkanian of Nevada, who framed his failed 2010 primary run for the U.S. Senate as Reagan’s “last campaign” and frequently repeated what has to be one of the most tired lines in politics: “We’re going to win this one for the Gipper.”

    For conservatives, Reagan is more than a president. He is a god of sorts: wise, just, omniscient, infallible. Being Republican has long meant being like Reagan—or at least saying you’re like Reagan. The writer Dinesh D’Souza neatly captured the conservative CW when he suggested that the right “simply need[s] to ask in every situation that arises: what would Reagan have done?” Period. Problem solved.

    But as the rudderless Republican Party seeks to regain power in the Age of Obama, is WWRD (What Would Reagan Do?) really the smartest approach? Progressives, of course, would argue no. The world has changed dramatically since the 1980s, in no small part because of Reagan’s efforts as president. The top security threat of 2010 (Islamist terrorism) is not analogous to the top security threat of 1984 (Soviet communism). With China holding as much as $1.7 trillion in U.S. debt, the greatest danger posed by a communist state is no longer military: it’s economic. The tax burden now is far lighter than when Reagan took office. And deficits are a global problem rather than a merely national one. To address the challenges currently facing the country, a critic might say, Republicans can no longer simply do as Reagan did.

    Such a critic would, incidentally, be correct. As The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait has written, politicians who conclude that “all wisdom resides in the canon of Reagan” too often abandon “the hard work of debate and self-examination and incorporating new facts.” It is pointless to toss Reagan’s vintage 1980s policy positions into the DeLorean and transport them, unaltered, to present-day Washington, D.C. Still, anyone who dismisses Reaganism as little more than a relic is forgetting an important fact: Reagan was the most successful Republican president since Teddy Roosevelt, and the only effective conservative leader of the last half century. Republicans who think Reagan is truth (and truth Reagan) may be overdoing it. But he’s still the GOP’s best model of how to win and how to lead.

    The problem, then, is not that conservatives are searching for lessons in his record. It’s that they’re learning the wrong ones. In the years since Reagan left the White House, a vocal contingent of Republicans has sought to enforce current party orthodoxy—cut taxes at all costs; limit government spending (except defense); let the Bible be your guide—by insisting that Reagan was its source. But while these concepts often shaped Reagan’s campaign rhetoric, they didn’t define how he governed once in office. As a result, the Reagan that Republicans now revere—a mythical founder figure who always cut taxes, always rattled his saber, and always consulted Jesus—barely resembles the more pragmatic Reagan who actually ran the country. Only six months ago, the Republican National Committee considered subjecting all GOP candidates to a Reaganite purity test that Reagan himself would have failed.

    “Reagan is a difficult icon for Republicans,” says biographer Lou Cannon. “He was an achiever and, by and large, a successful president. But he wasn’t a successful president in the way that the Republican hero worshipers describe him. Of course ideology was important to Reagan. But he was a success because of, and in spite of, ideology. He cared more about getting stuff done.”

    To recapture the Reagan magic, Republicans must stop pining for some imaginary past and start asking how the real Reagan would “get stuff done” today. Some answers seem clear: he would’ve opposed Obamacare, refused to impose new regulations on the oil industry, and resisted the idea that government can spend its way out of a recession. But other questions are more vexing. Would a 21st-century Reagan cut taxes even further? Would he ramp up defense spending in response to terrorism (as he did with the Soviet Union)? How would he handle the rise of China? What about gay marriage? Immigration? By focusing on how Reagan’s actual methods, principles, and governing style would translate to today’s Washington, Republicans can take advantage of what he still has to offer (a successful model of conservative leadership) instead of clinging to what’s no longer relevant (a dated set of policies). Could a Reaganesque approach help today’s GOP? Absolutely. But first the GOP has to understand what a Reaganesque approach actually is.

    It’s doubtful, for example, that a contemporary Reagan figure would seek to solve every problem by cutting taxes. In 1981, the former California governor swept into office promising to slash taxes to their lowest-ever levels—and with the Economic Recovery Tax Act, that’s exactly what he did. When Reagan arrived in the White House, the top marginal tax rate was 70 percent; by 1987 it was 38.5 percent (roughly the same as the rate under Bill Clinton). But while today’s conservatives continue to call for lower taxes in the name of the Gipper—Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, for example, pressures Republicans to sign a “no new tax” pledge every election cycle—there’s simply no evidence in Reagan’s record to suggest that he would’ve followed his signature achievement by pushing for ever lower rates.

    In fact, much the opposite. In 1982, Reagan agreed to restore a third of the previous year’s massive cut. It was the largest tax increase in U.S. history. In 1983, he raised the gasoline tax by five cents a gallon and instituted a payroll-tax hike that helped fund Medicare and Social Security. In 1984, he eliminated loopholes worth $50 billion over three years. And in 1986, he supported the progressive Tax Reform Act, which hit businesses with a record-breaking $420 billion in new fees. When it came to taxation, there were two Reagans: the pre-1982 version, who did more than any other president to lighten America’s tax burden, and his post-1982 doppelgänger, who was willing (if not always happy) to compensate for gaps in the government’s revenue stream by raising rates. Today, a truly Reaganesque leader would recognize (like Reagan) that the heavy lifting was finished long ago; last year, for instance, taxes fell to their lowest level as a percentage of personal income since 1950. And he would dial back the antitax dogma as a result.


    Continued...

  2. #2
    Hang 'Em High Wray's Avatar
    Join Date
    08.17.03
    Posts
    6,596
    Last Online

    08.16.15 @ 10:29 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Continued...

    In doing so, a 21st-century Reagan would free himself up to finish a bit of business that his predecessor never got around to: reducing the federal deficit. In the 1980 campaign, Reagan pledged to do three things if elected: lower taxes, win the Cold War, and curb government spending. But in his haste to achieve the first two goals, he abandoned the third. On his watch, federal employment grew by more than 60,000 (in contrast, government payrolls shrank by 373,000 during Clinton’s presidency). The gap between the amount of money the federal government took in and the amount it spent nearly tripled. The national debt soared from $700 billion to $3 trillion. And the United States was transformed from the world’s largest international creditor to its largest debtor.

    Back then, Reagan avoided the tough decisions required to reduce the deficit; he was more concerned with confronting the Soviets and cutting taxes. But now that the Cold War is over and the top marginal tax rate is half of what it was in 1980, a real Reaganite no longer has any excuse to duck the country’s fiscal dilemma. In 2009, the Obama administration borrowed nearly 10 percent of GDP; this year the number will inch even higher. Even after the deficits decline in 2012, according to the Congressional Budget Office, they will still be higher than all but two of the shortfalls tallied under Reagan. As the bills for Social Security and Medicare come due—and voters, especially those on the right, demand action—Republicans have the opportunity to fulfill Reagan’s last, unkept promise by pushing for the kind of cuts (entitlement reform and defense rather than inconsequential “waste and fraud”) that he was never able to make.

    Reagan worshipers will have a hard time stomaching the idea that lower defense spending could ever qualify as Reaganesque; after all, the Gipper increased the military’s funding by more than 40 percent during his time in office, disbursing $2.8 trillion overall. But there are two reasons to think that a contemporary Reagan might accept leaner defense budgets.

    The first is that Reagan boosted defense spending for a specific historical reason: to force the poorer Soviet Union, which at one point was spending an unthinkable 40 percent of its annual budget on the military, to choose between wrecking its economy and ceding the arms race. Today, however, the threat Reagan was confronting (Soviet communism) no longer exists, and what’s replaced it (the asymmetrical war against Islamist terrorism) requires a response that relies on soft power and surgical strikes rather than overwhelming military force, especially as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down. While the rise of China is also a concern, the challenge there is more fiscal than military. Scaling back our spending—and therefore our debts to Beijing—would actually shift the balance of power back toward Washington; we currently shell out seven times as much as China on defense, so the risk of falling behind is negligible. Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who served in Reagan’s CIA, grasps the new calculus, which is why he recently told Congress to halt the explosive growth of the military’s budget by freeing up $100 billion in waste and overhead. The bipartisan Sustainable Defense Task Force, meanwhile, has recommended $1 trillion in cuts. During the 1980s, Reagan made sure the size of the military—by far the largest recipient of discretionary spending—matched the needs of the moment. A Reaganesque leader would do the same now, especially with record deficits looming.

    The second reason is that despite his hawkish rhetoric, Reagan almost always resisted using brute force against America’s enemies. With the Soviet Union on the ropes, the president spent his second term angering conservatives and confusing his own advisers by pursuing his “dream” of a nuclear-free world with his “friend” Mikhail Gorbachev in a series of dovish summits that enabled the Soviet leader to make the internal reforms required to end the Cold War. “I bet the hardliners in both our countries are bleeding when we shake hands,” Reagan whispered at one of their meetings. He rejected calls from conservatives like Norman Podhoretz, William F. Buckley, and Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams to send U.S. troops into Nicaragua, El Salvador, or Panama, saying, “Those sons of bitches won’t be happy until we have 25,000 troops in Managua, and I’m not going to do it.”

    Reagan was particularly reluctant to engage with terrorists and other aggressors. He tried to free Hizbullah’s American hostages by selling missiles to its patrons in Iran. He used strong words when the Soviets shot down a Korean Airlines flight over Siberia (“savagery,” “murderous”) but told his advisers that “vengeance isn’t the name of the game” and refused to suspend upcoming arms-control negotiations in Geneva. He never got around to retaliating for the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, and when Shia fighters attacked the nearby Marine barracks a few months later, he quickly withdrew all remaining troops from Lebanon. If “you’re not quite sure a retaliation would hit the people who were responsible for the terror and the crime, and you might be killing innocent people,” he said, “you swallow your gorge and don’t do it.” Podhoretz & Co. criticized him for having “cut and run,” but the president recognized that battling terrorists in a civil war wasn’t in the United States’ best interest. A contemporary Reaganite would acknowledge the same reality and couple tough talk with pragmatic actions in places like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and North Korea while adjusting defense spending accordingly.

    Although the mythologizers might disagree, a Reaganesque approach to social issues would be similarly nuanced. Reagan was a religious man, and his bond with fellow born-again Christians enabled his election and forever altered the GOP. But while he was personally opposed to things like homosexuality and abortion, he almost never let his religious views dominate his policies. (HIV/AIDS was a notable exception.) In 1967, Governor Reagan signed a law in California that legalized millions of abortions. In 1978, he opposed California’s Proposition 6 ballot initiative, which would’ve barred gay men and women from working in public schools. As president, he was perfectly willing to anger Jerry Falwell and the religious right by choosing a Supreme Court nominee, Sandra Day O’Connor, whose pro-life credentials were in doubt; he simply cared more about appointing a woman. When he addressed right-to-life rallies, it was always remotely, by video. He even became the first president to host an openly gay couple overnight at the White House. So while Republicans claim that a constitutional amendment to “protect marriage” would represent the height of Reaganism, the Gipper’s actual record suggests that a true heir would keep his distance on social issues.

    By refusing to spend his political capital on gay marriage and abortion, a 21st-century Reagan would be free to tackle a problem he might actually solve: illegal immigration. In 1986, Reagan addressed the issue directly by signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act—a measure that granted amnesty to millions of aliens but also included tough provisions for bringing illegal immigration to an end (a 50 percent increase in border guards; a requirement that employers attest to their workers’ legality). Unfortunately, the guards didn’t slow the tide of immigrants, and U.S. businesses quickly outsourced their hiring to subcontractors.

    Today, Reagan’s mythologizers cite these failures as evidence that a contemporary Reagan would focus solely on border security while opposing any pathways to citizenship. But that’s misleading. As Reagan speechwriter Peter Robinson recently noted in The Wall Street Journal, “Reagan dismissed ‘the illegal alien fuss’ ” and “again and again declared that a basic, even radical, openness to immigration represents a defining aspect of our national identity.” A canny politician, he would’ve sought to woo “the children and grandchildren of immigrants who entered the country from Mexico,” according to Robinson—both “as a matter of principle” and because he “recognized that Republicans face a[n electoral] math problem” without Latino support. Today, Reagan would probably aim to rectify the failures of 1986 with stricter border security while also promising the sort of reform—a long but explicit path to citizenship; a guest-worker program—that George W. Bush and John McCain first proposed in 2004–05. The start of the second stage might be contingent on the success of the first. But it would remain part of the plan.

    For Republicans, Reagan is still relevant. But worshiping his myth—and pretending that his campaign promises and rhetoric represent his entire legacy—won’t help the GOP chart a path back to power. To do that, a new generation of leaders should study how the Gipper actually governed, then modernize his approach for today’s world. The result would be an optimistic, forward-looking politics centered on a few key priorities: reducing the deficit, matching military spending to current challenges, solving the immigration puzzle. It wouldn’t be an exact replica of Reagan’s 1980 platform. But it would be Reaganesque.

    Right now, few Republicans have embraced this renewed Reaganism; Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels—a former Reagan staffer who’s raised taxes when necessary and who recently suggested that a “truce in the culture wars” would help Washington balance the budget—probably comes closest. But he’s no match for Reagan in the charisma department. To leave 1981 behind, Republicans will need more than an updated list of policy proposals; they’ll need a leader like Reagan—sunny, determined, sui generis—to sell it. Let the search for a new saint begin.

  3. #3
    Atomic Punk
    Join Date
    12.25.01
    Age
    53
    Location
    Carmel, Ca
    Posts
    7,954
    Favorite VH Album

    Fair Warning
    Favorite VH Song

    You\'re Kidding,right?
    Last Online

    05.31.14 @ 08:17 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default

    While the rise of China is also a concern, the challenge there is more fiscal than military. Scaling back our spending—and therefore our debts to Beijing—would actually shift the balance of power back toward Washington; we currently shell out seven times as much as China on defense, so the risk of falling behind is negligible
    China has increased their defense spending 27% over the last five years and should eventually match ours as they move away from crappy weapons to more effective high-tec weapons like the US uses.

    Also, our defense spending is so high because we are a super power, and have many obligations to defend all over the globe. As China becomes a super power they too will have obligations to defend, and their defense spending will climb to reflect this.

    He rejected calls from conservatives like Norman Podhoretz, William F. Buckley, and Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams to send U.S. troops into Nicaragua, El Salvador, or Panama, saying, “Those sons of bitches won’t be happy until we have 25,000 troops in Managua, and I’m not going to do it.”
    We had Special Forces (7th SFG) ODA teams in El Salvador from Carter through Bush. Reagan also deployed troops to the Nicaraguan border in 1988 in an operation called "Golden Pheasant" when Nicaraguan backed rebels tried to invade Honduras. We came this close ** holds fingers really close together** to crossing into Nicaragua. SF forward observers guided leathal artillery and air strikes on to the rebel positions and they gave up.

    I'm not sure what the hell he means by Panama because the US had military bases in Panama.

    Today, however, the threat Reagan was confronting (Soviet communism) no longer exists, and what’s replaced it (the asymmetrical war against Islamist terrorism) requires a response that relies on soft power and surgical strikes rather than overwhelming military force, especially as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down
    Yes and no. Mostly no. Iraq required an old-school large military invasion with tanks, and bombers and multiple divisions. Iraq is "winding down" only after a surge of additional troops into the country. So I don't see any soft power here.

    Afghanistan should play out the same way although it is 100% different than Iraq.

    Reagan was particularly reluctant to engage with terrorists and other aggressors. He tried to free Hizbullah’s American hostages by selling missiles to its patrons in Iran. He used strong words when the Soviets shot down a Korean Airlines flight over Siberia (“savagery,” “murderous”) but told his advisers that “vengeance isn’t the name of the game” and refused to suspend upcoming arms-control negotiations in Geneva. He never got around to retaliating for the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, and when Shia fighters attacked the nearby Marine barracks a few months later, he quickly withdrew all remaining troops from Lebanon. If “you’re not quite sure a retaliation would hit the people who were responsible for the terror and the crime, and you might be killing innocent people,” he said, “you swallow your gorge and don’t do it.” Podhoretz & Co. criticized him for having “cut and run,” but the president recognized that battling terrorists in a civil war wasn’t in the United States’ best interest. A contemporary Reaganite would acknowledge the same reality and couple tough talk with pragmatic actions in places like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and North Korea while adjusting defense spending accordingly.
    You could argue that Reagan's flacid response to terrorism helped it grow.

    You could also argue that Reagan's action caused the bombing of the US Marine barracks. Thie writer left out the part where the USS Missouri shelled the crap out of Beruit in the weeks leading to the attack.

    The CIA later tracked the mastermind down but Reagan chose to do nothing, which lead to the kidnappings of thew Americans in Lebanon.

    Inacction = Surrender in the minds of terrorists.

    This writer should ask what Reagan would have done the day after the 9/11 attacks. I suspect it would exceed Bush's response by a couple of kilotons.

    The rest of the article is spot on though.
    "Nothing is ever what it seems but everything is exactly what it is." - B. Banzai


    My Blog:

    http://axxman300tool.blogspot.com/

    http://www.myspace.com/axxman300

  4. #4
    Hang 'Em High Hurricane Halen's Avatar
    Join Date
    07.17.03
    Age
    49
    Location
    Shreveport Louisiana
    Posts
    6,600
    Favorite VH Album

    All of them
    Favorite VH Song

    All of them
    Last Online

    12.18.17 @ 10:10 AM
    Likes
    3,044
    Liked 2,299 Times in 1,256 Posts

    Default

    I believe the 1st thing Ron Reagan would do would be to ask the question of, "How in fuck were you guys able to resurrect me from my grave?!?!??



    I think it would blow his mind, and probably blow Pauly Shore's mind, too!

    HH<-----Ronald Reagan has, "Staying Power". ----------------
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    VH LINKS Resident Paramedic/Firefighter
    #officialhashtaghater
    Copyright holder of all things, "<-----------------"

    UC<------Goal in life to be included in an HH sig-----

  5. #5
    Super Duper Frontman track 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.04.00
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    7,887
    Last Online

    12.03.17 @ 09:00 PM
    Likes
    1,311
    Liked 537 Times in 291 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post



    This writer should ask what Reagan would have done the day after the 9/11 attacks. I suspect it would exceed Bush's response by a couple of kilotons.
    Reagan wouldn't have been a sissy girl on that day that's for sure. He didn't fuck around...he would have kicked some serious ass. But, we can only dream can't we. Or maybe I can only dream. Out.
    Quin-a-se-i-co

    You're a dick for putting ian on "ignore" DIF

    "You stupid fuck!" Seen

    "Well if you saw it, stats and scientific studies be damned!" Lovemachine 97 v. 2.

  6. #6
    Damage your reputation seenbad's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.24.00
    Age
    45
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    26,946
    Favorite VH Album

    Halen 1
    Favorite VH Song

    I'm the one
    Last Online

    12.15.17 @ 10:48 AM
    Likes
    73
    Liked 257 Times in 92 Posts


    Donor

    Default

    No, we is the correct term.
    sheepa latta peepah dabba looka foh a moopy

    Gunter glieben glauchen globen

  7. #7
    Forum Frontman It's Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.26.06
    Age
    43
    Location
    Vaughan, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    34,159
    Favorite VH Album

    like them all, no favourite
    Last Online

    12.18.17 @ 10:16 AM
    Likes
    1,322
    Liked 6,712 Times in 3,730 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by track 5 View Post
    Reagan wouldn't have been a sissy girl on that day that's for sure. He didn't fuck around...he would have kicked some serious ass. But, we can only dream can't we. Or maybe I can only dream. Out.
    it's funny you mentioned what his response would have been. I was on my honeymoon cruise a couple of years after 9-11 and was seated with some British folks during dinner most nights. I asked how would Thatcher react to the war as opposed to Blair. They all figured that Thatcher would have wanted Afghanstan blown off the map. I imagine Reagan would have been the same way.

  8. #8
    Master Bluesman Elwood P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    01.11.02
    Location
    1060 W. Addison, Chicago
    Posts
    6,048
    Favorite VH Album

    ADKOT
    Favorite VH Song

    Soul Kitchen
    Last Online

    12.18.17 @ 06:55 AM
    Likes
    1,765
    Liked 1,085 Times in 727 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
    You could also argue that Reagan's action caused the bombing of the US Marine barracks. The writer left out the part where the USS Missouri shelled the crap out of Beruit in the weeks leading to the attack.
    Actually it was the USS Iowa. Same size guns though. 16 inches. But I don't know if that's what caused the barracks bombing. As I recall, the targets were Syrian gun emplacements. Which were silenced.

    Reagan certainly was selective in choosing the battles he fought. I think more often than not, his restraint, or inaction if you prefer, was the better path. Certainly wouldn't have handled alot of things differently than Bush II.
    "I'm the opposite of Bill Cosby. Diamond Dave always gets your approval." (DLR)

    "Kids, just say NO to marriage". (Al Bundy)

    Rawhide in "A"

    OAA

  9. #9
    Atomic Punk
    Join Date
    12.25.01
    Age
    53
    Location
    Carmel, Ca
    Posts
    7,954
    Favorite VH Album

    Fair Warning
    Favorite VH Song

    You\'re Kidding,right?
    Last Online

    05.31.14 @ 08:17 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elwood P. View Post
    Actually it was the USS Iowa. Same size guns though. 16 inches. But I don't know if that's what caused the barracks bombing. As I recall, the targets were Syrian gun emplacements. Which were silenced.

    Reagan certainly was selective in choosing the battles he fought. I think more often than not, his restraint, or inaction if you prefer, was the better path. Certainly wouldn't have handled alot of things differently than Bush II.
    All Iowa class battleships look the same to me. Some of those Syrian gun implacements were set up in civilian areas. The Islamic Jihad cited the Battleship and the air strikes as their motivation for the barracks bombing.
    "Nothing is ever what it seems but everything is exactly what it is." - B. Banzai


    My Blog:

    http://axxman300tool.blogspot.com/

    http://www.myspace.com/axxman300

  10. #10
    Hang 'Em High Wray's Avatar
    Join Date
    08.17.03
    Posts
    6,596
    Last Online

    08.16.15 @ 10:29 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Love him or hate him, one thing that Reagan, for the most part, stayed away from was dealing with petty and largely irrelevant issues. One doesn't have to necessarily agree with his opinions on certain issues, but you have to credit the man for attacking the important problems. The same could be said of Clinton, to a degree. Not so much with Bush I or our last two Presidents.

  11. #11
    Hot sauce on everything Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    08.07.03
    Age
    47
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    5,865
    Favorite VH Album

    Fair Warning
    Favorite VH Song

    Hear About It Later
    Last Online

    12.17.17 @ 07:07 PM
    Likes
    304
    Liked 119 Times in 56 Posts


    Premium Member

    Donor

    Default

    Well, at least Newsweek acknowledges the war against Islamist terrorism. The powers that be certainly don't have the balls to characterize it as such.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Ronald Reagan saved the world
    By seenbad in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 142
    Last Post: 12.22.02, 12:08 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •