Ronald Reagan

Pres. Reagan.



HERE.


Kitso
KS 361

[AlphaSigOU]

If anyone wants to read more on how the state funeral for President Reagan (or any other official) will be conducted here's an interesting document: http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/p1_1.pdf

[The1calledTKE]

If anybody is curious the TKE website has many pics up of Reagan doing stuff with and for TKE's. Even a few from his college days.

http://www.tke.org/reagan_pix.htm


the main website has alot of info posted about him as well at www.tke.org

[Reds6]

May Reagan rest in peace and my prayers go out to his family.
I'm really not trying to speak ill of the dead, but I think hisyory should have a tru reflection of his presidential years.
But I don't see him as a great president, I grew up with Reaganomics.

I did some research about the Pros and Cons of his presidency.

Lets also keep in mind Reagan REFUSED to fund any AIDS research. This could have made such a huge difference in the spread of AIDS in our country.
He cut tons of social welfare programs, which caused an increase in homelessness, the drug trade grew and the old you and minority suffered under Reagan.

While Reagon was on office, in the summer of 1981, the country fell into the worst recession since the Great Depression.

PRO 1

Inflation averaged 12.5 percent when Reagan entered office, was reduced to 4.4 percent when he left.



PRO 2

Interest rates fell six points.



PRO 3

Eight million new jobs were created as unemployment fell.



PRO 4

An eight percent growth in private wealth.



CON 4.1

According to the Statistical Abstract of the United States for 1996, the number of people (white, black, and Hispanic) below the poverty level increased in almost every year between 1981 (31.8 million) and 1992 (39.3 million).



CON 5

We were $994 billion in debt in fiscal 1981, when Carter left off, and $2,867 billion when Reagan leaves office in fiscal 1989. The rough number is 2.85 times as much in 1989 as in 1981. No, it's not quite tripled, but very close. Okay, so the republicans have an argument for this: it didn't really double or triple when you take it as a percentage of either GDP or GNP. Okay, if we go with that, then it can indeed be agreed that Reagan didn't really double the debt as a percentage of either of these figures. But that doesn't really make Reagan look any better. As a historical look at the debt since before the United States entered World War II will show, the debt as a percentage of GDP never went up meaningfully for any extended period of time except for two periods: during the War itself, and starting during the Reagan years. At least President Roosevelt had the need to borrow money hand and fist to fight the Axis powers. What's Reagan's excuse? We needed to borrow money to give a tax break to the wealthy?



PRO 5.1

The primary reason the deficit grew during the Reagan years was the Cold War military buildup.



PRO 5.2

In no year following the tax cuts did revenues decline. They increased in fact in almost a straight progression from pre-Reagan years. The Cold War budgets did increase, and of course the happy fact was that this led to the end of the Cold War itself, as the Soviet Union recognized it could not outspend the U.S. But those military budgets were not significantly larger than during the 70s, and were smaller than in the Kennedy and Johnson years. No, it was domestic spending, and particularly entitlement spending, that grew enormously under the Democrat congress.



CON 6

The trade deficit quadrupled.



PRO 7

Between 1978 and 1981 the top capital gains rate was cut from 35 percent to 20 percent and revenues soared by 90 percent in real terms between 1978 and 1985.After Congress lifted the rate to 28 percent in 1986, capital gains revenues declined by 20 percent by 1990.



CON 7.1

There are two reasons for these numbers. One is they start with a recession, the change in the economy is responsible for most of these changes. The second reason is a short term effect. During 1981 when there was talk of a Capital Gains Tax cut people held off selling their assets until the tax cut. Then people rushed to sell assets before the 1986 tax raise happened.



CON 7.2

The 1986 Tax Reform Act is widely considered to be the best piece of American tax legislation since the adoption of the income tax. It is the opposite of Reaganomics. Over its first five years, it closed more than $500 billion in loopholes and tax shelters. As a result:

Major U.S. corporations that previously had paid little or nothing in income taxes due to loopholes were put back on the tax rolls, and corporate taxes were increased overall by a net of more $100 billion over five years.
A huge wasteful tax-shelter industry for high-income individuals was shut down.
Tax rates on capital gains income were raised to the same level as on other income.
Millions of moderate-income working families got tax relief through a major expansion of the earned-income tax credit.
Taxes on most families (on average, all but the best-off tenth) were reduced. (The table shows the tax changes by income group.)
The income tax was substantially simplified for most filers.
Allied in support of the 1986 reforms were a vast array of public interest groups, labor unions and citizens groups around the country. The act was also highly praised by most economists, because it leveled the playing field for businesses and investments, and made our economy more efficient and productive. Unsuccessfully opposing the 1986 Tax Reform Act were low- and no-tax corporations, recalcitrant supply-siders and tax-shelter promoters. (Opponents included, for example, Newt Gingrich, Bill Archer and billionaire Donald Trump, who continues to criticize the act for cracking down on abusive real-estate tax shelters.)

PRO 8

The average annual growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) from 1981 to 1989 was 3.2 percent per year, compared with 2.8 percent from 1974 to 1981 and 2.1 percent from 1989 to 1995. The 3.2 percent growth rate for the Reagan years includes the recession of the early 1980s, which was a side effect of reversing Carter's high-inflation policies, and the seven expansion years, 1983-89. During the economic expansion alone, the economy grew by a robust annual rate of 3.8 percent. By the end of the Reagan years, the American economy was almost one-third larger than it was when they began.



CON 8.1

To avoid being misled by the business cycle, one must look at underlying economic growth rates. The following table accomplishes this result in two ways. First, it measures economic growth and other data from one business cycle peak to the next, rather than from a recession to a later peak. Second, it uses CBO calculations of "potential" economic growth — that is, CBO's (Congressional Budget Office) estimate of the size of the economy in any year if unemployment were at normal levels, rather than abnormally high or low levels. In effect, CBO directly calculates the size of the underlying economy, ignoring the business cycle. Both approaches give the same answer: economic growth rates have slowed from decade to decade; if income tax rates have made any difference to economic growth, that difference has been too small to be obvious. Specifically, the CBO data show that the underlying rate of annual economic growth was lower in the 1980s than the 1970s. It averaged 3.4 percent from 1969 to 1980, then slipped to 2.7 percent in the 1980s (not the 3.8 percent that comes from measuring from the depths of the recession in 1982), and is now projected at 2.1 percent. It is plausible that the underlying annual growth rate might have been slightly less than 2.7 percent in the 1980s were it not for the 1981 tax cut, but surely only slightly.



PRO 9

When Reagan took office in 1981, the unemployment rate was 7.6 percent. In the recession of 1981-82, that rate peaked at 9.7 percent, but it fell continuously for the next seven years. When Reagan left office, the unemployment rate was 5.5 percent.



PRO 10

Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.



CON 10.1

The savings rate did not rise in the 1980s, as supply-side advocates had predicted. In fact, in the 1980s the personal savings rate fell from 8 percent to 6.5 percent. If the median family was better off why did their savings go down?



CON 11

In 1993 Clinton raised the taxes on the rich, the opposite of Reaganomics, opponents argued that this would stop the growing economy. That did not happen.



PRO 11.1

It is entirely disingenuous of the "cons" to suggest that the fact that the tax increase of the first Clinton budget (after he had promised, you will recall, a tax cut) did not harm the economy proves that the Reagan tax increase was a mistake. Not factored into any liberal equation is that at the time Clinton took office (in fact, long before the election) the economy was growing briskly again, the brief Bush recession having ended in March 1992. Moreover, the end of the Cold War led to massive cuts in military and Defense Department budgets, a reduction in the size of government that Clinton and Gore now have the audacity to claim as their achievements.

[Rudey]

While I don't see why you would post this in this thread, here we go.

1) AIDS. How much more did AIDS spread since he "REFUSED to fund any AIDS research"? Why didn't he? Think about it.

2) When you don't have money and the economy is in the tank you cut programs OK? He didn't do it on his own. This isn't a dictatorship. Those tax cuts and raises aren't passed by him alone. How would you have supported those programs? Hard answers.

CON 4.1) Why did it increase? Since you're doing research why don't you tell us? What happens if immigration into the country increased? That's just something I'm throwing out there and I'm not saying it's that at all. I'm just saying you're throwing things out and not doing any research at all. You just copied and pasted. Good for you.

CON 5) You talk about a deficit as if you understand economics. You don't. Just stop. It's not a partisan thing. Funny how you want to support social programs and think the money just comes from nowhere. Yes tax breaks often go to the rich. Why? Do the research and tell me what percentage the rich pay in taxes.

Con 6) So what?? When and how is this measured?? Again, so what? What does that show? Do you know? No your research is copying and pasting. Good for you.

Con 7.1) Why don't you explain a capital gains tax to me Mr./Ms. Researcher. Hmm what does this have to do with Reagan doing something bad?? It's not even a con even though it's a poor statement to make to start with.

Con 7.2) Again, how is this something bad about Reagan? And what economists praised it? You're the researcher. Do you know? No your research is copying and pasting. Good for you.

Con 8.1) Again, how is this something bad about Reagan?

Con 10.1) Why is savings not rising a bad thing? If money goes into another good that is an investment such as a house, it's not saving. Do you even have any clue at what saving does in the economy? Do you even understand a simple statement like "the Fed raised rates"??? Yes that's all related.

Con 11) Clinton did nothing. If you want to make irrelevant statements then deal with the fact that a recession followed the boom of businesses that thrived under Clinton when their bubbles burst.

-Rudey
--Good job resear...I mean copy-and-paster who knows nothing.

Originally posted by Reds6
May Reagan rest in peace and my prayers go out to his family.
I'm really not trying to speak ill of the dead, but I think hisyory should have a tru reflection of his presidential years.
But I don't see him as a great president, I grew up with Reaganomics.

I did some research about the Pros and Cons of his presidency.

Lets also keep in mind Reagan REFUSED to fund any AIDS research. This could have made such a huge difference in the spread of AIDS in our country.
He cut tons of social welfare programs, which caused an increase in homelessness, the drug trade grew and the old you and minority suffered under Reagan.

While Reagon was on office, in the summer of 1981, the country fell into the worst recession since the Great Depression.

PRO 1

Inflation averaged 12.5 percent when Reagan entered office, was reduced to 4.4 percent when he left.



PRO 2

Interest rates fell six points.



PRO 3

Eight million new jobs were created as unemployment fell.



PRO 4

An eight percent growth in private wealth.



CON 4.1

According to the Statistical Abstract of the United States for 1996, the number of people (white, black, and Hispanic) below the poverty level increased in almost every year between 1981 (31.8 million) and 1992 (39.3 million).



CON 5

We were $994 billion in debt in fiscal 1981, when Carter left off, and $2,867 billion when Reagan leaves office in fiscal 1989. The rough number is 2.85 times as much in 1989 as in 1981. No, it's not quite tripled, but very close. Okay, so the republicans have an argument for this: it didn't really double or triple when you take it as a percentage of either GDP or GNP. Okay, if we go with that, then it can indeed be agreed that Reagan didn't really double the debt as a percentage of either of these figures. But that doesn't really make Reagan look any better. As a historical look at the debt since before the United States entered World War II will show, the debt as a percentage of GDP never went up meaningfully for any extended period of time except for two periods: during the War itself, and starting during the Reagan years. At least President Roosevelt had the need to borrow money hand and fist to fight the Axis powers. What's Reagan's excuse? We needed to borrow money to give a tax break to the wealthy?



PRO 5.1

The primary reason the deficit grew during the Reagan years was the Cold War military buildup.



PRO 5.2

In no year following the tax cuts did revenues decline. They increased in fact in almost a straight progression from pre-Reagan years. The Cold War budgets did increase, and of course the happy fact was that this led to the end of the Cold War itself, as the Soviet Union recognized it could not outspend the U.S. But those military budgets were not significantly larger than during the 70s, and were smaller than in the Kennedy and Johnson years. No, it was domestic spending, and particularly entitlement spending, that grew enormously under the Democrat congress.



CON 6

The trade deficit quadrupled.



PRO 7

Between 1978 and 1981 the top capital gains rate was cut from 35 percent to 20 percent and revenues soared by 90 percent in real terms between 1978 and 1985.After Congress lifted the rate to 28 percent in 1986, capital gains revenues declined by 20 percent by 1990.



CON 7.1

There are two reasons for these numbers. One is they start with a recession, the change in the economy is responsible for most of these changes. The second reason is a short term effect. During 1981 when there was talk of a Capital Gains Tax cut people held off selling their assets until the tax cut. Then people rushed to sell assets before the 1986 tax raise happened.



CON 7.2

The 1986 Tax Reform Act is widely considered to be the best piece of American tax legislation since the adoption of the income tax. It is the opposite of Reaganomics. Over its first five years, it closed more than $500 billion in loopholes and tax shelters. As a result:

Major U.S. corporations that previously had paid little or nothing in income taxes due to loopholes were put back on the tax rolls, and corporate taxes were increased overall by a net of more $100 billion over five years.
A huge wasteful tax-shelter industry for high-income individuals was shut down.
Tax rates on capital gains income were raised to the same level as on other income.
Millions of moderate-income working families got tax relief through a major expansion of the earned-income tax credit.
Taxes on most families (on average, all but the best-off tenth) were reduced. (The table shows the tax changes by income group.)
The income tax was substantially simplified for most filers.
Allied in support of the 1986 reforms were a vast array of public interest groups, labor unions and citizens groups around the country. The act was also highly praised by most economists, because it leveled the playing field for businesses and investments, and made our economy more efficient and productive. Unsuccessfully opposing the 1986 Tax Reform Act were low- and no-tax corporations, recalcitrant supply-siders and tax-shelter promoters. (Opponents included, for example, Newt Gingrich, Bill Archer and billionaire Donald Trump, who continues to criticize the act for cracking down on abusive real-estate tax shelters.)

PRO 8

The average annual growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) from 1981 to 1989 was 3.2 percent per year, compared with 2.8 percent from 1974 to 1981 and 2.1 percent from 1989 to 1995. The 3.2 percent growth rate for the Reagan years includes the recession of the early 1980s, which was a side effect of reversing Carter's high-inflation policies, and the seven expansion years, 1983-89. During the economic expansion alone, the economy grew by a robust annual rate of 3.8 percent. By the end of the Reagan years, the American economy was almost one-third larger than it was when they began.



CON 8.1

To avoid being misled by the business cycle, one must look at underlying economic growth rates. The following table accomplishes this result in two ways. First, it measures economic growth and other data from one business cycle peak to the next, rather than from a recession to a later peak. Second, it uses CBO calculations of "potential" economic growth — that is, CBO's (Congressional Budget Office) estimate of the size of the economy in any year if unemployment were at normal levels, rather than abnormally high or low levels. In effect, CBO directly calculates the size of the underlying economy, ignoring the business cycle. Both approaches give the same answer: economic growth rates have slowed from decade to decade; if income tax rates have made any difference to economic growth, that difference has been too small to be obvious. Specifically, the CBO data show that the underlying rate of annual economic growth was lower in the 1980s than the 1970s. It averaged 3.4 percent from 1969 to 1980, then slipped to 2.7 percent in the 1980s (not the 3.8 percent that comes from measuring from the depths of the recession in 1982), and is now projected at 2.1 percent. It is plausible that the underlying annual growth rate might have been slightly less than 2.7 percent in the 1980s were it not for the 1981 tax cut, but surely only slightly.



PRO 9

When Reagan took office in 1981, the unemployment rate was 7.6 percent. In the recession of 1981-82, that rate peaked at 9.7 percent, but it fell continuously for the next seven years. When Reagan left office, the unemployment rate was 5.5 percent.



PRO 10

Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.



CON 10.1

The savings rate did not rise in the 1980s, as supply-side advocates had predicted. In fact, in the 1980s the personal savings rate fell from 8 percent to 6.5 percent. If the median family was better off why did their savings go down?



CON 11

In 1993 Clinton raised the taxes on the rich, the opposite of Reaganomics, opponents argued that this would stop the growing economy. That did not happen.



PRO 11.1

It is entirely disingenuous of the "cons" to suggest that the fact that the tax increase of the first Clinton budget (after he had promised, you will recall, a tax cut) did not harm the economy proves that the Reagan tax increase was a mistake. Not factored into any liberal equation is that at the time Clinton took office (in fact, long before the election) the economy was growing briskly again, the brief Bush recession having ended in March 1992. Moreover, the end of the Cold War led to massive cuts in military and Defense Department budgets, a reduction in the size of government that Clinton and Gore now have the audacity to claim as their achievements.

[Reds6]

Dearest Rudey, I Cut and paste for a reason, which is why I also listed PROS and CONS of his presidency.
I would answer all your points but I really don't think you are worth it. I think you just want to get folks rawled up, with you comments thata t times board prejudice. But I won't go on because lawd knows if I do I may get banned from posting Like my Soror.
Good Day

Originally posted by Rudey
While I don't see why you would post this in this thread, here we go.

1) AIDS. How much more did AIDS spread since he "REFUSED to fund any AIDS research"? Why didn't he? Think about it.

2) When you don't have money and the economy is in the tank you cut programs OK? He didn't do it on his own. This isn't a dictatorship. Those tax cuts and raises aren't passed by him alone. How would you have supported those programs? Hard answers.

CON 4.1) Why did it increase? Since you're doing research why don't you tell us? What happens if immigration into the country increased? That's just something I'm throwing out there and I'm not saying it's that at all. I'm just saying you're throwing things out and not doing any research at all. You just copied and pasted. Good for you.

CON 5) You talk about a deficit as if you understand economics. You don't. Just stop. It's not a partisan thing. Funny how you want to support social programs and think the money just comes from nowhere. Yes tax breaks often go to the rich. Why? Do the research and tell me what percentage the rich pay in taxes.

Con 6) So what?? When and how is this measured?? Again, so what? What does that show? Do you know? No your research is copying and pasting. Good for you.

Con 7.1) Why don't you explain a capital gains tax to me Mr./Ms. Researcher. Hmm what does this have to do with Reagan doing something bad?? It's not even a con even though it's a poor statement to make to start with.

Con 7.2) Again, how is this something bad about Reagan? And what economists praised it? You're the researcher. Do you know? No your research is copying and pasting. Good for you.

Con 8.1) Again, how is this something bad about Reagan?

Con 10.1) Why is savings not rising a bad thing? If money goes into another good that is an investment such as a house, it's not saving. Do you even have any clue at what saving does in the economy? Do you even understand a simple statement like "the Fed raised rates"??? Yes that's all related.

Con 11) Clinton did nothing. If you want to make irrelevant statements then deal with the fact that a recession followed the boom of businesses that thrived under Clinton when their bubbles burst.

-Rudey
--Good job resear...I mean copy-and-paster who knows nothing.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Reds6
Dearest Rudey, I Cut and paste for a reason, which is why I also listed PROS and CONS of his presidency.
I would answer all your points but I really don't think you are worth it. I think you just want to get folks rawled up, with you comments thata t times board prejudice. But I won't go on because lawd knows if I do I may get banned from posting Like my Soror.
Good Day

It actually looks to me as if he effectively refuted most of your cons on the basis that they were ignorant statements. Your choosing to "rise above" the discussion at this point isn't really fooling anyone.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by Reds6
Dearest Rudey, I Cut and paste for a reason, which is why I also listed PROS and CONS of his presidency.
I would answer all your points but I really don't think you are worth it. I think you just want to get folks rawled up, with you comments thata t times board prejudice. But I won't go on because lawd knows if I do I may get banned from posting Like my Soror.
Good Day

So what you're saying is you can't respond? You don't know how to respond? You copy and paste and didn't do research. It's like hey I wrote a book report but oh yeah I only copied and pasted a book review. OK.

As for me getting folks rawled up...I lost the PR battle about when I started and can't seem to get on track.

And me saying "comments thata t times board prejudice", I'll just say you're wrong and ignore the whole grammar thing. Actually I'm not sure what "board prejudice" means but I take it to mean bordering - meaning not prejudice but some might be confused. Maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, if you have questions about what I say and feel something I said is even borderline prejudiced I do welcome you to send me a PM so I can explain further and we can learn from each other.

-Rudey

[lifesaver]

I loved Reagan, but if I hear "Hail to the Chief" once more, I'm gonna begin to think I am president. lol

Did ya'll know that San Antonio has the only public high school in the country named for Ronald Reagan? It opened about 5 years ago. Its a beautiful campus and they had a ceremony there last night in memorium.

[Reds6]

Originally posted by Rudey
So what you're saying is you can't respond? You don't know how to respond? You copy and paste and didn't do research. It's like hey I wrote a book report but oh yeah I only copied and pasted a book review. OK.

As for me getting folks rawled up...I lost the PR battle about when I started and can't seem to get on track.

And me saying "comments thata t times board prejudice", I'll just say you're wrong and ignore the whole grammar thing. Actually I'm not sure what "board prejudice" means but I take it to mean bordering - meaning not prejudice but some might be confused. Maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, if you have questions about what I say and feel something I said is even borderline prejudiced I do welcome you to send me a PM so I can explain further and we can learn from each other.

-Rudey

Actually I can, I could say while you were still playing inthe play pen, I was actaullay at an age to remember Reagan's presidency. I also lived in a military area and watched my loved ones and friend's loved ones go off and fight Reagan's conflicts. Or I could say I have an undergraduate and post graduate degree in Political Science. Instead of posting my own opinions and be viewed as bias, I decided to post what I found were Pros and Cons of his presidency.
But instead I'll say Blah Blah Blah Blah

[Reds6]

Originally posted by ktsnake
It actually looks to me as if he effectively refuted most of your cons on the basis that they were ignorant statements. Your choosing to "rise above" the discussion at this point isn't really fooling anyone.

I posted pros and cons, while stating my opinion briefly. While I can respect the fact that he was the leader of our country at one time and he has passed on, I think we as Americans should look at his whole presidency and not only the pick and choose the policies and practices we agreed with.
Growing up in a military area I can appreciate the funding and dedication he provided to the military. But I can also disagree with his stance on not funding AIDS research because he thought it was a gay disease.

I choose not to respond to Rudey because he can make offensive statement but have his posting rights rejected for stating his opinion unlike some others on this board. I don't have a problem listening or even considering another's opinion,I think that's how we grow as people, I just don't wish to give certain individuals on here my energy.

[DeltAlum]

I think it is fair to take a few days to honor President Regan.

I also think it's fair to point out the shortcomings of the man -- and some have started to do that.

Nobody is perfect.

In fact, I'm having trouble remembering a recent President (OK, back to Nixon -- maybe not so recent), who hasn't had some kind of major scandal or huge controversy. That's all of them, from both parties.

Were it me, I'd let the country finish its time of mourning, and then reopen the debate.

[Reds6]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
I think it is fair to take a few days to honor President Regan.

I also think it's fair to point out the shortcomings of the man -- and some have started to do that.

Nobody is perfect.

In fact, I'm having trouble remembering a recent President (OK, back to Nixon -- maybe not so recent), who hasn't had some kind of major scandal or huge controversy. That's all of them, from both parties.

Were it me, I'd let the country finish its time of mourning, and then reopen the debate.

I can respect that point of view, but we aren't the only medium discussing his presidency, the country is. I would never disrespect anyone that has passed away. But I do thinkyou can discuss the pros and cons of his presidency in a respectful manner.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Reds6
I posted pros and cons, while stating my opinion briefly. While I can respect the fact that he was the leader of our country at one time and he has passed on, I think we as Americans should look at his whole presidency and not only the pick and choose the policies and practices we agreed with.
Growing up in a military area I can appreciate the funding and dedication he provided to the military. But I can also disagree with his stance on not funding AIDS research because he thought it was a gay disease.

I choose not to respond to Rudey because he can make offensive statement but have his posting rights rejected for stating his opinion unlike some others on this board. I don't have a problem listening or even considering another's opinion,I think that's how we grow as people, I just don't wish to give certain individuals on here my energy.

Who is banned? ChasoDST is still a "Senior Member" whenever I check her profile (if that's who you're talking about). Perhaps warned.

Having watched both Rudey and Chaos argue, typically Rudey will back his opinions with facts other than what he thinks or observes. He'll call you an idiot if you don't do your homework.

As for Chaos, she just calls people idiots. There is a difference.

***

Put aside his jibes and there you have some factually accurate and educated replies to your cons. Why not reply to those with your own opinions (or even the opinions of others)?

[Reds6]

Originally posted by ktsnake
Who is banned? ChasoDST is still a "Senior Member" whenever I check her profile (if that's who you're talking about). Perhaps warned.

Having watched both Rudey and Chaos argue, typically Rudey will back his opinions with facts other than what he thinks or observes. He'll call you an idiot if you don't do your homework.

As for Chaos, she just calls people idiots. There is a difference.

***

Put aside his jibes and there you have some factually accurate and educated replies to your cons. Why not reply to those with your own opinions (or even the opinions of others)?

Apparenlty you haven't read all of HIS comments throught this forum. Especially his little one liners. But to each his own.
And Chaos can not post on GreekChat anymore she can only view.

So with that
REINSTATE CHAOS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!