does reagan matter

[Jhhnn]

So, uh, your comments are true simply because you say so, right, cwjerome? No elaboration, no reasons, no thought whatsoever, just the blind faith of the truly mesmerized... and the thoroughly indoctrinated...

Ronnie was as close to the second coming as we've ever been, right? Nevermind the slaughter in central america, afghanistan, or that he and his saudi/pakistani pals basically created the taliban and al qaeda... that he railed against the debt before being elected, then watched it quadruple under his leadership... that he represented himself as being for the forgotten man, the little guy, then broke the balls off of the air traffic controllers and anybody else who got in the way of corporate progress... that he consulted astrologers and somehow conveniently forgot everything he knew about Iran-Contra... raised SS contributions on the working stiffs so that the financial elite could get massive tax cuts... and a lot of other stuff, too... like believing that the AIDS epidemic was God's revenge on gays... Yeh, Ronnie was a Peach alright, perhaps one of the greatest charlatans in American history...

American conservatives, at least those who actually work for a living, seem to be suffering from a variant on the Stockholm syndrome and selective amnesia, too...

"Mythological lie and ignorant pawns of of misinformation"? Your state of denial is obviously impenetrable, completely irrational- you're powerless against it, simply because you emotions and prejudices won't allow self-examination at all...

 

[CallMeJoe]

Michael Kinsley posted an interesting read on Slate concerning the Republican reinvention of Ronald Reagan.

Personally, I thought Mr. Reagan was a truly mediocre president, whose good intentions were undercut by the political hacks and petty criminals that filled his administration.

His reputation benefited greatly by his being in office when Gorbachev came into power in the Soyuz and began the devolution of the Soviet empire.

His reputation was further enhanced (in hindsight) by being succeeded in the presidency by the cipher (GHW Bush), the congenital liar (WJ Clinton), and the utter incompetent (GW Bush). If we now elect Hillary or Romney, RW Reagan will acquire another layer of gilt.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
So, uh, your comments are true simply because you say so, right, cwjerome? No elaboration, no reasons, no thought whatsoever, just the blind faith of the truly mesmerized... and the thoroughly indoctrinated...

Same to you?

What... do we need quotes from the people I mentioned that showed their stupidity and were proven to be wrong? Why do I get the feeling that if I did, it wouldn't matter to you... you'll just make up some other bogus argument.

Ronnie was as close to the second coming as we've ever been, right? Nevermind the slaughter in central america, afghanistan, or that he and his saudi/pakistani pals basically created the taliban and al qaeda... that he railed against the debt before being elected, then watched it quadruple under his leadership... that he represented himself as being for the forgotten man, the little guy, then broke the balls off of the air traffic controllers and anybody else who got in the way of corporate progress... that he consulted astrologers and somehow conveniently forgot everything he knew about Iran-Contra... raised SS contributions on the working stiffs so that the financial elite could get massive tax cuts... and a lot of other stuff, too... like believing that the AIDS epidemic was God's revenge on gays... Yeh, Ronnie was a Peach alright, perhaps one of the greatest charlatans in American history...

Second coming? Wow, you making up MY arguments now? Anyways... :roll:

American conservatives, at least those who actually work for a living, seem to be suffering from a variant on the Stockholm syndrome and selective amnesia, too...

"Mythological lie and ignorant pawns of of misinformation"? Your state of denial is obviously impenetrable, completely irrational- you're powerless against it, simply because you emotions and prejudices won't allow self-examination at all...

Coming from you, I just had to laugh.

 

[Jhhnn]

From cwjerome-

What... do we need quotes from the people I mentioned that showed their stupidity and were proven to be wrong?

That'd be a start, as would addressing some of the things I pointed out, above, which you quoted and yet still seem to be able to ignore completely...

If it's as obvious as you claim, then your task should be easy, right? Having made certain assertions, you should be prepared to back them up, or retract them... or did you think nobody would call you on it?

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From cwjerome-

What... do we need quotes from the people I mentioned that showed their stupidity and were proven to be wrong?

That'd be a start, as would addressing some of the things I pointed out, above, which you quoted and yet still seem to be able to ignore completely...

If it's as obvious as you claim, then your task should be easy, right? Having made certain assertions, you should be prepared to back them up, or retract them... or did you think nobody would call you on it?

Schlesinger : "those in the US who think the Soviet Union is on the verge of economic and social collapse [are] wishful thinkers" who are only "kidding themselves." (1982) Among others...

Galbraith: "That the Soviet system has made great material progress in recent years is evident... Partly, the Russian system succeeds because, in contrast to Western industrial economies, it makes full use of its manpower." (1984) Among others...

Samuelson: "What counts is results... the Soviet model has surely demonstrated that a command economy is capable of mobilizing resources for rapid growth." (1985) Among others...

Do I even have to continue?

I specifically choose names for a reason, not at random. But I might as well have because there are so many prominent Liberal jackasses in the 80s who said so many stupid things it's easy. Are you satisfied?

Highly doubtful I'm sure. Because your argument is the last refuge for insincere debate and basically a surrender sign. Since when on an informal internet message board are people posting long, researched, academic posts, footnotes and all? Since when does anyone have the time -or inclination- on these boards to give a thesis? The fact is we throw out opinions backed by some rationale and that's it.

Your argument against "evidence" can be used against 99% of the posts on here so I find it really dumb (but typical) for you to throw it out.

 

[Jhhnn]

So, uhh, how do those quotes prove your point, cwjerome? were the reaganites saying anything different at the time? hardly- they claimed we needed to beef up the military to counter the threat of the evil empire, remember? They fluffed it up the same way their ideological heirs, the bushistas, have fluffed up the terrarist threat...

The last thing that any of the pundits of the west counted on happening is that the soviets would offer up real disarmament on the nuclear level... Gorbachev's proposals at Reykjavic were so sweeping that the Reaganites were caught flat-footed in their coldwar headset, left bewildered and gasping for air... in the final agreement, they were the ones who insisted that nuclear arsenals be reduced to what we have today, rahter than the even greater reductions posed by Gorbachev...

And, uhh, I didn't ask for a thesis, just for some substantiation of your original assertion, which you really have yet to accomplish. I don't know why you quote the term "evidence", seeing as how I haven't used it in this thread- apparently trying to characterize my position as something it's not...

Your original post offered nothing but slander- no analysis, no argument, just a kneejerk attack on the detractors of the cult of reagan worship, with no corresponding rationale, as you'd put it, and you've done little to improve on that, either...

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
So, uhh, how do those quotes prove your point, cwjerome? were the reaganites saying anything different at the time? hardly- they claimed we needed to beef up the military to counter the threat of the evil empire, remember? They fluffed it up the same way their ideological heirs, the bushistas, have fluffed up the terrarist threat...

The last thing that any of the pundits of the west counted on happening is that the soviets would offer up real disarmament on the nuclear level... Gorbachev's proposals at Reykjavic were so sweeping that the Reaganites were caught flat-footed in their coldwar headset, left bewildered and gasping for air... in the final agreement, they were the ones who insisted that nuclear arsenals be reduced to what we have today, rahter than the even greater reductions posed by Gorbachev...

And, uhh, I didn't ask for a thesis, just for some substantiation of your original assertion, which you really have yet to accomplish. I don't know why you quote the term "evidence", seeing as how I haven't used it in this thread- apparently trying to characterize my position as something it's not...

Your original post offered nothing but slander- no analysis, no argument, just a kneejerk attack on the detractors of the cult of reagan worship, with no corresponding rationale, as you'd put it, and you've done little to improve on that, either...

The Ray-gun years were more or less Bush administration years too. The Bushes have had their grip on power for a long long time, apart from the Clinton cutoff.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I'll always remember Reagan for pulling out of Beruit mere days after the Marine Barracks were bombed there, thus sending the very first message to the jihadists that Americans were huge pussies who would run, tail between legs, at the first sign of a terrorist attack.

Way to go, Reagan, way to go! :roll:

Wow, you're such a two-faced hack. Aren't you one of the global retreat cheerleaders? Yes, you are...

The fact that you cannot judge something in context and simply make blubbering partisan pronouncements means nothing to me. Why the fvck should we have kept soldiers there to die for in a useless cause? Reagan decision to intervene in Lebanon's Civil War was good intentioned but stupid. The Lebanese government's appeal to President Reagan to send American troops back into Beirut as a stabilizing factor should have been ignored. And Reagan properly withdrew when confronted with the facts: It's not worth it.

You can argue, like I do, that we should not have been there in the first place. It turned into a minor debacle. But when I hear leftwing stooges like yourself claim we were bad for cutting and running I have to just shake my head because that's your whole foreign policy in a nutshell. Disingenuous tool is not strong enough a word to describe you.

I suppose we should have sent more soldiers over there and escalated things. Right. For what again? Why is it you nuts want to get involved in every place it doesn't matter? There were a lot bigger things going on with the cold war and all to divert unnecessary attention away ... and since that much more important issue was a spectacular success for America, I'd say he was right and you -as usual- are wrong.

That foamy spittle spewed all over your flat panel aside, everything you just said about Reagan and Beruit could easily be applied to Bush and Iraq. We should just cut our losses and pull a "Reagan" .... right? Right?! It's only diverting attention and resources away from the REAL WoT which is taking place in Afghanistan and of course Pakistan.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jmman
No, Reagan doesn't matter. But I find it comical how so many people around here slam Reagan for his presidency, when the guy won re-election in 1984 by winning 49 out of 50 states including California and New York, very liberal states. He wouldn't have been re-elected in such a a landslide if he was so bad. Not only that, but his VP won the 88 race as well.......Liberals are the ones who keeping trying to revise the 80's as the worst decade in the history of mankind. Oh, by the way, I will take Reagan anyday over Carter ........

Exactly.

What I'm sick of hearing is the liberals constantly trying to claim Reagan was bad/criminal/etc. You people keep saying he's irrelevant and such yet you still constantly whine about him. If he's irrelevant and you really are sick of hearing of him then quit farking talking about him.

 

[DealMonkey]

That would be nice, Cad, assuming the GoP candidates would play along. But alas, they insist on holding their debates at Reagan's library and blathering on and on about how Reagan was more like themselves than the other candidates.

Reagan's no more or less irrelevant than any US President in history, but I'd venture to say his popularity had more to do with his Hollywood status and name-recognition and less to do with any policy he enacted during his presidency. We'd see much the same effect, if say, Schwarzenegger were elected president. Not that he's eligible...

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
What I'm sick of hearing is the liberals constantly trying to claim Reagan was bad/criminal/etc. You people keep saying he's irrelevant and such yet you still constantly whine about him. If he's irrelevant and you really are sick of hearing of him then quit farking talking about him.

OK, so Ronnie wasn't a criminal...but he lead a company of criminals.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Jmman
No, Reagan doesn't matter. But I find it comical how so many people around here slam Reagan for his presidency, when the guy won re-election in 1984 by winning 49 out of 50 states including California and New York, very liberal states. He wouldn't have been re-elected in such a a landslide if he was so bad. Not only that, but his VP won the 88 race as well.......Liberals are the ones who keeping trying to revise the 80's as the worst decade in the history of mankind. Oh, by the way, I will take Reagan anyday over Carter ........

Exactly.

What I'm sick of hearing is the liberals constantly trying to claim Reagan was bad/criminal/etc. You people keep saying he's irrelevant and such yet you still constantly whine about him. If he's irrelevant and you really are sick of hearing of him then quit farking talking about him.

We'd quit but it's the likes of Romney of constantly bring him up (and spin his legacy).

 

[LtPage1]

The man had Alzheimer's the day he took office.

He's unfortunately relevant because so many idiots think he is.

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: LtPage1
The man had Alzheimer's the day he took office.

He's unfortunately relevant because so many idiots think he is.

Cold!

Speak kindly of the dead, who have served us. Where is the respect?

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: beyoku
I hate Reagan, Im glad he is dead. Can i say that?

Yes! you can... And...... I agree!

Gonna be the same farewell line when bush jr goes also.. The sooner the better....!


If reagan was so far right... then bush frigen tilted the meter so far right you can't even see it!

 

[StageLeft]

I am sooooooooooooo fvcking tired of hearing about him. It's a name idiotic Repuglicans throw out to woo and court their brainless followers. Romney said some sh*t about "The house that Reagan built". Reagan's very name has become so lionzed that to call it aloud the speaker is temporarily elevated above other mortals and sits next to Christ himself. This is how some of the stupider republicans see the use of the word and it obviously works well. Reagan was another fat cat spender who didn't think gov could be big enough (like all the republicans of late). It's the last thing this country needs.

 

[Lemon law]

Skoorb is 100% right. Its Reagan that started the current image over substance spend and borrow the Republicans are so proud of. But in truth it was a disaster that could not be sustained as GHB found out. But at least Regan the man was lovable even though he was used as a puppet by handlers.

Now that same spend and borrow dominates the GWB administration, and in terms of lovable, GWB is no Reagan and Dick Cheney is the devil himself.

As the American people later find out the full extent of the damage done by GWB&co., hopefully spend and borrow policies will join communism in the scrap bin of history.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Skoorb is 100% right. Its Reagan that started the current image over substance spend and borrow the Republicans are so proud of. But in truth it was a disaster that could not be sustained as GHB found out. But at least Regan the man was lovable even though he was used as a puppet by handlers.

Now that same spend and borrow dominates the GWB administration, and in terms of lovable, GWB is no Reagan and Dick Cheney is the devil himself.

As the American people later find out the full extent of the damage done by GWB&co., hopefully spend and borrow policies will join communism in the scrap bin of history.

And all the public remember is how the dems always raise their taxes. And this for the very same reason a kid likes to visit their grandparents to get junk candy and laments going back home where their parents force them to eat vegetables, but we cannot eat candy forever, sometimes we need our vitamins.

 

[daveshel]

Reagan matters. He is a lesson to us as to what happens when you elect an actor to public office. You get a stuffed shirt puppet who serves his buddies instead of his country.

The increase in the concentration of media ownership began with his appointment of Mark Fowler as FCC Chariman; now we have Clear Channel instead of freedom of speech.

He allowed the CIA to deal drugs to finance black operations; now we have illegal wiretapping within our borders. And waterboarding.

He cut social programs with a plan that amounted to ridiculous drivel - the homeless in the park across the street are still waiting for good fortune to trickle down.

But he sure knew how to wave that flag!

 

[DealMonkey]

I guess the Republicans don't have another two-term president they can feel all fuzzy and nostalgic about. I'm sure given time, they'll elevate W to the same undeserved spot. To a certain extent, the Dems do the same thing with Clinton.