One reason I believe Ronald Reagan was a great President

[NFS4]

You need to borrow NFS4's new books when he is done with them.

Only if you pay for them. And please don't tell me that you are going to say that Reagan was "all there" during his second term. That's the thing I hate about Republicans, they take one comment and think that they are bashing their religion or sleeping with their mama

I said that from what I have READ and from what I have seen PORTRAYED of Reagan, all was not well with him in the second term...nothing more, nothing less.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Don't see what's so great about Reagan, aside from good PR. From what I gather he was pretty good at ignoring things that he didn't want to deal with, like AIDS and growing deficits. All this revisionism and glorification of Reagan in the Republican ranks is getting out of hand. Reagan's role in USSR collapse was of secondary importance. Gorbachev brought the USSR down because the socialist system was unsustainable and buckling under its own corruption. When Gorbachev instituted Glastnost and allowed people to speak the truth, it was over.
Reagan is one of those presidents like Kennedy. A lot of flash, very little substance.

Actually Kennedy handled the Cuban missle crisis well. Also he pushed thru some big tax cuts which got the economy going again.

So what? That's his job. I didn't say Kennedy or Reagan were awful presidents. Just a mixed bag. I just don't understand why right-wingers treat Reagan like some sort of saint, and keep regurgitating same old failed Reagan policies that left us with huge deficits.

 

[Red Dawn]

Hey EngineNr9, when did you convert from a frothing at the mouth conservative to a frothing at the mouth liberal? Man living in Bezerkley finally has taken it's toll on you. Either that or someone stole your account here. Hmmmm

 

[Red Dawn]

I said that from what I have READ and from what I have seen PORTRAYED of Regan, all was not well with him in the second term...nothing more, nothing less.

Pssst..uh it's Reagan. Regan was his Chief of Staff during his first term.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

I said that from what I have READ and from what I have seen PORTRAYED of Regan, all was not well with him in the second term...nothing more, nothing less.

Pssst..uh it's Reagan. Regan was his Chief of Staff during his first term.

Pssssst, thanks...I keep thinking about the hot neighbor chick on Frasier whose name was Regan

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Don't see what's so great about Reagan, aside from good PR. From what I gather he was pretty good at ignoring things that he didn't want to deal with, like AIDS and growing deficits. All this revisionism and glorification of Reagan in the Republican ranks is getting out of hand. Reagan's role in USSR collapse was of secondary importance. Gorbachev brought the USSR down because the socialist system was unsustainable and buckling under its own corruption. When Gorbachev instituted Glastnost and allowed people to speak the truth, it was over.
Reagan is one of those presidents like Kennedy. A lot of flash, very little substance.

Actually Kennedy handled the Cuban missle crisis well. Also he pushed thru some big tax cuts which got the economy going again.

So what? That's his job. I didn't say Kennedy or Reagan were awful presidents. Just a mixed bag. I just don't understand why right-wingers treat Reagan like some sort of saint, and keep regurgitating same old failed Reagan policies that left us with huge deficits.

The huge deficits where from spending by an out of control congress( and they are still out of control).
Yes alot was spent on the military during the reagan years, but alot of pork was spent as well.

 

[Riprorin]

Pssst..uh it's Reagan. Regan was his Chief of Staff during his first term.

Actually, Reagan's Chief of Staff during his first term was James Baker.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: NFS4

You need to borrow NFS4's new books when he is done with them.

Only if you pay for them. And please don't tell me that you are going to say that Reagan was "all there" during his second term. That's the thing I hate about Republicans, they take one comment and think that they are bashing their religion or sleeping with their mama

I said that from what I have READ and from what I have seen PORTRAYED of Reagan, all was not well with him in the second term...nothing more, nothing less.

Lets see you first claim you were too young to care while he was in office.
Then also claim you gained knowledge of term via paradys.

And you still want your opinion to be taken seriously?

 

[mithrandir2001]

He cut taxes and if it wasn't for that spend-happy Democrat-run Congress, he would've balanced the budget too.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: NFS4

You need to borrow NFS4's new books when he is done with them.

Only if you pay for them. And please don't tell me that you are going to say that Reagan was "all there" during his second term. That's the thing I hate about Republicans, they take one comment and think that they are bashing their religion or sleeping with their mama

I said that from what I have READ and from what I have seen PORTRAYED of Reagan, all was not well with him in the second term...nothing more, nothing less.

Lets see you first claim you were too young to care while he was in office.
Then also claim you gained knowledge of term via paradys.

And you still want your opinion to be taken seriously?

Now your taking sh!t of context for your own personal pleasure:disgust:

1) I said I was to young to give a damn while he was in office. I was 8 when he was last in office. How many 8 years old do you know that watch the nightly news, read business week, watch Meet the Press & Face the Nation, or follow politics on a regular basis (like I do now). When I was 8, all I cared about was GI Joe, Transformers, and MicroMachines.

2) I saw that from what I have READ about Regan and seen of him parodied. As I grew older, my interest of course became more involved in politics where I learned more and more about Reagan.

3) Why don't you read next time instead of turning stuff around.

 

[UltraQuiet]

I just don't understand why right-wingers treat Reagan like some sort of saint, and keep regurgitating same old failed Reagan policies that left us with huge deficits.

Huge deficits yes, failed policies- no. It was his policies that let us implement the budgets of the 90's. Look up "peace dividend" and tell us who was responsible for that.

Reagan and his policies had a lot to do with the fall of the Soviet. Many Russians have said that Ronnies "evil empire" speech was the beginning of the end for them. Couple that with SDI and a huge military build-up that the Russians went broke trying to match and glasnost and you have the fall of the Soviet. Also your characterization of the Cuban Missile Crisis as JFK just doing his job his absolutely ludicrous and warrants no more comment.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: NFS4

You need to borrow NFS4's new books when he is done with them.

Only if you pay for them. And please don't tell me that you are going to say that Reagan was "all there" during his second term. That's the thing I hate about Republicans, they take one comment and think that they are bashing their religion or sleeping with their mama

I said that from what I have READ and from what I have seen PORTRAYED of Reagan, all was not well with him in the second term...nothing more, nothing less.

Lets see you first claim you were too young to care while he was in office. Then also claim you gained knowledge of term via paradys. And you still want your opinion to be taken seriously?

Now your taking sh!t of context for your own personal pleasure:disgust: 1) I said I was to young to give a damn while he was in office. I was 8 when he was last in office. How many 8 years old do you know that watch the nightly news, read business week, watch Meet the Press & Face the Nation, or follow politics on a regular basis (like I do now). When I was 8, all I cared about was GI Joe, Transformers, and MicroMachines. 2) I saw that from what I have READ about Regan and seen of him parodied. As I grew older, my interest of course became more involved in politics where I learned more and more about Reagan. 3) Why don't you read next time instead of turning stuff around.

Slavery was before my time NFS4, so I am not entitled to an opinion on it either.

 

[Red Dawn]

Actually, Reagan's Chief of Staff during his first term was James Baker.

He was? I thought Baker was Bush #41's COS.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: mithrandir2001
He cut taxes and if it wasn't for that spend-happy Democrat-run Congress, he would've balanced the budget too.

That is partially true but it takes both Congress and the President to spend. I personally thought Reagan was one of the best Presidents in my lifetime to date but was dissappointed that he did not spend some political capital and stand up to Congress with regards to spending.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Yeah I was conservative, self proclaimed, now I guess I'm liberal apparently, but I don't define myself as that. Left and right wing politics are two sides of the same coin. Partisans are annoying, but I can't hate them, I know the mentality.

 

[NFS4]

Slavery was before my time NFS4, so I am not entitled to an opinion on it either.

WTH does that have to do with anything. I said that at the age of 8, I had no realistic clue about politics. And as I grew older, I became more in tune with politics and I'm a polical NUT now.

If you were 8 years old when WWII was going on, I wouldn't expect you to be an expert on it...but if you were 45 at the time, I'd expect you to know a lot more.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Without the Reagan, the Berlin Wall would not have fallen on November 9, 1989.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: NFS4

You need to borrow NFS4's new books when he is done with them.

Only if you pay for them. And please don't tell me that you are going to say that Reagan was "all there" during his second term. That's the thing I hate about Republicans, they take one comment and think that they are bashing their religion or sleeping with their mama

I said that from what I have READ and from what I have seen PORTRAYED of Reagan, all was not well with him in the second term...nothing more, nothing less.

Lets see you first claim you were too young to care while he was in office.
Then also claim you gained knowledge of term via paradys.

And you still want your opinion to be taken seriously?

Now your taking sh!t of context for your own personal pleasure:disgust:

1) I said I was to young to give a damn while he was in office. I was 8 when he was last in office. How many 8 years old do you know that watch the nightly news, read business week, watch Meet the Press & Face the Nation, or follow politics on a regular basis (like I do now). When I was 8, all I cared about was GI Joe, Transformers, and MicroMachines.

2) I saw that from what I have READ about Regan and seen of him parodied. As I grew older, my interest of course became more involved in politics where I learned more and more about Reagan.

3) Why don't you read next time instead of turning stuff around.

Sorry it was not taken out of context. Be careful how you word things when you want to be taken seriously.

So what books/articles have you READ about him? They are quite a few books written about him, some from the right, some from the left. I can only hope you have sampled from both sides.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrisonThe huge deficits where from spending by an out of control congress( and they are still out of control).
Yes alot was spent on the military during the reagan years, but alot of pork was spent as well.

Typical Reagan apologist response. Credit Reagan with all the good things and blame the Congress for all the bad things. Reagan signed and/or hasn't vetoed those spending bills. He is responsible for this spending just as much as the Congress if not more. If he didn't know where the buck stopped, he cannot be considered a great president.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrisonThe huge deficits where from spending by an out of control congress( and they are still out of control).
Yes alot was spent on the military during the reagan years, but alot of pork was spent as well.

Typical Reagan apologist response. Credit Reagan with all the good things and blame the Congress for all the bad things. Reagan signed and/or hasn't vetoed those spending bills. He is responsible for this spending just as much as the Congress if not more. If he didn't know where the buck stopped, he cannot be considered a great president.

I wont disagree with you about him not using the veto when he should have. It would have been nice if he could have got the military spending he wanted out of the democratic congress without the extra pork. The deficits have been growing out of control for the past 20+ years no matter who is in the president/senate/house.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrisonThe huge deficits where from spending by an out of control congress( and they are still out of control).
Yes alot was spent on the military during the reagan years, but alot of pork was spent as well.

Typical Reagan apologist response. Credit Reagan with all the good things and blame the Congress for all the bad things. Reagan signed and/or hasn't vetoed those spending bills. He is responsible for this spending just as much as the Congress if not more. If he didn't know where the buck stopped, he cannot be considered a great president.

I wont disagree with you about him not using the veto when he should have. It would have been nice if he could have got the military spending he wanted out of the democratic congress without the extra pork. The deficits have been growing out of control for the past 20+ years no matter who is in the president/senate/house.

Clinton... You didn't really think I was going to let it slip?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrisonThe huge deficits where from spending by an out of control congress( and they are still out of control).
Yes alot was spent on the military during the reagan years, but alot of pork was spent as well.

Typical Reagan apologist response. Credit Reagan with all the good things and blame the Congress for all the bad things. Reagan signed and/or hasn't vetoed those spending bills. He is responsible for this spending just as much as the Congress if not more. If he didn't know where the buck stopped, he cannot be considered a great president.

I wont disagree with you about him not using the veto when he should have. It would have been nice if he could have got the military spending he wanted out of the democratic congress without the extra pork. The deficits have been growing out of control for the past 20+ years no matter who is in the president/senate/house.

Clinton... You didn't really think I was going to let it slip?

Only one problem with that. Even with the republican keeping the books "balanced" during the clinton years, the debt still grew. If money makes it to DC, it get spent on something.

 

[JellyBaby]

I question the federal budget numbers then and now. Somehow in the 90s they calculated a "massive projected budget surplus". Even before the 1999-2001 Years of Woe it was determined this "surplus" wasn't actually as real as was first described.

Given the federal government's excellence at cooking the books I'm distrustful of any budget they claim is balanced, or close to it.

Anyway, I thought Reagan was a competent president. There's some merit to saying he could weave illusions because of his acting ability but he was always consistent, believed in his party and was honest but tough.

He didn't look to polls to determine policy. He stood up to the Soviets. He actually ran on, believed in and implemented conservative policies. Imagine that, a politician who fulfills his promises!

Of course there was bad to offset some of the good as has been pointed out by the nice democrats in the forms. By and large history will likely always look upon his reign as one of the better ones.

 

[luckiestone]

Ok I was around when Reagan was president. He was not great because he couldn't keep track of his underlings, although better than Nixon. Any claim of greatness he has (had) is that he chose a course of action and more or less stayed on it.
We all new what Reagan stood for. We didn't need press secretaries to interpret what he said although sometimes they tried to soften what he would say. He may not have cut spending enough and he didn't foresee the fall of the Soviet Union this is true. He was probably still fighting the cold war of the 50's not the 80's. He was more like Eisenhower. He didn't do all that much but at that time, not doing much was the better course. Sometimes the president leads as with Roseveldt and Kennedy and sometimes presidents let events work themselves out.
What would have happened, if Reagan had attacked the Soviet Union or even Cuba in some way? Wouldn't that have changed everything, most likely for the worse? By just working at home and letting things work themselves out he succeeded where other presidents had not.

 

[outriding]

you should do a google search for this ..

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=reagan+guns+for+drugs

i really comes up with some interesting reads...