Why does everyone love Reagan?

[GagHalfrunt]

2 words: National Pride

Under pansy-ass Carter we were Iran's bitch. Reagan comes in, cows Iran, flys a couple of F-111's up Qadaffi's pooper so that he's never heard from again and beats the Russians. In steps Bush, same thing, takes Iraq from supposed power to whipped geeks. Uh-oh, here comes another pansy-ass, Clinton, who paid no attention to our enemies and made us targets for more goat-herders and camel farmers. We go from being the superpower who defeated the only other superpower to a bunch of wussies who are afraid to respond to terrorist attacks. Face it, the only time Clinton used the military was as a rodeo-clown to distract attention from his latest hummer.

We like Ronnie because under Ronnie America was AMERICA. We were big, we were bad, we kicked ass, we were proud. Under some other presidents <cough>democrats</cough> we were cowards, running away from any nutjob with 2 pounds of C4 and the desire to be a martyr. Hell, we might just as well have been France for how quickly we were willing to surrender.

 

[MazerRackham]

No no, you have it wrong. It's Everybody Loves Raymond.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Jumpem
Because he's the man!

 

[ElFenix]

the man had a good smile and a knack for speeches

 

[Riprorin]

Reagan's the best!

I was 20 when he elected to his first term. I wonder how many here actually remember him.

 

[Yzzim]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
2 words: National Pride

Under pansy-ass Carter we were Iran's bitch. Reagan comes in, cows Iran, flys a couple of F-111's up Qadaffi's pooper so that he's never heard from again and beats the Russians. In steps Bush, same thing, takes Iraq from supposed power to whipped geeks. Uh-oh, here comes another pansy-ass, Clinton, who paid no attention to our enemies and made us targets for more goat-herders and camel farmers. We go from being the superpower who defeated the only other superpower to a bunch of wussies who are afraid to respond to terrorist attacks. Face it, the only time Clinton used the military was as a rodeo-clown to distract attention from his latest hummer.

We like Ronnie because under Ronnie America was AMERICA. We were big, we were bad, we kicked ass, we were proud. Under some other presidents <cough>democrats</cough> we were cowards, running away from any nutjob with 2 pounds of C4 and the desire to be a martyr. Hell, we might just as well have been France for how quickly we were willing to surrender.

 

[Ameesh]

cause he poops his pants now.

 

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
2 words: National Pride

Under pansy-ass Carter we were Iran's bitch. Reagan comes in, cows Iran, flys a couple of F-111's up Qadaffi's pooper so that he's never heard from again and beats the Russians. In steps Bush, same thing, takes Iraq from supposed power to whipped geeks. Uh-oh, here comes another pansy-ass, Clinton, who paid no attention to our enemies and made us targets for more goat-herders and camel farmers. We go from being the superpower who defeated the only other superpower to a bunch of wussies who are afraid to respond to terrorist attacks. Face it, the only time Clinton used the military was as a rodeo-clown to distract attention from his latest hummer.

We like Ronnie because under Ronnie America was AMERICA. We were big, we were bad, we kicked ass, we were proud. Under some other presidents <cough>democrats</cough> we were cowards, running away from any nutjob with 2 pounds of C4 and the desire to be a martyr. Hell, we might just as well have been France for how quickly we were willing to surrender.

I guess the only lackluster element of his presidency is that we weren't in any "hot wars" during his terms, only Cold ones.

Though from what my parents said about Reagan's presidency and what I know about Bush I and Bush II's terms, their economic policies don't yield such good results, as compared to those of Clinton, and perhaps Carter as well.

 

Originally posted by: Ameesh
cause he poops his pants now.

:|

 

[Spamela]

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
he's one of the worst presidents ever right behind GWB.

reagan was great as a cheerleader/speech giver/motivator.

the superpower who defeated the only other superpower

the soviet union was already decrepit when reagan became president;
he accelerated an inexorable process.

 

Originally posted by: Spamela

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
he's one of the worst presidents ever right behind GWB.

reagan was great as a cheerleader/speech giver/motivator.

the superpower who defeated the only other superpower

the soviet union was already decrepit when reagan became president;
he accelerated an inexorable process.

I think Spamela nailed it.

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: Ameesh
cause he poops his pants now.

:|

dont worry he's made out of teflon so it just slides right off just like the ramifications of his entire presidency.

 

[Platypus]

Originally posted by: Spamela

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
he's one of the worst presidents ever right behind GWB.

reagan was great as a cheerleader/speech giver/motivator.

the superpower who defeated the only other superpower

the soviet union was already decrepit when reagan became president;
he accelerated an inexorable process.

He is the first president to start a war on his own constituents .. I fail to see a good thing about him.

 

Originally posted by: Ameesh

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: Ameesh
cause he poops his pants now.

:|

dont worry he's made out of teflon so it just slides right off just like the ramifications of his entire presidency.

Haha, you have redeemed yourself. :beer::beer:

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: Ameesh

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: Ameesh
cause he poops his pants now.

:|

dont worry he's made out of teflon so it just slides right off just like the ramifications of his entire presidency.

Haha, you have redeemed yourself. :beer::beer:

thanks?

 

[fredtam]

I think you should have to state your age to answer the question. You should not be allowed to answer if your going by what your daddy told you or the fact that your now a Democrap so you are required to dislike Reagan. The world was a much different place then and unless you were old enough to understand what was going on or can give evidence of your parents strife due to Reagans policies you should STFU.

Dumbest thing I've seen so far-

"policies don't yield such good results, as compared to those of Clinton, and perhaps Carter as well."

2nd


"And does that include tubercolosis cases increasing from 1,500 cases in 1983 to 30,000 in 1990 as a result of his slashing of social services?"

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
2 words: National Pride

Under pansy-ass Carter we were Iran's bitch. Reagan comes in, cows Iran, flys a couple of F-111's up Qadaffi's pooper so that he's never heard from again and beats the Russians. In steps Bush, same thing, takes Iraq from supposed power to whipped geeks. Uh-oh, here comes another pansy-ass, Clinton, who paid no attention to our enemies and made us targets for more goat-herders and camel farmers. We go from being the superpower who defeated the only other superpower to a bunch of wussies who are afraid to respond to terrorist attacks. Face it, the only time Clinton used the military was as a rodeo-clown to distract attention from his latest hummer.

We like Ronnie because under Ronnie America was AMERICA. We were big, we were bad, we kicked ass, we were proud. Under some other presidents <cough>democrats</cough> we were cowards, running away from any nutjob with 2 pounds of C4 and the desire to be a martyr. Hell, we might just as well have been France for how quickly we were willing to surrender.

I guess the only lackluster element of his presidency is that we weren't in any "hot wars" during his terms, only Cold ones.

Though from what my parents said about Reagan's presidency and what I know about Bush I and Bush II's terms, their economic policies don't yield such good results, as compared to those of Clinton, and perhaps Carter as well.

Actually Bush I destroyed Ronnie's economic policies. Clinton didn't really have anything to do with the economy's health during his term, he was in the right place at the right time to reap the benefits though (Sitting President during the bubble and left before it burst).

For the record, I am nearly 30. I remember the Reagan-era and most certainly remember the "Jimmy Carta' smile".

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: DrNoobie

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

At the end of his two terms in office, Ronald Reagan viewed with satisfaction the achievements of his innovative program known as the Reagan Revolution, which aimed to reinvigorate the American people and reduce their reliance upon Government.

And does that include tubercolosis cases increasing from 1,500 cases in 1983 to 30,000 in 1990 as a result of his slashing of social services?

I know my understanding of current medical knowledge is no where near the pinnacle, but I don't see how a president can be in control of the increase in tuberculosis cases. Maybe, tuberculosis cases rose as a direct result of its increasing resistance against the drugs used against it. But that makes no sense, right? I mean, blaming the president is much easier.

VACCINES. During that period, vaccination of poor children went from 99% to 50%. Reagan cut funding for vaccination programs. Is that so hard to understand???

 

[DT4K]

First of all, I can't believe nobody has said this:
WRONG FVCKING FORUM

Everyone doesn't love Reagan.
Liberals hate him and conservatives love him.

One reason some people love him is that while he was in office, the economy went from miserable to outstanding.
The economy was in terrible shape when he took over from Carter. Unemployment continued to rise for the first two years of his presidency to a high of 9.5% in 1982-1983. By 1989, unemployment had dropped to 5.2%. So overall, people were doing better and had more money in their pockets by the end of Reagan's second term.

The people who hate Reagan say that this was like living on credit since the debt grew so much. It should be noted though, that almost every year Reagan was in office, the congress actually voted to spend MORE money than Reagan asked for. So the level of debt can be blamed on Congress just as much as on Reagan. And if you measure the debt as a percent of GNP, which is much more logical than just looking at dollar amounts since the GNP reflects the ability to pay the debt, it went from 37% to 55%. That's about a 50% increase. It's a big jump, but certainly not the doubling or tripling that liberals like to say.

And did you know that following WW2, the national debt was actually more than 100% of the GNP?

The other big reason some people love Reagan is the end of the Soviet Union.
Supporters will say he was instrumental in the collapse of the USSR because of increased defense spending that the USSR simply couldn't keep up with.
Haters will say the collapse was inevitable and Reagan had nothing to do with it.

Interesting facts regarding the relationship between economic health and deficit spending:

1. 1817-21: In five years, the national debt was reduced by 29 percent, to $90 million. A depression began in 1819.

2. 1823-36: In 14 years, the debt was reduced by 99.7 percent, to $38,000. A depression began in 1837.

3. 1852-57: In six years, the debt was reduced by 59 percent, to $28.7 million. A depression began in 1857..

4. 1867-73: In seven years, the debt was reduced by 27 percent, to $2.2 billion. A depression began in 1873.

5. 1880-93: In 14 years, the debt was reduced by 57 percent, to $1 billion. A depression began in 1893.

6. 1920-30: In 11 years, the debt was reduced by 36 percent, to $16.2 billion. A depression began in 1929

· Deficit reductions, 1971-74, led to the recession that began at the end of 1973; a slow recovery did not help Gerald Ford in 1976.

· Deficit reductions, 1977-80, gave way to a recession in 1980 that damaged Jimmy Carter?s re-election hopes.

· Deficit reductions, 1987-89, were followed by the 1990-91 recession that harmed George Bush.

EDIT: Oh, these are from this article. I'm not saying I buy it all, but it's an interesting theory.

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: fredtam
I think you should have to state your age to answer the question. You should not be allowed to answer if your going by what your daddy told you or the fact that your now a Democrap so you are required to dislike Reagan. The world was a much different place then and unless you were old enough to understand what was going on or can give evidence of your parents strife due to Reagans policies you should STFU.

Dumbest thing I've seen so far-

"policies don't yield such good results, as compared to those of Clinton, and perhaps Carter as well."

2nd


"And does that include tubercolosis cases increasing from 1,500 cases in 1983 to 30,000 in 1990 as a result of his slashing of social services?"

i think you have to be a jingoistic myopic old man to like reagan. he totally fvcked the economy of the us and i dont need to be some 50 year old man longing for the good old days to know that, in fact, i probably know more about his administration then you do. so shut the fvck up and take your geritol before i break your hip you senile old fart.

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: DrNoobie

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

At the end of his two terms in office, Ronald Reagan viewed with satisfaction the achievements of his innovative program known as the Reagan Revolution, which aimed to reinvigorate the American people and reduce their reliance upon Government.

And does that include tubercolosis cases increasing from 1,500 cases in 1983 to 30,000 in 1990 as a result of his slashing of social services?

I know my understanding of current medical knowledge is no where near the pinnacle, but I don't see how a president can be in control of the increase in tuberculosis cases. Maybe, tuberculosis cases rose as a direct result of its increasing resistance against the drugs used against it. But that makes no sense, right? I mean, blaming the president is much easier.

VACCINES. During that period, vaccination of poor children went from 99% to 50%. Reagan cut funding for vaccination programs. Is that so hard to understand???

Which Socialist country can I buy you a ticket to?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: jumpr
I guess the only lackluster element of his presidency is that we weren't in any "hot wars" during his terms, only Cold ones.

Though from what my parents said about Reagan's presidency and what I know about Bush I and Bush II's terms, their economic policies don't yield such good results, as compared to those of Clinton, and perhaps Carter as well.

Actually Bush I destroyed Ronnie's economic policies. Clinton didn't really have anything to do with the economy's health during his term, he was in the right place at the right time to reap the benefits though (Sitting President during the bubble and left before it burst).

For the record, I am nearly 30. I remember the Reagan-era and most certainly remember the "Jimmy Carta' smile".

its amazing how many people don't know who coined the term "voodoo economics"

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: fredtam

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: DrNoobie

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

At the end of his two terms in office, Ronald Reagan viewed with satisfaction the achievements of his innovative program known as the Reagan Revolution, which aimed to reinvigorate the American people and reduce their reliance upon Government.

And does that include tubercolosis cases increasing from 1,500 cases in 1983 to 30,000 in 1990 as a result of his slashing of social services?

I know my understanding of current medical knowledge is no where near the pinnacle, but I don't see how a president can be in control of the increase in tuberculosis cases. Maybe, tuberculosis cases rose as a direct result of its increasing resistance against the drugs used against it. But that makes no sense, right? I mean, blaming the president is much easier.

VACCINES. During that period, vaccination of poor children went from 99% to 50%. Reagan cut funding for vaccination programs. Is that so hard to understand???

Which Socialist country can I buy you a ticket to?

Oh are you telling me that it isn't the government's responsibility to vaccinate children? Disgusting.

Edit: Oh and I'd like a ticket to Australia please.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Oh are you telling me that it isn't the government's responsibility to vaccinate children? Disgusting.

i don't see that power granted in the constitution. would you kindly point out the clause, since you seem to know

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Oh are you telling me that it isn't the government's responsibility to vaccinate children? Disgusting.

i don't see that power granted in the constitution. would you kindly point out the clause, since you seem to know

And why does everything the government should do be outlined in the constitution? Should the government stop building sewers? Like black death? The government has a responsibility to protect against epidemics.