Ronald Reagan.... Good or Bad?

[Conservative]

Look, dealing with people like you is a waste of time. This isn't about Bush, Vietnam, or anything else in the past, this is about a blind devotion you have for all things GOP, and an equally blind hatred of all things DEM.
You focus on distorted information you have received from rightwing sources. Guess that makes you feel good even though it makes you look and sound gullible.

Nothing I say including facts I can provide is going to change your mind. It really is a shame that ignorance rules in your world and you simply cannot get over that hatred.

There, see how easy it is.....:2wave:

Nice history re-write but that is all you can do when an ideology trumps reality. Get the facts instead of making a fool out of yourself. When you post lies and distortions from leftwing sites it makes you look like the kooks that posted those lies.

there is only one ideology that makes any sense, conservatism. Some people get it whereas others do not. Most grow out of liberalism, I did. One day you will too.

 

[winston53660]

Nice history re-write but that is all you can do when an ideology trumps reality. Get the facts instead of making a fool out of yourself. When you post lies and distortions from leftwing sites it makes you look like the kooks that posted those lies.

Ahh the true sign of victory, personal attacks. Congrats Utah Bill

 

[Conservative]

Ahh the true sign of victory, personal attacks. Congrats Utah Bill

Saying what is true isn't a personal attack but as usual you ignore the content of the post and the facts that I have presented throughout this entire thread as I post from that "hellhole" you claim I live in.

Congratulations on showing anyone who reads your posts that facts don't matter to those with RDS and BDS.

 

[ADK_Forever]

there is only one ideology that makes any sense, conservatism.

Well, I guess that says it all. :doh

 

[winston53660]

Saying what is true isn't a personal attack but as usual you ignore the content of the post and the facts that I have presented throughout this entire thread as I post from that "hellhole" you claim I live in.

Congratulations on showing anyone who reads your posts that facts don't matter to those with RDS and BDS.

You really are funny:rofl

 

[Z3n]

Well, I guess that says it all. :doh

I hate people that claim that one school of thought makes absolute objective sense, and all others must be completely wrong.

Neither side of an argument can be correct when both claim absolute truth.

 

[b.larset]

Ronald Reagan, believed in the free market system of America and saw it as a way to free other nations and as a means of opening our markets to sell abroad. Now how would Ronald Reagon- see our trade issues? As damaging to our national security and the economic standing of America in the world. He was fair and," Intellectually Honest", Mr. Gorbachev ,"tear down that wall". What would he say now when we are on the edge of what may be our ;becoming less of the Military economic and, humanitarian leaders of the free world? What do you think he Would say? ( let me know what you think)

 

[Conservative]

Ronald Reagan, believed in the free market system of America and saw it as a way to free other nations and as a means of opening our markets to sell abroad. Now how would Ronald Reagon- see our trade issues? As damaging to our national security and the economic standing of America in the world. He was fair and," Intellectually Honest", Mr. Gorbachev ,"tear down that wall". What would he say now when we are on the edge of what may be our ;becoming less of the Military economic and, humanitarian leaders of the free world? What do you think he Would say? ( let me know what you think)

Reagan was a leader not a poll follower. He believed in empowering the American people and keeping the peace through the strength of our military. There is no way he would let our military slip and no way would he allow terrorists to win. He would, like Bush did, go on offense. We were attacked on 9/11 by radical Islam and would make sure that we remained the leader of the free world. He wouldn't be going around the world apologizing for America's greatness.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

President Reagan was railing in a campaign speech on Oct,24,1980 that the federal deficits under President Carter was $252 billion.Step forward to the end of his two terms.... 1.4 trillion. :shock:

Yes, having Democrats and other people love spending someone else's money in control of CONGRESS sucks, doesn't it?

Then again, what was your Messiah's projected deficit in the budget He's just proposed for one single year? Oh, yeah, 1.5 trillion.

And your Messiah has control of both Houses of Congress, too.

So, what are you bitching about, again?

Oh, of course. You're upset that Reagan won the Cold War. You'll never forgive him for that, will you?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Historical Rankings of US Presidents ~

"George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt are consistently ranked at the top of the lists. Often ranked just below those three are Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States


Reagan is #40 on the list.

Any list the puts FDR at the top of a list is a "worst list". Any list that puts FDR at the same end as Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan is a list in serious error.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

But in terms of policy, his ideas were the beginning of the age of conservatism wrecking of America. So in that respect, he was a bad President.

So, creating 22 million new jobs AND causing the demise of the Evil Empire while avoiding a global conflagration, that's what you call "wrecking" America, is it?

Well, that makes sense when viewed in the perspective people supporting Obama and his two year three trillion dollar deficit, four million lost jobs.



:roll:

 

[Conservative]

So, creating 22 million new jobs AND causing the demise of the Evil Empire while avoiding a global conflagration, that's what you call "wrecking" America, is it?

Well, that makes sense when viewed in the perspective people supporting Obama and his two year three trillion dollar deficit, four million lost jobs.



:roll:

Now there you go again confusing Obama supporters with actual facts. When you bring up the President they divert back to Reagan or Bush. Liberals never take responsibility for anything.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

The formula for progress has a lot of factors, those who insist on giving the credit to tax cuts are being too simplistic.
We did OK back when tax rates for the rich were very high....

Yes, the economy under James Earl Carter was just wonderful, wasn't it?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Now there you go again confusing Obama supporters with actual facts. When you bring up the President they divert back to Reagan or Bush. Liberals never take responsibility for anything.

The new Word of the Decade is BoiB, don't ya know?

Blame it on Bush, Boib, Blame it on Bush.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

(!!WHA HAPPEN!!? This is what happened” (Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981)”combined with ramping up the spending, it produced a -1.40% drop in income.


One thing to President Reagan’s credit, must have been his experience as the “govonater” kicking in, when he saw the 1.40% drop in national income and the damage to the is was causing to the country, he implemented a couple of large tax increases. )

So, what you're saying is that to increase personal income the government has to take even more money from people.

Well, I suppose that makes sense to you.

Question:

Since, as you seem to claim, taxing people raises their income, why aren't you demanding the government tax income at 100% on everyone to maximize their incomes?

 

[Yossarian]

Lol he means national income, not personal income. Perhaps you should think before you type next time.

 

[b.larset]

Blame It On Bush?

 

[Conservative]

Lol he means national income, not personal income. Perhaps you should think before you type next time.

I wonder what it is about supporters of higher taxes that creates such passion for the govt. taking more of their money. Could it be they cannot handle the personal responsibilty that goes hand in hand with more take home pay? Could it be they prefer govt. responsibility and dependence vs. personal responsibility?

Anyone concerned about the govt. not getting enough money can certainly do their part by sending in a check on top of the taxes they pay.

Just to help these people please click on the map attached and send your check to the nearest location.

Where to File Tax Returns - Addresses for Individual Taxpayers By State, U.S. Possession or Foreign Country

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Lol he means national income, not personal income. Perhaps you should think before you type next time.

Yo, when someone says "income" without modification, he's a crappy writer if he doesn't mean individual income.

Also, your statement doesn't make any damn sense, since the economy grew at a ball buster rate under Reagan, and that means the "national income" whatever the **** that is, grew also.

The only thing that didn't grow in the 1980's was the libeals desire for honesty.

 

[Conservative]

Yo, when someone says "income" without modification, he's a crappy writer if he doesn't mean individual income.

Also, your statement doesn't make any damn sense, since the economy grew at a ball buster rate under Reagan, and that means the "national income" whatever the **** that is, grew also.

The only thing that didn't grow in the 1980's was the libeals desire for honesty.

Most of the people here bashing Reagan either weren't born or weren't old enough to understand what was going on prior to Reagan taking office. These people haven't a clue as to what it was like trying to buy a home with double digit interest rates or double digit inflation. Doesn't matter to them because it is all about the debt. I will take the Reagan debt in a heartbeat over the Obama debt he is creating. Obama will create double the debt in 2 years than Reagan created in 8 and the people aren't even getting a kiss while being screwed.

 

[UtahBill]

Nice history re-write but that is all you can do when an ideology trumps reality. Get the facts instead of making a fool out of yourself. When you post lies and distortions from leftwing sites it makes you look like the kooks that posted those lies.

there is only one ideology that makes any sense, conservatism. Some people get it whereas others do not. Most grow out of liberalism, I did. One day you will too.

In the ignorance of my youth, I was where you are now. but I got some education, and grew up a bit....

 

[Conservative]

In the ignorance of my youth, I was where you are now. but I got some education, and grew up a bit....

I grew up and worked during the 70's, 80'2, 90's, and retired in 2004 so don't tell me about growing up. Some people get older but never grow up and I call them "lost cause" liberals. Others are book smart street stupid liberals who cannot deal with reality. I never had a better decade in my life than the 80's

There is an answer to this, the private sector which Reagan understood. The power of the people and private industry. Think instead of feel.

 

[Catawba]

Any list the puts FDR at the top of a list is a "worst list". Any list that puts FDR at the same end as Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan is a list in serious error.

Just about every poll ever taken puts FDR near the top! And he is the only president ever reelected 3 times.

So the majority of people of his own time as well as the majority since then consider him one of the best presidents.

I guess you are the exception to the rule.

 

[Yossarian]

Most of the people here bashing Reagan either weren't born or weren't old enough to understand what was going on prior to Reagan taking office. These people haven't a clue as to what it was like trying to buy a home with double digit interest rates or double digit inflation. Doesn't matter to them because it is all about the debt. I will take the Reagan debt in a heartbeat over the Obama debt he is creating. Obama will create double the debt in 2 years than Reagan created in 8 and the people aren't even getting a kiss while being screwed.

No, the difference is that since you practically worship the man on account of your own personal experiences during his time in office, those personal evaluations are clouding your judgement. You somehow think that the only way to judge history properly is if you 'were there'. Let me be the one to tell you that your attitude is laughable.

Instead of relying on your stilted, personal view, how about we examine his statesmanship in general, setting aside for a moment his 'inspirational' powers:

• Iran-Contra was NOT good statemanship
• Funding the forerunners of Al-Qaeda was NOT good statesmanship
• Grenada was NOT good statesmanship
• A massive reduction in the median income was NOT good statesmanship
• SDI was NOT good statesmanship
• Nicaragua was NOT good statesmanship
• Attempting to pull the US out of humanitarian organisations such as UNESCO was NOT good statesmanship
• And of course, the debt. Oh, the debt.

The list of this man's failures is truly staggering. The only way that he survived in office was due to his charisma and the willingness of the American public to suck it up. The only reason he was not impeached over Iran-Contra was, in the words of Stephen Ambrose, because his political term was coming to an end and lawmakers simply could not be bothered.

He survived on lucky breaks and humourous catchphrases, which seems to be all that mattered to people like yourself.

 

[Conservative]

Yossarian;1058539305]No, the difference is that since you practically worship the man on account of your own personal experiences during his time in office, those personal evaluations are clouding your judgement. You somehow think that the only way to judge history properly is if you 'were there'. Let me be the one to tell you that your attitude is laughable.

Instead of relying on your stilted, personal view, how about we examine his statesmanship in general, setting aside for a moment his 'inspirational' powers:

• Iran-Contra was NOT good statemanship
  Wrong, I disagree, the conditions at the time warranted what he did. Would you have supported Iran
• Funding the forerunners of Al-Qaeda was NOT good statesmanship
  The war between Afghanistan and Russia was going on and thus the conditions at that time justified the actions.
• Grenada was NOT good statesmanship
  I had a friend in Grenada that disagrees with you and was saved by our troops.
• A massive reduction in the median income was NOT good statesmanship
  There was no mass reduction in the median income during the Reagan years. My income doubled.
• SDI was NOT good statesmanship
  SDI bankrupted the Soviet Union and helped end the cold war leaving Clinton a peace dividend.
• 
  Nicaragua was NOT good statesmanship
  Supporting the Contras was good statemanship
• Attempting to pull the US out of humanitarian organisations such as UNESCO was NOT good statesmanship
  Yes, it was, wasting money in a world bureaucracy that never solves any problems is always good statesmanship and smart use of taxpayer money
• And of course, the debt. Oh, the debt.
  I would gladly take the 1.7 trillion Reagan added to the debt vs. what we have today and what Obama is doing

The list of this man's failures is truly staggering. The only way that he survived in office was due to his charisma and the willingness of the American public to suck it up. The only reason he was not impeached over Iran-Contra was, in the words of Stephen Ambrose, because his political term was coming to an end and lawmakers simply could not be bothered.

He survived on lucky breaks and humourous catchphrases, which seems to be all that mattered to people like yourself.

Your revision of history and coping things from leftwing websites is what really is staggering and absolutely wrong. I along with millions of Americans benefited from the Reagan Economy. You probably weren't alive or old enough during the Reagan years to even understand what you are talking about.

Reagan understood the American people, something you apparently haven't a clue about. He empowered people, not the govt. He empowered private industry not govt. bureaucrats. He doubled economic growth, federal revenue, and added over 22 million jobs to the economy. He is to this day revered by a large majority in this country much to the chagrin of big govt. liberals.