Ronald Reagan was a great man

"We have never interfered in the internal government of a country and have no intention of doing so, never have had any thought of that kind.*" Ronald Reagan, 1982

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Ronald-Reagan-Worst-Presi-by-Robert-Parry-090605-584.html

"....there's a growing realization that the starting point for many of the catastrophes confronting the United States today can be traced to Reagan's presidency. There's also a grudging reassessment that the "failed"- presidents of the 1970s--Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter--may deserve more credit for trying to grapple with the problems that now beset the country."

* http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ronald_Reagan/RonaldReagan_page.html

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Reaganomics.html
 
Damocles said:
Inane, they can make far more money as "blue dog" democrats.

Most people become republicans because they see it as the shortest route towards smaller levels of government intervention.
Click to expand...
That's just more Libertarian fairy dust. Most people vote Republican because they assume Republicans know more about economics and business then Democrats do.
 
midcan5 said:
"We have never interfered in the internal government of a country and have no intention of doing so, never have had any thought of that kind.*" Ronald Reagan, 1982

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Ronald-Reagan-Worst-Presi-by-Robert-Parry-090605-584.html

"....there's a growing realization that the starting point for many of the catastrophes confronting the United States today can be traced to Reagan's presidency. There's also a grudging reassessment that the "failed"- presidents of the 1970s--Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter--may deserve more credit for trying to grapple with the problems that now beset the country."

* http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ronald_Reagan/RonaldReagan_page.html

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Reaganomics.html
Click to expand...

I don't think I've ever seen you with an original thought. :palm:
 
Southern Man said:
He was the greatest president in my lifetime, and most likely in the 20th century. God bless him.
Click to expand...
Oh give me a break. A historical and presidential scholar you are not. I mean have you been surrounded by mediocrity so long that you have no clue as to what greatness is? Uncle Ronnie was a good guy but lets not get carried away. Reagan did some good things and some not so good things. In the scale of things, he was an above average Presidents, which in US historical perspective is high praise indeed but calling him greatest of the 20th Century? That's just plain brain dead. Reagan had neither the abilities, skills or the historical significance or TR, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Wilson were all more capable leaders and more significant historically then Reagan. Nor as we seen is his legacy complete. We can see things in Reagan now which don't shine to brightly. His aggresive and costly military expansionism and his irresponsible management of the fiscus and his legacy of debt.

Then lets look at your life time. Assuming you were born in the early 60's you've experienced, one assasinated President(Kennedy), 4 failed Presidencies (Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Bush II). That leaves you with 3 average Presidents (Clinton, Reagan, Bush I), one below average (Carter) and one incumbent. So you're not exactly setting the bar high with the, in my life time, comparison. With the 20th century mark you sound like one of those AOL morons who voted Reagan the greatest American ever. So though I admit I liked Reagan (he was very likable) and thought him a decent President, to lionize him is laughable.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh give me a break. A historical and presidential scholar you are not. I mean have you been surrounded by mediocrity so long that you have no clue as to what greatness is? Uncle Ronnie was a good guy but lets not get carried away. Reagan did some good things and some not so good things. In the scale of things, he was an above average Presidents, which in US historical perspective is high praise indeed but calling him greatest of the 20th Century? That's just plain brain dead. Reagan had neither the abilities, skills or the historical significance or TR, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Wilson were all more capable leaders and more significant historically then Reagan. Nor as we seen is his legacy complete. We can see things in Reagan now which don't shine to brightly. His aggresive and costly military expansionism and his irresponsible management of the fiscus and his legacy of debt.

Then lets look at your life time. Assuming you were born in the early 60's you've experienced, one assasinated President(Kennedy), 4 failed Presidencies (Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Bush II). That leaves you with 3 average Presidents (Clinton, Reagan, Bush I), one below average (Carter) and one incumbent. So you're not exactly setting the bar high with the, in my life time, comparison. With the 20th century mark you sound like one of those AOL morons who voted Reagan the greatest American ever. So though I admit I liked Reagan (he was very likable) and thought him a decent President, to lionize him is laughable.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity... what is your rationale for putting Ford in the failed category?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Mainly Nixon. Ford did the right thing by Pardoning Nixon, but that decision cost him dearly.
Click to expand...

I figured that probably had something to do with it. Though I would disagree with putting him in the same category as Bush, Nixon and Johnson. Especially given everything that occurred during his Presidency.
 
The fact that leftist liberals are so livid and hateful in this thread, is evidence of what Reagan did for revival of Conservatism. You will notice, the nitwit pinheads who bash on Reagan, spew nothing but absolute rhetoric and unfounded allegation. The basis for their disapproval of Reagan is because he was opposed to Socialism. As far back as 1961, Reagan warned us of the danger from creeping and encroaching Socialist policy, and predicted they would seek to fully implement it through things like "Nationalized Health Care!" Yep... back in 1961!

So, naturally, leftist pinhead Socialists, even today, are not big fans of Reagan, and take every opportunity to smack Reagan around in threads like these... (being the good little socialist quislings they are!)
 
Southern Man said:
I don't think I've ever seen you with an original thought.
Click to expand...

What would be the use? Would you then think? Reagan is a hero to the right, his magical mystery presidency of index cards and confusion over movies and reality is all you can point to. Nixon, who did some good things, is too far left and the Bushes mediocre. But having been there, done that, Reagan is the worst, as he began the collapse of the middle class and with it the nation. He even made your greatest buffoon W possible. But we from the left must forgive him somewhat, he was in the early stages of dementia.
 
Last edited:
Superfreak said:
I figured that probably had something to do with it. Though I would disagree with putting him in the same category as Bush, Nixon and Johnson. Especially given everything that occurred during his Presidency.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't but that's not the point here. The low caliber of the Presidents in the last 50 years is the point. No one would accuse Ford of having a great Presidency or even a mediocre one for all that he wasn't a bad guy and he took a big one on the chin for his country.

Hell even Clinton, who arguably was a better President then Reagan, with his personal failings looks great when compared to Nixon, Johnson, Ford, Carter and Bush II.

To make my point even more stark. Go back just 10 more years (60) and now you throw Eisenhower into the mix and Reagan doesn't even remotely compare to Ike who was a great man before he even became President.
 
Reagan was a decent enough guy, but I would certainly be very hesitant to call him a "great" man, or a great Prez. It diminishes that characterization.

I don't doubt that he wanted what was best for the country, but we're still working our way through some of the problems that his policies created. In general, his Presidency is mythologized way too much; his accomplishments are clearly a pretty mixed bag, and he gets way too much credit for certain issues (i.e. ending the Cold War)...
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I wouldn't but that's not the point here. The low caliber of the Presidents in the last 50 years is the point. No one would accuse Ford of having a great Presidency or even a mediocre one for all that he wasn't a bad guy and he took a big one on the chin for his country.

Hell even Clinton, who arguably was a better President then Reagan, with his personal failings looks great when compared to Nixon, Johnson, Ford, Carter and Bush II.

To make my point even more stark. Go back just 10 more years (60) and now you throw Eisenhower into the mix and Reagan doesn't even remotely compare to Ike who was a great man before he even became President.
Click to expand...

But you did. I just thought that quite unfair to Ford. Just pointing it out. Your general premise is correct in that the latter half of the century did not produce many stellar Presidents.... with the exception of Ike. The first half's production of TR, FDR, Wilson and Truman certainly trumps the second half.

I was just picking on the Ford point. That is some pretty bad company you put him in. He at LEAST belongs up with Carter in the below average category... and given what he took over... I would actually put him as an average President overall (especially for the past century)

Reagan I give a slight edge to over Clinton, though as you said, the case can be made for (and against) either. Two main reason I give Ron the edge... first he had to deal with a hell of a lot more problems than Clinton and second... I can't stand the Clintons.
 
Dixie said:
The fact that leftist liberals are so livid and hateful in this thread, is evidence of what Reagan did for revival of Conservatism. You will notice, the nitwit pinheads who bash on Reagan, spew nothing but absolute rhetoric and unfounded allegation. The basis for their disapproval of Reagan is because he was opposed to Socialism. As far back as 1961, Reagan warned us of the danger from creeping and encroaching Socialist policy, and predicted they would seek to fully implement it through things like "Nationalized Health Care!" Yep... back in 1961!

So, naturally, leftist pinhead Socialists, even today, are not big fans of Reagan, and take every opportunity to smack Reagan around in threads like these... (being the good little socialist quislings they are!)
Click to expand...
Oh Dixie you pinheaded nitwit. I voted for Reagan twice. Reagan had some serious good points and noted historical accomplishments but to ignore his failings or to view well earned criticisms of some of his failed or bad policies is hardly a partisan attack on the man. Let's be clear Dixie. Reagan didn't revive conservatism. He revived southern perochialism and look where that's got you with Bush II.

But I'm wasting my time with you. You'll never accept the reality of Dutch just as you'll never accept the reason why southern conservatives hated Clinton so viscerally had little to do with his being liberal and had everything to do with being viewed as an apostate by southern conservatives.
 
Superfreak said:
But you did. I just thought that quite unfair to Ford. Just pointing it out. Your general premise is correct in that the latter half of the century did not produce many stellar Presidents.... with the exception of Ike. The first half's production of TR, FDR, Wilson and Truman certainly trumps the second half.

I was just picking on the Ford point. That is some pretty bad company you put him in. He at LEAST belongs up with Carter in the below average category... and given what he took over... I would actually put him as an average President overall (especially for the past century)

Reagan I give a slight edge to over Clinton, though as you said, the case can be made for (and against) either. Two main reason I give Ron the edge... first he had to deal with a hell of a lot more problems than Clinton and second... I can't stand the Clintons.
Click to expand...
I'll give you that on Ford. As for Reagan and Clinton, I dont' see much point in making that debate. The truth is, we have had very few "bad" or "failed" Presidents and most of our Presidents have provided excellent executive administration and leadership to this nation. To be called "An Average US President" is damned high praise in my book.
 
He talked about things to his fans that he never even tried to bring to fruition. He engaged in, or aproved, illegal acts. And what was the event they had to wake him from his nap to handle??
 
evince said:
Some rich people dont become corrupt.

the one who do become corrupt will usually become Rs because they can make more money as Rs.
Click to expand...
This is some of the stupidest shit I have ever heard. This is what makes the democratic party so goddamned hard to take. Wealth is obtained through hard fucking work. My father grew up in a house with a father that was a refinery worker who only became a refinery manager after all his kids graduated and were out of the house. My father put himself through college by working nights at a cheveron station as their mechanic. He ulitimately achieved a Ph.D in Psychology and now makes more than 250k per year. He is not the exception to the rule of sucess in this country, he is the rule. This is how people achieve wealth and success and they are not wrong in wanting to keep it. Desh and her liberal ilk are as inane in their beliefs as the conservative ilk who think still believe that the bulk of people on Welfare stay on it for their entire lives and drive cadillacs. Both groups are idiots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top