# The Greatest President in 100 Years



## PoliticalChic

Today is the birthday of Ronald Reagan.

 February 6, 1911

1. "*In spite of all the evidence that points to the free market as the most efficient system, we continue down a road that is bearing out the prophecy of De Tocqueville, *...if we weren't constantly on guard, we would find ourselves covered by a network of regulations controlling every activity. [Tocqueville] said if that came to pass we would one day find ourselves a nation of timid animals with government the shepherd. 

It all comes down to this basic premise: if you lose your economic freedom, you lose your political freedom and in fact all freedom. Freedom is something that cannot be passed on genetically. It is never more than one generation away from extinction. Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it. Once freedom is gone, it's gone for a long, long time. Already, too many of us, particularly those in business and industry, have chosen to switch rather than fight."
Ronald Reagan, 1978
Hillsdale College - Imprimis Issue



2. *"The liberal press called upon Reagan to remove the tactical nuclear arsenal from Europe. *Europeans fell easy prey to the false theory that a nuclear war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO in Europe would remain inside the continent. Freeze supporters here in the U.S. clamored that the strategic arsenal based inside America was more than enough to stop any attack in Germany. 

The Hollywood establishment labeled Reagan a reckless "cowboy" who would press the nuclear button at the drop of a hat. The wide liberal criticism openly insulted Reagan as a senile fool who could carry the world into global nuclear war. 

*Reagan did not give in. *Instead of caving to the political pressure, Reagan went against the polls, against the liberal media and against Hollywood's advice to disarm in the face of the Soviet threat. Reagan opted instead to match Moscow's firepower and up the ante. "
The Legacy of Ronald Reagan  Peace




3."SO ON WHOM or what do we bestow *the title of the "evil empire's" killer? *Was it Mikhail Gorbachev himself who pulled down what Lenin and Stalin had built up? It is tempting to finger Gorbachev, but this would ascribe too much wisdom and foresight to a man who wanted merely to reform, but not to relinquish, the empire. At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable: "There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.

*Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart.* His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in 1986, where Gorbachev would not budge on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving. He recalls in An American Life how he stood up from the table to proclaim that the meeting was over. Then he turned to his Secretary of State: "Let's go, George. We're leaving." Like any good diplomat, Shultz was crushed by so much roughness, but Reagan was completely unfazed. Later on, he explained: "I went to Reykjavik determined that *everything was negotiable except two things, our freedom and our future."*
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1




4. Ronald Reagan, though dismissed by Europeans as a second-rate actor and fondler of cue cards, possessed that magic faculty that separates run-of-the mill politicos from history-molding leaders.* "I didn't understand", recalls Time's Joe Klein, "how truly monumental, and morally important, Reagan's anti-communism was* until I visited the Soviet Union in 1987." He continues with a seemingly trivial vignette. Attending the Bolshoi Ballet, he was nudged by his minder: "'Ronald Reagan. Evil empire', he whispered with dramatic intensity and shot a glance toward his lap where he had hidden two enthusiastic thumbs up. 'Yes!'"

When an American president manages to pluck the soul strings of those who have been raised to fear and despise what he represents, *he surely deserves the honorific 'great.'*
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1




*Happy Birthday to the greatest President in the last 100 years.*

*Ronald Reagan.*


----------



## rightwinger

A great underappreciated actor


----------



## Truthmatters

reagan ballooned the deficit.


----------



## Truthmatters

National Debt Graph by President


----------



## Toronado3800

Reagan had charisma.  He taught the Republicans how to use New Deal deficit spending to pump an economy.

He also talked well with reporters.  The defacto import restriction on Japanese cars was his I believe.  I think that has served us well.  Better to work for our creditors than have no job at all and it was fun to remind GM folks other companies (w/o much for legacy costs) could afford to build here.

Oh, and bailed out some shady banking institutions, while funding a private war in Central America and picking the wrong side in the Soviet Union's Vietnam.

MAYBE I could see third if you really liked that deficit spending crack he got us hooked on.  First?  Did the man create modern America with the New Deal?  Or did he just translate it into the Republican Party Platform?  Second if you think the U.S.S.R. was not coming apart anyway?


----------



## rightwinger

Last 100 years

1. FDR
2. Ike
3. Wilson
4. Truman
5. Obama
6. Reagan


----------



## Sunni Man

Ronald Reagan represented the best of American exceptionalism and personal patriotism for his country.


----------



## Truthmatters

only to the blind


----------



## Mad Scientist

rightwinger said:


> Last 100 years
> 
> 1. FDR
> 2. Ike
> *3. Wilson*
> 4. Truman
> 5. Obama
> 6. Reagan


Wilson is the asshole who put us under Banker Control. Is that why you listed him?


----------



## Truthmatters

maybe you should look at his link before you type without reading


----------



## Sunni Man

Truthmatters said:


> only to the blind


So now you are making fun of blind people?..........What a sad person you are TM...........


----------



## Bfgrn

"Washington couldn't tell a lie, Nixon couldn't tell the truth, and Reagan couldn't tell the difference."
Mort Sahl


----------



## rightwinger

Mad Scientist said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last 100 years
> 
> 1. FDR
> 2. Ike
> *3. Wilson*
> 4. Truman
> 5. Obama
> 6. Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson is the asshole who put us under Banker Control. Is that why you listed him?
Click to expand...


Laid the groundwork for the US to become a modern democracy and world power

- Federal Income tax
- Federal Reserve system
- Federal Trade Commission
- Child Labor Laws
- 8 hour day/ 40 hr workweek
- Led us in WWI and proposed the League of Nations
- Nobel Prize winner


----------



## Mad Scientist

rightwinger said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last 100 years
> 
> 1. FDR
> 2. Ike
> *3. Wilson*
> 4. Truman
> 5. Obama
> 6. Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson is the asshole who put us under Banker Control. Is that why you listed him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laid the groundwork for the US to become a modern democracy and world power
> 
> - Federal Income tax
> - Federal Reserve system
> - Federal Trade Commission
> - Child Labor Laws
> - 8 hour day/ 40 hr workweek
> - Led us in WWI and proposed the League of Nations
> - Nobel Prize winner
Click to expand...

Wilson ran for President saying he would do everything he could to keep the US out of the War. Then he did a 180 almost immediately after he was elected.

Immediately regretted having signed the Federal Reserve Act:



> I am a most unhappy man. *I have unwittingly ruined my country*. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.
> ~ Woodrow Wilson


Algore and Obama are *proof* that the Nobel Peace Prize is a sham.


----------



## rightwinger

Mad Scientist said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson is the asshole who put us under Banker Control. Is that why you listed him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laid the groundwork for the US to become a modern democracy and world power
> 
> - Federal Income tax
> - Federal Reserve system
> - Federal Trade Commission
> - Child Labor Laws
> - 8 hour day/ 40 hr workweek
> - Led us in WWI and proposed the League of Nations
> - Nobel Prize winner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wilson ran for President saying he would do everything he could to keep the US out of the War. Then he did a 180 almost immediately after he was elected.
> 
> Immediately regretted having signed the Federal Reserve Act:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a most unhappy man. *I have unwittingly ruined my country*. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.
> ~ Woodrow Wilson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Algore and Obama are *proof* that the Nobel Peace Prize is a sham.
Click to expand...


The Federal Reserve worked and kept our monetary system stable. God forbid if we had the monetary system of the late 1800s. It was all part of turning the US into an economic superpower and our currency a world standard


----------



## Meathead

Mad Scientist said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last 100 years
> 
> 1. FDR
> 2. Ike
> *3. Wilson*
> 4. Truman
> *5. Obama*
> 6. Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson is the asshole who put us under Banker Control. Is that why you listed him?
Click to expand...

Wilson?! You're bitching about Wilson and this idiot has Obama 5th? Really?!


----------



## rightwinger

Meathead said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last 100 years
> 
> 1. FDR
> 2. Ike
> *3. Wilson*
> 4. Truman
> *5. Obama*
> 6. Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson is the asshole who put us under Banker Control. Is that why you listed him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wilson?! You're bitching about Wilson and this idiot has Obama 5th? Really?!
Click to expand...


Read it and weep rightwingers


----------



## Wicked Jester

Mad Scientist said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last 100 years
> 
> 1. FDR
> 2. Ike
> *3. Wilson*
> 4. Truman
> 5. Obama
> 6. Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson is the asshole who put us under Banker Control. Is that why you listed him?
Click to expand...

Obama #5, Wilson #3, Truman #4, FDR #1?.......Bwahahahhahahahaahahhahahahahahaaaaa!

Christ, these Obamabots are fucking hilarious, in a sad, ignorant way.......No wonder this great country is going down the tubes.


----------



## Meathead

rightwinger said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson is the asshole who put us under Banker Control. Is that why you listed him?
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson?! You're bitching about Wilson and this idiot has Obama 5th? Really?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read it and weep rightwingers
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call tears of laughter weeping, but if it makes you feel less derided, ok.


----------



## rightwinger

Wicked Jester said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last 100 years
> 
> 1. FDR
> 2. Ike
> *3. Wilson*
> 4. Truman
> 5. Obama
> 6. Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson is the asshole who put us under Banker Control. Is that why you listed him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama #5, Wilson #3, Truman #4, FDR #1?.......Bwahahahhahahahaahahhahahahahahaaaaa!
> 
> Christ, these Obamabots are fucking hilarious, in a sad, ignorant way.......No wonder this great country is going down the tubes.
Click to expand...


History has been pretty consistent on the contributions of these Presidents. I understand that conservatives are rewriting this history to make Coolidge and Harding great 20th century Presidents and Reagan the Greatest....but it is not taken seriously


----------



## Meathead

rightwinger said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson is the asshole who put us under Banker Control. Is that why you listed him?
> 
> 
> 
> Obama #5, Wilson #3, Truman #4, FDR #1?.......Bwahahahhahahahaahahhahahahahahaaaaa!
> 
> Christ, these Obamabots are fucking hilarious, in a sad, ignorant way.......No wonder this great country is going down the tubes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History has been pretty consistent on the contributions of these Presidents. I understand that conservatives are rewriting this history to make Coolidge and Harding great 20th century Presidents and Reagan the Greatest....but it is not taken seriously
Click to expand...

No one, not even right wingers would take Coolidge (not bad actually) or Harding seriously in the top five. But Obama?! Seriously?

Presidential Rankings (#25): Calvin Coolidge | Dead Presidents


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Grover Cleveland.


----------



## Mad Scientist

Meathead said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last 100 years
> 
> 1. FDR
> 2. Ike
> *3. Wilson*
> 4. Truman
> *5. Obama*
> 6. Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson is the asshole who put us under Banker Control. Is that why you listed him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wilson?! You're bitching about Wilson and this idiot has Obama 5th? Really?!
Click to expand...

Wilson put the US in Banker Bondage. It's been downhill ever since.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Mad Scientist said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson is the asshole who put us under Banker Control. Is that why you listed him?
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson?! You're bitching about Wilson and this idiot has Obama 5th? Really?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wilson put the US in Banker Bondage. It's been downhill ever since.
Click to expand...


That's why RWer listed him. He loves that central control. One day Im sure he's hoping to have a slice of the control pie. That list reads like a chapter index in the Statist Bible.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Truthmatters said:


> reagan ballooned the deficit.



And now for your remedial.....

1. Reagan purchased the freedom of the United States and of the world via that investment in defense.
Could have simply wasted the taxpayer fisc, as Obama has.

a. 'the Reagan deficits never reached more than 6% of GDP, and that happened only in 1983, the first year of economic recovery. As the 1980s expansion continued, the deficits fell, especially as the pace of spending slowed in the latter part of Reagan's second term. Obama hit 10% in 2010 (9.9% in 2009).'
Review & Outlook: The Democratic Fisc - WSJ.com


2. And the tax cuts of the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 stimulated economic growth. As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid. http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economic began* a strong and sustained pattern of growth.* US Department of the Treasury



3.	The benefits from Reaganomics:

a.	The economy grew at a 3.4% average ratecompared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b.	Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c.	Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d.	Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e.	The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95)             FDsys - Browse ERP

f.	Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation.  Dinesh DSouza, Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader, p. 116


----------



## PoliticalChic

Truthmatters said:


> only to the blind



Well, then.....close your eyes.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Mad Scientist said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last 100 years
> 
> 1. FDR
> 2. Ike
> *3. Wilson*
> 4. Truman
> 5. Obama
> 6. Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson is the asshole who put us under Banker Control. Is that why you listed him?
Click to expand...




Woodrow Wilson is truly the icon of the Progressives....and with good reason.
He made the United States into the first Fascist Nation....as follows:




'The first true enterprise of this kind was established in the in the United States under the *20th centurys first fascist dictator: Woodrow Wilson.* During WW I, under the Progressive Woodrow Wilson, American was a fascist nation.

a. Had the worlds first modern propaganda ministry

b. Political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon and thrown in jail for simply expressing private opinions. 

c. The national leader accused foreigners and immigrants of injecting treasonous poison into the  American bloodstream

d.	Newspapers and magazines were closed for criticizing the government

e. Almost 100,000 government propaganda agents were sent out to whip up support for the regime and the war

f. College professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues 

g. Nearly a quarter million goons were given legal authority to beat and intimidate slackers and dissenters

h. Leading artists and writers dedicated their work to proselytizing for the government.
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Classical_Liberalism_vs_Modern_Liberal_Conservatism.pdf p. 9





RW will not be able to deny one single aspect listed above.
He is left with no choice but to espouse Fascism.


It is the Liberal/Progressive's concupiscence.....the inordinate lust for power and control, in evidence 'til this very day.


----------



## Truthmatters

your insane


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last 100 years
> 
> 1. FDR
> 2. Ike
> *3. Wilson*
> 4. Truman
> 5. Obama
> 6. Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson is the asshole who put us under Banker Control. Is that why you listed him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woodrow Wilson is truly the icon of the Progressives....and with good reason.
> He made the United States into the first Fascist Nation....as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'The first true enterprise of this kind was established in the in the United States under the *20th centurys first fascist dictator: Woodrow Wilson.* During WW I, under the Progressive Woodrow Wilson, American was a fascist nation.
> 
> a. Had the worlds first modern propaganda ministry
> 
> b. Political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon and thrown in jail for simply expressing private opinions.
> 
> c. The national leader accused foreigners and immigrants of injecting treasonous poison into the  American bloodstream
> 
> d.	Newspapers and magazines were closed for criticizing the government
> 
> e. Almost 100,000 government propaganda agents were sent out to whip up support for the regime and the war
> 
> f. College professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues
> 
> g. Nearly a quarter million goons were given legal authority to beat and intimidate slackers and dissenters
> 
> h. Leading artists and writers dedicated their work to proselytizing for the government.
> http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Classical_Liberalism_vs_Modern_Liberal_Conservatism.pdf p. 9
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RW will not be able to deny one single aspect listed above.
> He is left with no choice but to espouse Fascism.
> 
> 
> It is the Liberal/Progressive's concupiscence.....the inordinate lust for power and control, in evidence 'til this very day.
Click to expand...


Ah yes...the opinions of that great American historian Jonah Goldberg

What?  Have you given up on the historical perspectives of Glenn Beck and Ann  Coulter?


----------



## boedicca

Truthmatters said:


> reagan ballooned the deficit.




Uh.  He died long before Obama was elected, you sad sack of sophistry.


----------



## Truthseeker420

Republicans Can't Accept the Truth About Reagan, a US Traitor
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBHbGIT0NT4]republicans Can't Accept the Truth About reagan, a US Traitor - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Wry Catcher

PoliticalChic said:


> Today is the birthday of Ronald Reagan.
> 
> February 6, 1911
> 
> 1. "*In spite of all the evidence that points to the free market as the most efficient system, we continue down a road that is bearing out the prophecy of De Tocqueville, *...if we weren't constantly on guard, we would find ourselves covered by a network of regulations controlling every activity. [Tocqueville] said if that came to pass we would one day find ourselves a nation of timid animals with government the shepherd.
> 
> It all comes down to this basic premise: if you lose your economic freedom, you lose your political freedom and in fact all freedom. Freedom is something that cannot be passed on genetically. It is never more than one generation away from extinction. Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it. Once freedom is gone, it's gone for a long, long time. Already, too many of us, particularly those in business and industry, have chosen to switch rather than fight."
> Ronald Reagan, 1978
> Hillsdale College - Imprimis Issue
> 
> 
> 
> 2. *"The liberal press called upon Reagan to remove the tactical nuclear arsenal from Europe. *Europeans fell easy prey to the false theory that a nuclear war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO in Europe would remain inside the continent. Freeze supporters here in the U.S. clamored that the strategic arsenal based inside America was more than enough to stop any attack in Germany.
> 
> The Hollywood establishment labeled Reagan a reckless "cowboy" who would press the nuclear button at the drop of a hat. The wide liberal criticism openly insulted Reagan as a senile fool who could carry the world into global nuclear war.
> 
> *Reagan did not give in. *Instead of caving to the political pressure, Reagan went against the polls, against the liberal media and against Hollywood's advice to disarm in the face of the Soviet threat. Reagan opted instead to match Moscow's firepower and up the ante. "
> The Legacy of Ronald Reagan &#8211; Peace
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3."SO ON WHOM or what do we bestow *the title of the "evil empire's" killer? *Was it Mikhail Gorbachev himself who pulled down what Lenin and Stalin had built up? It is tempting to finger Gorbachev, but this would ascribe too much wisdom and foresight to a man who wanted merely to reform, but not to relinquish, the empire. At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable: "There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.
> 
> *Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart.* His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in 1986, where Gorbachev would not budge on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving. He recalls in An American Life how he stood up from the table to proclaim that the meeting was over. Then he turned to his Secretary of State: "Let's go, George. We're leaving." Like any good diplomat, Shultz was crushed by so much roughness, but Reagan was completely unfazed. Later on, he explained: "I went to Reykjavik determined that *everything was negotiable except two things, our freedom and our future."*
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Ronald Reagan, though dismissed by Europeans as a second-rate actor and fondler of cue cards, possessed that magic faculty that separates run-of-the mill politicos from history-molding leaders.* "I didn't understand", recalls Time's Joe Klein, "how truly monumental, and morally important, Reagan's anti-communism was* until I visited the Soviet Union in 1987." He continues with a seemingly trivial vignette. Attending the Bolshoi Ballet, he was nudged by his minder: "'Ronald Reagan. Evil empire', he whispered with dramatic intensity and shot a glance toward his lap where he had hidden two enthusiastic thumbs up. 'Yes!'"
> 
> When an American president manages to pluck the soul strings of those who have been raised to fear and despise what he represents, *he surely deserves the honorific 'great.'*
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Happy Birthday to the greatest President in the last 100 years.*
> 
> *Ronald Reagan.*



LOL, look at those who thanked you for this thread, must make you so proud.

So, your opinion is yours, and I'm sure your not alone notwithstanding the many surveys wherein the top five have always included FDR, TR and your favorite WW (of the last 100 years, of course.)

That aside, one of the great achievments of our remote and unkown ancestors was _mesurement_.  Now measurement is only a form of description, but its advantage is it allows us to provide quantative descriptions in place of qualitive ones, as you have done.

Would you elaborate on the entire record of President Reagan which makes him the greatest of the last 100 years?  Compare and contrast him to TR and FDR and make an argument that Reagan made history and not revised history made the legend of RR.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Truthmatters said:


> your insane



Am not!

Mommy had me tested!


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson is the asshole who put us under Banker Control. Is that why you listed him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woodrow Wilson is truly the icon of the Progressives....and with good reason.
> He made the United States into the first Fascist Nation....as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'The first true enterprise of this kind was established in the in the United States under the *20th centurys first fascist dictator: Woodrow Wilson.* During WW I, under the Progressive Woodrow Wilson, American was a fascist nation.
> 
> a. Had the worlds first modern propaganda ministry
> 
> b. Political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon and thrown in jail for simply expressing private opinions.
> 
> c. The national leader accused foreigners and immigrants of injecting treasonous poison into the  American bloodstream
> 
> d.	Newspapers and magazines were closed for criticizing the government
> 
> e. Almost 100,000 government propaganda agents were sent out to whip up support for the regime and the war
> 
> f. College professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues
> 
> g. Nearly a quarter million goons were given legal authority to beat and intimidate slackers and dissenters
> 
> h. Leading artists and writers dedicated their work to proselytizing for the government.
> http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Classical_Liberalism_vs_Modern_Liberal_Conservatism.pdf p. 9
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RW will not be able to deny one single aspect listed above.
> He is left with no choice but to espouse Fascism.
> 
> 
> It is the Liberal/Progressive's concupiscence.....the inordinate lust for power and control, in evidence 'til this very day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes...the opinions of that great American historian Jonah Goldberg
> 
> What?  Have you given up on the historical perspectives of Glenn Beck and Ann  Coulter?
Click to expand...



Did you think no one would notice that you didn't even try to deny the statements in the post?


Yipes! I used 'think' with reference to you???

My bad....


----------



## PoliticalChic

Truthseeker420 said:


> Republicans Can't Accept the Truth About Reagan, a US Traitor
> republicans Can't Accept the Truth About reagan, a US Traitor - YouTube
> 
> How Reaganomics Destroyed The Middle Class...And Maybe America - YouTube






One can always tell what Leftists are most sensitive about in their makeup.....they accuse other of the iniquity.

It's true...isn't it.

The Left reeks of treason.

And that's why they pretend that the Republicans are the 'Red States'....when the history of the Left is clearly associated with Reds.


----------



## Truthseeker420

PoliticalChic said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Can't Accept the Truth About Reagan, a US Traitor
> republicans Can't Accept the Truth About reagan, a US Traitor - YouTube
> 
> How Reaganomics Destroyed The Middle Class...And Maybe America - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One can always tell what Leftists are most sensitive about in their makeup.....they accuse other of the iniquity.
> 
> It's true...isn't it.
> 
> The Left reeks of treason.
> 
> And that's why they pretend that the Republicans are the 'Red States'....when the history of the Left is clearly associated with Reds.
Click to expand...


How does the left reek of treason? calling someone a commie is so 50's.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Wry Catcher said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today is the birthday of Ronald Reagan.
> 
> February 6, 1911
> 
> 1. "*In spite of all the evidence that points to the free market as the most efficient system, we continue down a road that is bearing out the prophecy of De Tocqueville, *...if we weren't constantly on guard, we would find ourselves covered by a network of regulations controlling every activity. [Tocqueville] said if that came to pass we would one day find ourselves a nation of timid animals with government the shepherd.
> 
> It all comes down to this basic premise: if you lose your economic freedom, you lose your political freedom and in fact all freedom. Freedom is something that cannot be passed on genetically. It is never more than one generation away from extinction. Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it. Once freedom is gone, it's gone for a long, long time. Already, too many of us, particularly those in business and industry, have chosen to switch rather than fight."
> Ronald Reagan, 1978
> Hillsdale College - Imprimis Issue
> 
> 
> 
> 2. *"The liberal press called upon Reagan to remove the tactical nuclear arsenal from Europe. *Europeans fell easy prey to the false theory that a nuclear war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO in Europe would remain inside the continent. Freeze supporters here in the U.S. clamored that the strategic arsenal based inside America was more than enough to stop any attack in Germany.
> 
> The Hollywood establishment labeled Reagan a reckless "cowboy" who would press the nuclear button at the drop of a hat. The wide liberal criticism openly insulted Reagan as a senile fool who could carry the world into global nuclear war.
> 
> *Reagan did not give in. *Instead of caving to the political pressure, Reagan went against the polls, against the liberal media and against Hollywood's advice to disarm in the face of the Soviet threat. Reagan opted instead to match Moscow's firepower and up the ante. "
> The Legacy of Ronald Reagan  Peace
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3."SO ON WHOM or what do we bestow *the title of the "evil empire's" killer? *Was it Mikhail Gorbachev himself who pulled down what Lenin and Stalin had built up? It is tempting to finger Gorbachev, but this would ascribe too much wisdom and foresight to a man who wanted merely to reform, but not to relinquish, the empire. At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable: "There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.
> 
> *Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart.* His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in 1986, where Gorbachev would not budge on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving. He recalls in An American Life how he stood up from the table to proclaim that the meeting was over. Then he turned to his Secretary of State: "Let's go, George. We're leaving." Like any good diplomat, Shultz was crushed by so much roughness, but Reagan was completely unfazed. Later on, he explained: "I went to Reykjavik determined that *everything was negotiable except two things, our freedom and our future."*
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Ronald Reagan, though dismissed by Europeans as a second-rate actor and fondler of cue cards, possessed that magic faculty that separates run-of-the mill politicos from history-molding leaders.* "I didn't understand", recalls Time's Joe Klein, "how truly monumental, and morally important, Reagan's anti-communism was* until I visited the Soviet Union in 1987." He continues with a seemingly trivial vignette. Attending the Bolshoi Ballet, he was nudged by his minder: "'Ronald Reagan. Evil empire', he whispered with dramatic intensity and shot a glance toward his lap where he had hidden two enthusiastic thumbs up. 'Yes!'"
> 
> When an American president manages to pluck the soul strings of those who have been raised to fear and despise what he represents, *he surely deserves the honorific 'great.'*
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Happy Birthday to the greatest President in the last 100 years.*
> 
> *Ronald Reagan.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, look at those who thanked you for this thread, must make you so proud.
> 
> So, your opinion is yours, and I'm sure your not alone notwithstanding the many surveys wherein the top five have always included FDR, TR and your favorite WW (of the last 100 years, of course.)
> 
> That aside, one of the great achievments of our remote and unkown ancestors was _mesurement_.  Now measurement is only a form of description, but its advantage is it allows us to provide quantative descriptions in place of qualitive ones, as you have done.
> 
> Would you elaborate on the entire record of President Reagan which makes him the greatest of the last 100 years?  Compare and contrast him to TR and FDR and make an argument that Reagan made history and not revised history made the legend of RR.
Click to expand...




1. "and I'm sure your (sic) not alone notwithstanding the many surveys wherein the top five have always included FDR, TR and your favorite WW (of the last 100 years, of course.)"

Although historians are almost unanimously Lefties, you'll be disappointed to learn that the great Ronald Reagan has moved up on the list....*even among the Left*.


a. 	Nevertheless, as Sean Wilentz, a liberal historian, wrote in 2008, Reagan's "success in helping to finally end the Cold War is one of the greatest achievements by any President of the United States--and arguably *the greatest single achievement since 1945."*            The 24th anniversary of Reagan's "Tear down this wall" speech in Berlin | Atlantic Council



b. 'The late John Patrick Diggins, an unorthodox liberal who was a close friend of Arthur Schlesinger Jr.s, argued in his 2007 book Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and the Making of History that Reagan deserves to be considered *one of the four greatest American presidents, alongside Washington, Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt.*'
Reagan Reclaimed - Steven F. Hayward - National Review Online



Did you enjoy your vacation at Lake Lobotomy?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Truthseeker420 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Can't Accept the Truth About Reagan, a US Traitor
> republicans Can't Accept the Truth About reagan, a US Traitor - YouTube
> 
> How Reaganomics Destroyed The Middle Class...And Maybe America - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One can always tell what Leftists are most sensitive about in their makeup.....they accuse other of the iniquity.
> 
> It's true...isn't it.
> 
> The Left reeks of treason.
> 
> And that's why they pretend that the Republicans are the 'Red States'....when the history of the Left is clearly associated with Reds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does the left reek of treason? calling someone a commie is so 50's.
Click to expand...



It would take a book length post to do this subject justice....

....but how's this as a representative example:

1. The Liberal Democrat icon, known as the 'Liberal Lion' of the Senate, plotted with the Soviet Union to undermine the President of the United States during the Cold War.


Close enough to treason???


2.	"The following from the Central Committee archives, in Moscow: May 14, 1983, Committee on State Security of the USSR, On 9-10 May of this year, Senator Edward Kennedys close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Center Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.   very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations.  dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagans belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons the Presidents refusal to engage any modification on his politics. improvement of the economy: inflation has been greatly reduced, production levels are increasing as is overall business activity. For these reasons, interest rates will continue to decline.

3.	 prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of  he offers the following proposals to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Y.V. Andropov:

a.	a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations  so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield.

b.	 to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters

c.	 Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, *the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans*
Letter Details Kennedy Offer To USSR | Sweetness & Light


----------



## Truthmatters

PoliticalChic said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Can't Accept the Truth About Reagan, a US Traitor
> republicans Can't Accept the Truth About reagan, a US Traitor - YouTube
> 
> How Reaganomics Destroyed The Middle Class...And Maybe America - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One can always tell what Leftists are most sensitive about in their makeup.....they accuse other of the iniquity.
> 
> It's true...isn't it.
> 
> The Left reeks of treason.
> 
> And that's why they pretend that the Republicans are the 'Red States'....when the history of the Left is clearly associated with Reds.
Click to expand...


why did the republicans choose the color red?


----------



## Truthmatters

Republican Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


they seem to color their logos that way?


----------



## Bfgrn

Mad Scientist said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson is the asshole who put us under Banker Control. Is that why you listed him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laid the groundwork for the US to become a modern democracy and world power
> 
> - Federal Income tax
> - Federal Reserve system
> - Federal Trade Commission
> - Child Labor Laws
> - 8 hour day/ 40 hr workweek
> - Led us in WWI and proposed the League of Nations
> - Nobel Prize winner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wilson ran for President saying he would do everything he could to keep the US out of the War. Then he did a 180 almost immediately after he was elected.
> 
> Immediately regretted having signed the Federal Reserve Act:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a most unhappy man. *I have unwittingly ruined my country*. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.
> ~ Woodrow Wilson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Algore and Obama are *proof* that the Nobel Peace Prize is a sham.
Click to expand...


Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Misattributed

    I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world: no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.


Attributed in Shadow Kings (2005) by Mark Hill, p. 91; This and similar remarks are presented on the internet and elsewhere as an expression of regret for creating the Federal Reserve. The quotation appears to be fabricated from out-of-context remarks Wilson made on separate occasions and two leading sentences that have no clear source:


I can tell you categorically that this is not a statement of regret for having created the Federal Reserve. Wilson never had any regrets for having done that. It was an accomplishment in which he took great pride. - John M. Cooper, professor of history and author of several books on Wilson


----------



## NoNukes

rightwinger said:


> A great underappreciated actor



Bedtime for Bonzo is a classic. That role clinched the Presidency for him.


----------



## NoNukes

Treason is noble compared to what your side stands for.


----------



## NoNukes

Reagan was as good a President as he was an actor.


----------



## rightwinger

As time goes by, the accomplishments and impact of the Reagan Presidency are fading. The lasting impact of his decisions have had a negative affect on our society

- Fall of Communism:  The attempt to paint Reagan as the reason for the fall of the USSR is discredited. The USSR was a house of cards even before Reagan became president. Where Reagan deserves credit is for tactfully accepting the fall and not trying to exploit the crumbling USSR. Doing so could have led to a war from Soviet hardliners 

- The Economy: Reagan was able to reverse an economy in recession. His main tools were government debt and growing the defense industry. His steep tax cuts were ill-advised and led to an escalating debt problem. His tax and regulatory changes led to a stagnation of the middle class and redistribution of wealth upward. This will be Reagans legacy


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> Treason is noble compared to what your side stands for.



Your posts are becoming more and more outlandish.

I'm beginning to fear for your health.

Or....you may not understand the term 'treason.'

Let me help:

trea·son  
/&#712;tr&#275;z&#601;n/
Noun
The crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
The action of betraying someone or something.
Synonyms
treachery - betrayal - perfidy - disloyalty - sellout


----------



## Synthaholic

TakeAStepBack said:


> Grover Cleveland.


More than 100 years ago, dumbass.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Truthmatters said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Can't Accept the Truth About Reagan, a US Traitor
> republicans Can't Accept the Truth About reagan, a US Traitor - YouTube
> 
> How Reaganomics Destroyed The Middle Class...And Maybe America - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One can always tell what Leftists are most sensitive about in their makeup.....they accuse other of the iniquity.
> 
> It's true...isn't it.
> 
> The Left reeks of treason.
> 
> And that's why they pretend that the Republicans are the 'Red States'....when the history of the Left is clearly associated with Reds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why did the republicans choose the color red?
Click to expand...


I'm always glad to help you to understand:

Remember when the 'red states' were Democrat, 'cause, well, Democrats/Liberals were so closely identified with communists, reds, socialists....

Then the *control of the media really paid off for your Lefties.*...and now the obfuscation is complete.


1. "It's beginning to look like a suburban swimming pool,'' the television anchor David Brinkley noted on election night 1980, as hundreds of Republican-blue light bulbs illuminated NBC's studio map, signaling a landslide victory for Ronald Regan over the Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter. Other staffers, Time magazine wrote, called it ''Lake Reagan.''

Mr. Carter's bulbs were red."
Ideas & Trends; One State, Two State, Red State, Blue State - Page 2 - New York Times
Ideas & Trends - One State, Two State, Red State, Blue State - NYTimes.com


Man, I bet that really scared you guys....*the thought that folks might know the reality.*...


2. "The choice of colors in this divide is counter-intuitive to many international observers, as throughout the world, red is commonly the designated color for parties representing labor, socialist, and/or liberal interests [5] [6], which in the United States would be more closely correlated with the Democratic Party. Similarly, *blue is used in these countries to depict conservative parties which in the case of the United States would be a color more suitable for the Republicans. *For example, in Canada party colors are deeply ingrained and historic and have been unchanged during the Twentieth Century. Red states and blue states - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



3. How did *CNN get away with changing the party affiliation colors Democrats blue and Republicans red?*
'I have a video tape of the 1988 election returns of CNN showing democrats as red (as they always had been) and republicans blue Then in 1992 they reversed it and evryone just blindly followed it and now its accepted as having always been that way!!!' 37 Critical Items



Clear?


----------



## Wry Catcher

PoliticalChic said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today is the birthday of Ronald Reagan.
> 
> February 6, 1911
> 
> 1. "*In spite of all the evidence that points to the free market as the most efficient system, we continue down a road that is bearing out the prophecy of De Tocqueville, *...if we weren't constantly on guard, we would find ourselves covered by a network of regulations controlling every activity. [Tocqueville] said if that came to pass we would one day find ourselves a nation of timid animals with government the shepherd.
> 
> It all comes down to this basic premise: if you lose your economic freedom, you lose your political freedom and in fact all freedom. Freedom is something that cannot be passed on genetically. It is never more than one generation away from extinction. Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it. Once freedom is gone, it's gone for a long, long time. Already, too many of us, particularly those in business and industry, have chosen to switch rather than fight."
> Ronald Reagan, 1978
> Hillsdale College - Imprimis Issue
> 
> 
> 
> 2. *"The liberal press called upon Reagan to remove the tactical nuclear arsenal from Europe. *Europeans fell easy prey to the false theory that a nuclear war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO in Europe would remain inside the continent. Freeze supporters here in the U.S. clamored that the strategic arsenal based inside America was more than enough to stop any attack in Germany.
> 
> The Hollywood establishment labeled Reagan a reckless "cowboy" who would press the nuclear button at the drop of a hat. The wide liberal criticism openly insulted Reagan as a senile fool who could carry the world into global nuclear war.
> 
> *Reagan did not give in. *Instead of caving to the political pressure, Reagan went against the polls, against the liberal media and against Hollywood's advice to disarm in the face of the Soviet threat. Reagan opted instead to match Moscow's firepower and up the ante. "
> The Legacy of Ronald Reagan &#8211; Peace
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3."SO ON WHOM or what do we bestow *the title of the "evil empire's" killer? *Was it Mikhail Gorbachev himself who pulled down what Lenin and Stalin had built up? It is tempting to finger Gorbachev, but this would ascribe too much wisdom and foresight to a man who wanted merely to reform, but not to relinquish, the empire. At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable: "There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.
> 
> *Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart.* His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in 1986, where Gorbachev would not budge on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving. He recalls in An American Life how he stood up from the table to proclaim that the meeting was over. Then he turned to his Secretary of State: "Let's go, George. We're leaving." Like any good diplomat, Shultz was crushed by so much roughness, but Reagan was completely unfazed. Later on, he explained: "I went to Reykjavik determined that *everything was negotiable except two things, our freedom and our future."*
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Ronald Reagan, though dismissed by Europeans as a second-rate actor and fondler of cue cards, possessed that magic faculty that separates run-of-the mill politicos from history-molding leaders.* "I didn't understand", recalls Time's Joe Klein, "how truly monumental, and morally important, Reagan's anti-communism was* until I visited the Soviet Union in 1987." He continues with a seemingly trivial vignette. Attending the Bolshoi Ballet, he was nudged by his minder: "'Ronald Reagan. Evil empire', he whispered with dramatic intensity and shot a glance toward his lap where he had hidden two enthusiastic thumbs up. 'Yes!'"
> 
> When an American president manages to pluck the soul strings of those who have been raised to fear and despise what he represents, *he surely deserves the honorific 'great.'*
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Happy Birthday to the greatest President in the last 100 years.*
> 
> *Ronald Reagan.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, look at those who thanked you for this thread, must make you so proud.
> 
> So, your opinion is yours, and I'm sure your not alone notwithstanding the many surveys wherein the top five have always included FDR, TR and your favorite WW (of the last 100 years, of course.)
> 
> That aside, one of the great achievments of our remote and unkown ancestors was _mesurement_.  Now measurement is only a form of description, but its advantage is it allows us to provide quantative descriptions in place of qualitive ones, as you have done.
> 
> Would you elaborate on the entire record of President Reagan which makes him the greatest of the last 100 years?  Compare and contrast him to TR and FDR and make an argument that Reagan made history and not revised history made the legend of RR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "and I'm sure your (sic) not alone notwithstanding the many surveys wherein the top five have always included FDR, TR and your favorite WW (of the last 100 years, of course.)"
> 
> Although historians are almost unanimously Lefties, you'll be disappointed to learn that the great Ronald Reagan has moved up on the list....*even among the Left*.
> 
> 
> a. 	&#8220;Nevertheless, as Sean Wilentz, a liberal historian, wrote in 2008, Reagan's "success in helping to finally end the Cold War is one of the greatest achievements by any President of the United States--and arguably *the greatest single achievement since 1945."* &#8220;           The 24th anniversary of Reagan's "Tear down this wall" speech in Berlin | Atlantic Council
> 
> 
> 
> b. 'The late John Patrick Diggins, an unorthodox liberal who was a close friend of Arthur Schlesinger Jr.&#8217;s, argued in his 2007 book Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and the Making of History that Reagan deserves to be considered *one of the four greatest American presidents, alongside Washington, Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt.*'
> Reagan Reclaimed - Steven F. Hayward - National Review Online
> 
> 
> 
> Did you enjoy your vacation at Lake Lobotomy?
Click to expand...


Tee hee, got ya.  See my postscript.  You're so predictable* in your response to nearly everyone you include an ad hominem retort with a snarky and cavilous remark.

*  That is you raise irritating and trivial objections; find fault with unnecessarily (usually followed by at  or about), which are inconsequential, frivoloua and silly.
_
That you're cavilous is your burden; one which you've brought upon yourself._


----------



## Synthaholic

PoliticalChic said:


> Today is the birthday of Ronald Reagan.
> 
> February 6, 1911
> 
> 1. "*In spite of all the evidence that points to the free market as the most efficient system, we continue down a road that is bearing out the prophecy of De Tocqueville, *...if we weren't constantly on guard, we would find ourselves covered by a network of regulations controlling every activity. [Tocqueville] said if that came to pass we would one day find ourselves a nation of timid animals with government the shepherd.
> 
> It all comes down to this basic premise: if you lose your economic freedom, you lose your political freedom and in fact all freedom. Freedom is something that cannot be passed on genetically. It is never more than one generation away from extinction. Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it. Once freedom is gone, it's gone for a long, long time. Already, too many of us, particularly those in business and industry, have chosen to switch rather than fight."
> Ronald Reagan, 1978
> Hillsdale College - Imprimis Issue
> 
> 
> 
> 2. *"The liberal press called upon Reagan to remove the tactical nuclear arsenal from Europe. *Europeans fell easy prey to the false theory that a nuclear war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO in Europe would remain inside the continent. Freeze supporters here in the U.S. clamored that the strategic arsenal based inside America was more than enough to stop any attack in Germany.
> 
> The Hollywood establishment labeled Reagan a reckless "cowboy" who would press the nuclear button at the drop of a hat. The wide liberal criticism openly insulted Reagan as a senile fool who could carry the world into global nuclear war.
> 
> *Reagan did not give in. *Instead of caving to the political pressure, Reagan went against the polls, against the liberal media and against Hollywood's advice to disarm in the face of the Soviet threat. Reagan opted instead to match Moscow's firepower and up the ante. "
> The Legacy of Ronald Reagan  Peace
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3."SO ON WHOM or what do we bestow *the title of the "evil empire's" killer? *Was it Mikhail Gorbachev himself who pulled down what Lenin and Stalin had built up? It is tempting to finger Gorbachev, but this would ascribe too much wisdom and foresight to a man who wanted merely to reform, but not to relinquish, the empire. At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable: "There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.
> 
> *Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart.* His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in 1986, where Gorbachev would not budge on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving. He recalls in An American Life how he stood up from the table to proclaim that the meeting was over. Then he turned to his Secretary of State: "Let's go, George. We're leaving." Like any good diplomat, Shultz was crushed by so much roughness, but Reagan was completely unfazed. Later on, he explained: "I went to Reykjavik determined that *everything was negotiable except two things, our freedom and our future."*
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Ronald Reagan, though dismissed by Europeans as a second-rate actor and fondler of cue cards, possessed that magic faculty that separates run-of-the mill politicos from history-molding leaders.* "I didn't understand", recalls Time's Joe Klein, "how truly monumental, and morally important, Reagan's anti-communism was* until I visited the Soviet Union in 1987." He continues with a seemingly trivial vignette. Attending the Bolshoi Ballet, he was nudged by his minder: "'Ronald Reagan. Evil empire', he whispered with dramatic intensity and shot a glance toward his lap where he had hidden two enthusiastic thumbs up. 'Yes!'"
> 
> When an American president manages to pluck the soul strings of those who have been raised to fear and despise what he represents, *he surely deserves the honorific 'great.'*
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Happy Birthday to the greatest President in the last 100 years.*
> 
> *Ronald Reagan.*




More cut & paste from USMB's resident non-thinker.

Cut-N-Run Reagan was a RINO.  By today's standards, McCain and Mittens are both more conservative.


----------



## Bfgrn

Thank You Mr. President - 49 second video






Reagan and the press...

When President Reagan first took over the oval office, we would throw questions at President Reagan, and he would answer them.

Well, his three top aides were apoplectic. They didnt know what was coming out of his mouth. They taught the president to say this is not a press conference, and they had him quite trained on that.

And one day we asked him what was happening, and he said to us: I cant answer that. We said why? 

Because they wont let me, he pointed to Baker, Meese and Deaver standing behind, very grim. 

They wont let meI said, but youre the President

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Greatest American President since Coolidge.

He freed tens of millions form the crushing, dehumanizing oppression of Soviet Communism and for that, the "American" Left hates him with all their passion

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtYdjbpBk6A]Reagan at Brandenburg Gate - "tear down this wall" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PoliticalChic

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today is the birthday of Ronald Reagan.
> 
> February 6, 1911
> 
> 1. "*In spite of all the evidence that points to the free market as the most efficient system, we continue down a road that is bearing out the prophecy of De Tocqueville, *...if we weren't constantly on guard, we would find ourselves covered by a network of regulations controlling every activity. [Tocqueville] said if that came to pass we would one day find ourselves a nation of timid animals with government the shepherd.
> 
> It all comes down to this basic premise: if you lose your economic freedom, you lose your political freedom and in fact all freedom. Freedom is something that cannot be passed on genetically. It is never more than one generation away from extinction. Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it. Once freedom is gone, it's gone for a long, long time. Already, too many of us, particularly those in business and industry, have chosen to switch rather than fight."
> Ronald Reagan, 1978
> Hillsdale College - Imprimis Issue
> 
> 
> 
> 2. *"The liberal press called upon Reagan to remove the tactical nuclear arsenal from Europe. *Europeans fell easy prey to the false theory that a nuclear war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO in Europe would remain inside the continent. Freeze supporters here in the U.S. clamored that the strategic arsenal based inside America was more than enough to stop any attack in Germany.
> 
> The Hollywood establishment labeled Reagan a reckless "cowboy" who would press the nuclear button at the drop of a hat. The wide liberal criticism openly insulted Reagan as a senile fool who could carry the world into global nuclear war.
> 
> *Reagan did not give in. *Instead of caving to the political pressure, Reagan went against the polls, against the liberal media and against Hollywood's advice to disarm in the face of the Soviet threat. Reagan opted instead to match Moscow's firepower and up the ante. "
> The Legacy of Ronald Reagan &#8211; Peace
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3."SO ON WHOM or what do we bestow *the title of the "evil empire's" killer? *Was it Mikhail Gorbachev himself who pulled down what Lenin and Stalin had built up? It is tempting to finger Gorbachev, but this would ascribe too much wisdom and foresight to a man who wanted merely to reform, but not to relinquish, the empire. At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable: "There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.
> 
> *Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart.* His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in 1986, where Gorbachev would not budge on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving. He recalls in An American Life how he stood up from the table to proclaim that the meeting was over. Then he turned to his Secretary of State: "Let's go, George. We're leaving." Like any good diplomat, Shultz was crushed by so much roughness, but Reagan was completely unfazed. Later on, he explained: "I went to Reykjavik determined that *everything was negotiable except two things, our freedom and our future."*
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Ronald Reagan, though dismissed by Europeans as a second-rate actor and fondler of cue cards, possessed that magic faculty that separates run-of-the mill politicos from history-molding leaders.* "I didn't understand", recalls Time's Joe Klein, "how truly monumental, and morally important, Reagan's anti-communism was* until I visited the Soviet Union in 1987." He continues with a seemingly trivial vignette. Attending the Bolshoi Ballet, he was nudged by his minder: "'Ronald Reagan. Evil empire', he whispered with dramatic intensity and shot a glance toward his lap where he had hidden two enthusiastic thumbs up. 'Yes!'"
> 
> When an American president manages to pluck the soul strings of those who have been raised to fear and despise what he represents, *he surely deserves the honorific 'great.'*
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Happy Birthday to the greatest President in the last 100 years.*
> 
> *Ronald Reagan.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More cut & paste from USMB's resident non-thinker.
> 
> Cut-N-Run Reagan was a RINO.  By today's standards, McCain and Mittens are both more conservative.
Click to expand...



Well....as you must be the 'great thinker,' could you find any errors in the post to which you ostensibly are responding?


If you cannot....the conclusion of the OP is overwhelming.

You're on.......Let's see what you've got.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Wry Catcher said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today is the birthday of Ronald Reagan.
> 
> February 6, 1911
> 
> 1. "*In spite of all the evidence that points to the free market as the most efficient system, we continue down a road that is bearing out the prophecy of De Tocqueville, *...if we weren't constantly on guard, we would find ourselves covered by a network of regulations controlling every activity. [Tocqueville] said if that came to pass we would one day find ourselves a nation of timid animals with government the shepherd.
> 
> It all comes down to this basic premise: if you lose your economic freedom, you lose your political freedom and in fact all freedom. Freedom is something that cannot be passed on genetically. It is never more than one generation away from extinction. Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it. Once freedom is gone, it's gone for a long, long time. Already, too many of us, particularly those in business and industry, have chosen to switch rather than fight."
> Ronald Reagan, 1978
> Hillsdale College - Imprimis Issue
> 
> 
> 
> 2. *"The liberal press called upon Reagan to remove the tactical nuclear arsenal from Europe. *Europeans fell easy prey to the false theory that a nuclear war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO in Europe would remain inside the continent. Freeze supporters here in the U.S. clamored that the strategic arsenal based inside America was more than enough to stop any attack in Germany.
> 
> The Hollywood establishment labeled Reagan a reckless "cowboy" who would press the nuclear button at the drop of a hat. The wide liberal criticism openly insulted Reagan as a senile fool who could carry the world into global nuclear war.
> 
> *Reagan did not give in. *Instead of caving to the political pressure, Reagan went against the polls, against the liberal media and against Hollywood's advice to disarm in the face of the Soviet threat. Reagan opted instead to match Moscow's firepower and up the ante. "
> The Legacy of Ronald Reagan  Peace
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3."SO ON WHOM or what do we bestow *the title of the "evil empire's" killer? *Was it Mikhail Gorbachev himself who pulled down what Lenin and Stalin had built up? It is tempting to finger Gorbachev, but this would ascribe too much wisdom and foresight to a man who wanted merely to reform, but not to relinquish, the empire. At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable: "There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.
> 
> *Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart.* His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in 1986, where Gorbachev would not budge on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving. He recalls in An American Life how he stood up from the table to proclaim that the meeting was over. Then he turned to his Secretary of State: "Let's go, George. We're leaving." Like any good diplomat, Shultz was crushed by so much roughness, but Reagan was completely unfazed. Later on, he explained: "I went to Reykjavik determined that *everything was negotiable except two things, our freedom and our future."*
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Ronald Reagan, though dismissed by Europeans as a second-rate actor and fondler of cue cards, possessed that magic faculty that separates run-of-the mill politicos from history-molding leaders.* "I didn't understand", recalls Time's Joe Klein, "how truly monumental, and morally important, Reagan's anti-communism was* until I visited the Soviet Union in 1987." He continues with a seemingly trivial vignette. Attending the Bolshoi Ballet, he was nudged by his minder: "'Ronald Reagan. Evil empire', he whispered with dramatic intensity and shot a glance toward his lap where he had hidden two enthusiastic thumbs up. 'Yes!'"
> 
> When an American president manages to pluck the soul strings of those who have been raised to fear and despise what he represents, *he surely deserves the honorific 'great.'*
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Happy Birthday to the greatest President in the last 100 years.*
> 
> *Ronald Reagan.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, look at those who thanked you for this thread, must make you so proud.
> 
> So, your opinion is yours, and I'm sure your not alone notwithstanding the many surveys wherein the top five have always included FDR, TR and your favorite WW (of the last 100 years, of course.)
> 
> That aside, one of the great achievments of our remote and unkown ancestors was _mesurement_.  Now measurement is only a form of description, but its advantage is it allows us to provide quantative descriptions in place of qualitive ones, as you have done.
> 
> Would you elaborate on the entire record of President Reagan which makes him the greatest of the last 100 years?  Compare and contrast him to TR and FDR and make an argument that Reagan made history and not revised history made the legend of RR.
Click to expand...


Reagan freed the Eastern Europeans from the horrific oppression of Soviet Communism, the very same countries FDR turned over control to one of history's 2 greatest mass murderers "Uncle" Joe Stalin

And if FDR's awful economic performance makes him "great", Reagan's economic performance makes him a God


----------



## PoliticalChic

CrusaderFrank said:


> Greatest American President since Coolidge.
> 
> He freed tens of millions form the crushing, dehumanizing oppression of Soviet Communism and for that, the "American" Left hates him with all their passion
> 
> Reagan at Brandenburg Gate - "tear down this wall" - YouTube




I always liked this Reagan:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK3Eo9cScEQ&feature=share]Ronald Reagan tells joke about Democrats - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PoliticalChic

Wry Catcher said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, look at those who thanked you for this thread, must make you so proud.
> 
> So, your opinion is yours, and I'm sure your not alone notwithstanding the many surveys wherein the top five have always included FDR, TR and your favorite WW (of the last 100 years, of course.)
> 
> That aside, one of the great achievments of our remote and unkown ancestors was _mesurement_.  Now measurement is only a form of description, but its advantage is it allows us to provide quantative descriptions in place of qualitive ones, as you have done.
> 
> Would you elaborate on the entire record of President Reagan which makes him the greatest of the last 100 years?  Compare and contrast him to TR and FDR and make an argument that Reagan made history and not revised history made the legend of RR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "and I'm sure your (sic) not alone notwithstanding the many surveys wherein the top five have always included FDR, TR and your favorite WW (of the last 100 years, of course.)"
> 
> Although historians are almost unanimously Lefties, you'll be disappointed to learn that the great Ronald Reagan has moved up on the list....*even among the Left*.
> 
> 
> a. 	Nevertheless, as Sean Wilentz, a liberal historian, wrote in 2008, Reagan's "success in helping to finally end the Cold War is one of the greatest achievements by any President of the United States--and arguably *the greatest single achievement since 1945."*            The 24th anniversary of Reagan's "Tear down this wall" speech in Berlin | Atlantic Council
> 
> 
> 
> b. 'The late John Patrick Diggins, an unorthodox liberal who was a close friend of Arthur Schlesinger Jr.s, argued in his 2007 book Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and the Making of History that Reagan deserves to be considered *one of the four greatest American presidents, alongside Washington, Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt.*'
> Reagan Reclaimed - Steven F. Hayward - National Review Online
> 
> 
> 
> Did you enjoy your vacation at Lake Lobotomy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tee hee, got ya.  See my postscript.  You're so predictable* in your response to nearly everyone you include an ad hominem retort with a snarky and cavilous remark.
> 
> *  That is you raise irritating and trivial objections; find fault with unnecessarily (usually followed by at  or about), which are inconsequential, frivoloua and silly.
> _
> That you're cavilous is your burden; one which you've brought upon yourself._
Click to expand...





"...in your response to nearly everyone you include an ad hominem retort..."


Don't be jealous....

....I always save the best ones for your!



Did anyone ever tell you youre tall dark and handsome? 
Well, in the dark youre handsome.


----------



## Wicked Jester

The Obamabots can't stand Reagan for one reason......they've never had, nor will they ever have a President with the prowess and greatness of Reagan.

Suck on it, ya' liberal loons....the truth hurts.....too fucking bad....deal with it.


----------



## there4eyeM

PoliticalChic said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> your insane
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am not!
> 
> Mommy had me tested!
Click to expand...


Best president in one hundred years! Oh, 'Chic, I like your sense of humor.

By the way, another response to the above could have been, "Takes one to know one!"


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Wicked Jester said:


> The Obamabots can't stand Reagan for one reason......they've never had, nor will they ever have a President with the prowess and greatness of Reagan.
> 
> Suck on it, ya' liberal loons....the truth hurts.....too fucking bad....deal with it.



They had Joe Stalin's sock puppet FDR, of course they get boiling mad when we mention Reagan


----------



## rightwinger

Wicked Jester said:


> The Obamabots can't stand Reagan for one reason......they've never had, nor will they ever have a President with the prowess and greatness of Reagan.
> 
> Suck on it, ya' liberal loons....the truth hurts.....too fucking bad....deal with it.



Hey!

Thats the same reason we can't stand Sarah Palin


----------



## Wicked Jester

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Obamabots can't stand Reagan for one reason......they've never had, nor will they ever have a President with the prowess and greatness of Reagan.
> 
> Suck on it, ya' liberal loons....the truth hurts.....too fucking bad....deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had Joe Stalin's sock puppet FDR, of course they get boiling mad when we mention Reagan
Click to expand...

Their biggest dissapointment in FDR, is that he didn't exterminate all those Japanese Americans he tossed into those concentration camps.


----------



## Meathead

It truly is simple, Reagan is in the running as one of the "greats". Thus far, Obama is relatively a pipsqueak. Much remains to be seen, but then even if Obama's socialist program works out, he will still be a pipsqueak.


----------



## PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today is the birthday of Ronald Reagan.
> 
> February 6, 1911
> 
> 1. "*In spite of all the evidence that points to the free market as the most efficient system, we continue down a road that is bearing out the prophecy of De Tocqueville, *...if we weren't constantly on guard, we would find ourselves covered by a network of regulations controlling every activity. [Tocqueville] said if that came to pass we would one day find ourselves a nation of timid animals with government the shepherd.
> 
> It all comes down to this basic premise: if you lose your economic freedom, you lose your political freedom and in fact all freedom. Freedom is something that cannot be passed on genetically. It is never more than one generation away from extinction. Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it. Once freedom is gone, it's gone for a long, long time. Already, too many of us, particularly those in business and industry, have chosen to switch rather than fight."
> Ronald Reagan, 1978
> Hillsdale College - Imprimis Issue
> 
> 
> 
> 2. *"The liberal press called upon Reagan to remove the tactical nuclear arsenal from Europe. *Europeans fell easy prey to the false theory that a nuclear war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO in Europe would remain inside the continent. Freeze supporters here in the U.S. clamored that the strategic arsenal based inside America was more than enough to stop any attack in Germany.
> 
> The Hollywood establishment labeled Reagan a reckless "cowboy" who would press the nuclear button at the drop of a hat. The wide liberal criticism openly insulted Reagan as a senile fool who could carry the world into global nuclear war.
> 
> *Reagan did not give in. *Instead of caving to the political pressure, Reagan went against the polls, against the liberal media and against Hollywood's advice to disarm in the face of the Soviet threat. Reagan opted instead to match Moscow's firepower and up the ante. "
> The Legacy of Ronald Reagan  Peace
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3."SO ON WHOM or what do we bestow *the title of the "evil empire's" killer? *Was it Mikhail Gorbachev himself who pulled down what Lenin and Stalin had built up? It is tempting to finger Gorbachev, but this would ascribe too much wisdom and foresight to a man who wanted merely to reform, but not to relinquish, the empire. At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable: "There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.
> 
> *Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart.* His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in 1986, where Gorbachev would not budge on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving. He recalls in An American Life how he stood up from the table to proclaim that the meeting was over. Then he turned to his Secretary of State: "Let's go, George. We're leaving." Like any good diplomat, Shultz was crushed by so much roughness, but Reagan was completely unfazed. Later on, he explained: "I went to Reykjavik determined that *everything was negotiable except two things, our freedom and our future."*
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Ronald Reagan, though dismissed by Europeans as a second-rate actor and fondler of cue cards, possessed that magic faculty that separates run-of-the mill politicos from history-molding leaders.* "I didn't understand", recalls Time's Joe Klein, "how truly monumental, and morally important, Reagan's anti-communism was* until I visited the Soviet Union in 1987." He continues with a seemingly trivial vignette. Attending the Bolshoi Ballet, he was nudged by his minder: "'Ronald Reagan. Evil empire', he whispered with dramatic intensity and shot a glance toward his lap where he had hidden two enthusiastic thumbs up. 'Yes!'"
> 
> When an American president manages to pluck the soul strings of those who have been raised to fear and despise what he represents, *he surely deserves the honorific 'great.'*
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Happy Birthday to the greatest President in the last 100 years.*
> 
> *Ronald Reagan.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More cut & paste from USMB's resident non-thinker.
> 
> Cut-N-Run Reagan was a RINO.  By today's standards, McCain and Mittens are both more conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well....as you must be the 'great thinker,' could you find any errors in the post to which you ostensibly are responding?
> 
> 
> If you cannot....the conclusion of the OP is overwhelming.
> 
> You're on.......Let's see what you've got.
Click to expand...




Wow....it was that easy to expose the 'great thinker.'

He ran away and hid.


My, oh, my....frightened away!  What a delicate child you are, Synthy....

.you must wash in Woolite.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Wicked Jester said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Obamabots can't stand Reagan for one reason......they've never had, nor will they ever have a President with the prowess and greatness of Reagan.
> 
> Suck on it, ya' liberal loons....the truth hurts.....too fucking bad....deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had Joe Stalin's sock puppet FDR, of course they get boiling mad when we mention Reagan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their biggest dissapointment in FDR, is that he didn't exterminate all those Japanese Americans he tossed into those concentration camps.
Click to expand...



I'm sure that was tongue-in-cheek, Wicked....

...but here is my major gripe with King Franklin the First:

He made all sorts if changes to the Constitution, but didn't have the courage to use the amendment process.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Meathead said:


> It truly is simple, Reagan is in the running as one of the "greats". Thus far, Obama is relatively a pipsqueak. Much remains to be seen, but then even if Obama's socialist program works out, he will still be a pipsqueak.



If only Gutzon Borglum was still around, maybe he would have put Ron on the Rock, where he belongs.


That's Mt. Rushmore.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgEwJmA7Ac8]Revising Mt. Rushmore: Which Face Should Be Added ....Obama, Kennedy, Reagan? - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Rozman

I just can't anyone seriously when they put Obama on this list...


----------



## Synthaholic

PoliticalChic said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today is the birthday of Ronald Reagan.
> 
> February 6, 1911
> 
> 1. "*In spite of all the evidence that points to the free market as the most efficient system, we continue down a road that is bearing out the prophecy of De Tocqueville, *...if we weren't constantly on guard, we would find ourselves covered by a network of regulations controlling every activity. [Tocqueville] said if that came to pass we would one day find ourselves a nation of timid animals with government the shepherd.
> 
> It all comes down to this basic premise: if you lose your economic freedom, you lose your political freedom and in fact all freedom. Freedom is something that cannot be passed on genetically. It is never more than one generation away from extinction. Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it. Once freedom is gone, it's gone for a long, long time. Already, too many of us, particularly those in business and industry, have chosen to switch rather than fight."
> Ronald Reagan, 1978
> Hillsdale College - Imprimis Issue
> 
> 
> 
> 2. *"The liberal press called upon Reagan to remove the tactical nuclear arsenal from Europe. *Europeans fell easy prey to the false theory that a nuclear war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO in Europe would remain inside the continent. Freeze supporters here in the U.S. clamored that the strategic arsenal based inside America was more than enough to stop any attack in Germany.
> 
> The Hollywood establishment labeled Reagan a reckless "cowboy" who would press the nuclear button at the drop of a hat. The wide liberal criticism openly insulted Reagan as a senile fool who could carry the world into global nuclear war.
> 
> *Reagan did not give in. *Instead of caving to the political pressure, Reagan went against the polls, against the liberal media and against Hollywood's advice to disarm in the face of the Soviet threat. Reagan opted instead to match Moscow's firepower and up the ante. "
> The Legacy of Ronald Reagan  Peace
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3."SO ON WHOM or what do we bestow *the title of the "evil empire's" killer? *Was it Mikhail Gorbachev himself who pulled down what Lenin and Stalin had built up? It is tempting to finger Gorbachev, but this would ascribe too much wisdom and foresight to a man who wanted merely to reform, but not to relinquish, the empire. At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable: "There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.
> 
> *Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart.* His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in 1986, where Gorbachev would not budge on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving. He recalls in An American Life how he stood up from the table to proclaim that the meeting was over. Then he turned to his Secretary of State: "Let's go, George. We're leaving." Like any good diplomat, Shultz was crushed by so much roughness, but Reagan was completely unfazed. Later on, he explained: "I went to Reykjavik determined that *everything was negotiable except two things, our freedom and our future."*
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Ronald Reagan, though dismissed by Europeans as a second-rate actor and fondler of cue cards, possessed that magic faculty that separates run-of-the mill politicos from history-molding leaders.* "I didn't understand", recalls Time's Joe Klein, "how truly monumental, and morally important, Reagan's anti-communism was* until I visited the Soviet Union in 1987." He continues with a seemingly trivial vignette. Attending the Bolshoi Ballet, he was nudged by his minder: "'Ronald Reagan. Evil empire', he whispered with dramatic intensity and shot a glance toward his lap where he had hidden two enthusiastic thumbs up. 'Yes!'"
> 
> When an American president manages to pluck the soul strings of those who have been raised to fear and despise what he represents, *he surely deserves the honorific 'great.'*
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Happy Birthday to the greatest President in the last 100 years.*
> 
> *Ronald Reagan.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More cut & paste from USMB's resident non-thinker.
> 
> Cut-N-Run Reagan was a RINO.  By today's standards, McCain and Mittens are both more conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well....as you must be the 'great thinker,' could you find any errors in the post to which you ostensibly are responding?
> 
> 
> If you cannot....the conclusion of the OP is overwhelming.
> 
> You're on.......Let's see what you've got.
Click to expand...



I didn't call you a bad thinker.  I called you a non-thinker, since all you do is copy & paste other peoples' thoughts.


----------



## Rozman

How can anyone put Obama on this list when he is barely into his second term....
Can't we at least wait until he is done being President before we elect him the best President ever.

The ass kissing here is beyond belief.


----------



## Rozman

To say Obama has a cult like following just doesn't do it justice.
Cult just isn't a strong enough word.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> More cut & paste from USMB's resident non-thinker.
> 
> Cut-N-Run Reagan was a RINO.  By today's standards, McCain and Mittens are both more conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well....as you must be the 'great thinker,' could you find any errors in the post to which you ostensibly are responding?
> 
> 
> If you cannot....the conclusion of the OP is overwhelming.
> 
> You're on.......Let's see what you've got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't call you a bad thinker.  I called you a non-thinker, since all you do is copy & paste other peoples' thoughts.
Click to expand...


You doing a post on who is a 'thinker' of any variety is like Charlie Sheen doing a testimonial for eHarmony.



I challenged you to critique the OP, and you can't...'*cause you're a dim-wit.*
True?

Here's the post:

"Well....as you must be the 'great thinker,' could you find any errors in the post to which you ostensibly are responding?

If you cannot....the conclusion of the OP is overwhelming.

You're on.......Let's see what you've got."



Nowhere in the post does it say you called me a 'bad thinker."

So....why the obfuscation? To avoid actually thinking?


But...I challenged you, do so again:  try to debate the OP.


Otherwise your post is simply  an elementary school 'I hate you, I hate you' note.
And even you can see how that crushes me.....


See....*I think you're a dunce. *You've been trained by your handlers to react to Ronald Reagan in the way you have....so when I produce a well-constructed tribute to him....you try to find a way to inject negativity.

But, with no ability ......all you can do is 'I hate you.'

*Compared to you, it seems, I am a deep thinker. So is Forrest Gump.*


Try again?
Debate the OP.


Otherwise, you're....what's the word?...oh, yes....*'worthless.'*


----------



## rightwinger

Rozman said:


> How can anyone put Obama on this list when he is barely into his second term....
> Can't we at least wait until he is done being President before we elect him the best President ever.
> 
> The ass kissing here is beyond belief.



Right now, Obama is ranked 13-14 on the all time list. That is only after a first term.  Two term presidents tend to rank higher than one term presidents (except for Bush). 

We are talking the last 100 years, Obama is currently top 5 of the last 100 years. You are free to discuss who should be ranked ahead of him and why


----------



## Toronado3800

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today is the birthday of Ronald Reagan.
> 
> February 6, 1911
> 
> 1. "*In spite of all the evidence that points to the free market as the most efficient system, we continue down a road that is bearing out the prophecy of De Tocqueville, *...if we weren't constantly on guard, we would find ourselves covered by a network of regulations controlling every activity. [Tocqueville] said if that came to pass we would one day find ourselves a nation of timid animals with government the shepherd.
> 
> It all comes down to this basic premise: if you lose your economic freedom, you lose your political freedom and in fact all freedom. Freedom is something that cannot be passed on genetically. It is never more than one generation away from extinction. Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it. Once freedom is gone, it's gone for a long, long time. Already, too many of us, particularly those in business and industry, have chosen to switch rather than fight."
> Ronald Reagan, 1978
> Hillsdale College - Imprimis Issue
> 
> 
> 
> 2. *"The liberal press called upon Reagan to remove the tactical nuclear arsenal from Europe. *Europeans fell easy prey to the false theory that a nuclear war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO in Europe would remain inside the continent. Freeze supporters here in the U.S. clamored that the strategic arsenal based inside America was more than enough to stop any attack in Germany.
> 
> The Hollywood establishment labeled Reagan a reckless "cowboy" who would press the nuclear button at the drop of a hat. The wide liberal criticism openly insulted Reagan as a senile fool who could carry the world into global nuclear war.
> 
> *Reagan did not give in. *Instead of caving to the political pressure, Reagan went against the polls, against the liberal media and against Hollywood's advice to disarm in the face of the Soviet threat. Reagan opted instead to match Moscow's firepower and up the ante. "
> The Legacy of Ronald Reagan  Peace
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3."SO ON WHOM or what do we bestow *the title of the "evil empire's" killer? *Was it Mikhail Gorbachev himself who pulled down what Lenin and Stalin had built up? It is tempting to finger Gorbachev, but this would ascribe too much wisdom and foresight to a man who wanted merely to reform, but not to relinquish, the empire. At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable: "There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.
> 
> *Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart.* His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in 1986, where Gorbachev would not budge on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving. He recalls in An American Life how he stood up from the table to proclaim that the meeting was over. Then he turned to his Secretary of State: "Let's go, George. We're leaving." Like any good diplomat, Shultz was crushed by so much roughness, but Reagan was completely unfazed. Later on, he explained: "I went to Reykjavik determined that *everything was negotiable except two things, our freedom and our future."*
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Ronald Reagan, though dismissed by Europeans as a second-rate actor and fondler of cue cards, possessed that magic faculty that separates run-of-the mill politicos from history-molding leaders.* "I didn't understand", recalls Time's Joe Klein, "how truly monumental, and morally important, Reagan's anti-communism was* until I visited the Soviet Union in 1987." He continues with a seemingly trivial vignette. Attending the Bolshoi Ballet, he was nudged by his minder: "'Ronald Reagan. Evil empire', he whispered with dramatic intensity and shot a glance toward his lap where he had hidden two enthusiastic thumbs up. 'Yes!'"
> 
> When an American president manages to pluck the soul strings of those who have been raised to fear and despise what he represents, *he surely deserves the honorific 'great.'*
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Happy Birthday to the greatest President in the last 100 years.*
> 
> *Ronald Reagan.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, look at those who thanked you for this thread, must make you so proud.
> 
> So, your opinion is yours, and I'm sure your not alone notwithstanding the many surveys wherein the top five have always included FDR, TR and your favorite WW (of the last 100 years, of course.)
> 
> That aside, one of the great achievments of our remote and unkown ancestors was _mesurement_.  Now measurement is only a form of description, but its advantage is it allows us to provide quantative descriptions in place of qualitive ones, as you have done.
> 
> Would you elaborate on the entire record of President Reagan which makes him the greatest of the last 100 years?  Compare and contrast him to TR and FDR and make an argument that Reagan made history and not revised history made the legend of RR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan freed the Eastern Europeans from the horrific oppression of Soviet Communism, the very same countries FDR turned over control to one of history's 2 greatest mass murderers "Uncle" Joe Stalin
> 
> And if FDR's awful economic performance makes him "great", Reagan's economic performance makes him a God
Click to expand...


What are you talking about Frank?  They were both deficit spenders to pump the economy...  If you voted for Reagan Bush and Bush it makes sense that you like deficit spending big government.


----------



## Toronado3800

Oh Frank, June 1945.  Do you send Patton east?

Be proud and answer.  If I was President in 1870 I don't know if I would have stopped manifest destiny from destroying the natives.  

In June of 45 I would have been militarily leery of a war with Russia.  You?  What eould you have done?


----------



## Toronado3800

PoliticalChic said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> They had Joe Stalin's sock puppet FDR, of course they get boiling mad when we mention Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> Their biggest dissapointment in FDR, is that he didn't exterminate all those Japanese Americans he tossed into those concentration camps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that was tongue-in-cheek, Wicked....
> 
> ...but here is my major gripe with King Franklin the First:
> 
> He made all sorts if changes to the Constitution, but didn't have the courage to use the amendment process.
Click to expand...


I can more or less agree with your last statement!  FDR may have saved America but did it a little shady like.

Heck, I say he created our America but still your point is valid the Cobstitution needs Ammendments more often. (like with the healthcare bill!)


----------



## Liability

Truthmatters said:


> reagan ballooned the deficit.



But when The ONE does far worse damage, TderpM is staunchly mute.

Fucking stupid transparent dumb-ass hypocritical pos that she is.


----------



## Bfgrn

PoliticalChic said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last 100 years
> 
> 1. FDR
> 2. Ike
> *3. Wilson*
> 4. Truman
> 5. Obama
> 6. Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson is the asshole who put us under Banker Control. Is that why you listed him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woodrow Wilson is truly the icon of the Progressives....and with good reason.
> He made the United States into the first Fascist Nation....as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'The first true enterprise of this kind was established in the in the United States under the *20th centurys first fascist dictator: Woodrow Wilson.* During WW I, under the Progressive Woodrow Wilson, American was a fascist nation.
> 
> a. Had the worlds first modern propaganda ministry
> 
> b. Political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon and thrown in jail for simply expressing private opinions.
> 
> c. The national leader accused foreigners and immigrants of injecting treasonous poison into the  American bloodstream
> 
> d.	Newspapers and magazines were closed for criticizing the government
> 
> e. Almost 100,000 government propaganda agents were sent out to whip up support for the regime and the war
> 
> f. College professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues
> 
> g. Nearly a quarter million goons were given legal authority to beat and intimidate slackers and dissenters
> 
> h. Leading artists and writers dedicated their work to proselytizing for the government.
> http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Classical_Liberalism_vs_Modern_Liberal_Conservatism.pdf p. 9
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RW will not be able to deny one single aspect listed above.
> He is left with no choice but to espouse Fascism.
> 
> 
> It is the Liberal/Progressive's concupiscence.....the inordinate lust for power and control, in evidence 'til this very day.
Click to expand...




PoliticalChic said:


> Who was Edmund Burke?
> The philosopher who is generally considered the father of modern conservatism.
> 
> Thread-http://www.usmessageboard.com/5001042-post1.html








"If I should claim any man as my master, that man would be Burke"
Woodrow Wilson


----------



## PoliticalChic

Toronado3800 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their biggest dissapointment in FDR, is that he didn't exterminate all those Japanese Americans he tossed into those concentration camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that was tongue-in-cheek, Wicked....
> 
> ...but here is my major gripe with King Franklin the First:
> 
> He made all sorts if changes to the Constitution, but didn't have the courage to use the amendment process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can more or less agree with your last statement!  FDR may have saved America but did it a little shady like.
> 
> Heck, I say he created our America but still your point is valid the Cobstitution needs Ammendments more often. (like with the healthcare bill!)
Click to expand...


No.

My prediction all along was that the Court would find it constitutional.

Your point?


----------



## Oddball

Toronado3800 said:


> Oh Frank, June 1945.  Do you send Patton east?



In 1944, were I Ike, I'd tell Monty to jam it up his ass for trying to undermine my broad front Overlord plan and give the job to Patton.




Toronado3800 said:


> In June of 45 I would have been militarily leery of a war with Russia.  You?  What eould you have done?


What's to be leery of?

America had air supremacy over all of Europe and could've established it in mere weeks over Russia...The Germans would've given over everything to the allies (what remained of industrial capacity, weapons systems, intelligence, military structure) to drive back and defeat the commies.

The Reds would've been crushed, quite probably before Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Bfgrn said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson is the asshole who put us under Banker Control. Is that why you listed him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woodrow Wilson is truly the icon of the Progressives....and with good reason.
> He made the United States into the first Fascist Nation....as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'The first true enterprise of this kind was established in the in the United States under the *20th centurys first fascist dictator: Woodrow Wilson.* During WW I, under the Progressive Woodrow Wilson, American was a fascist nation.
> 
> a. Had the worlds first modern propaganda ministry
> 
> b. Political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon and thrown in jail for simply expressing private opinions.
> 
> c. The national leader accused foreigners and immigrants of injecting treasonous poison into the  American bloodstream
> 
> d.	Newspapers and magazines were closed for criticizing the government
> 
> e. Almost 100,000 government propaganda agents were sent out to whip up support for the regime and the war
> 
> f. College professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues
> 
> g. Nearly a quarter million goons were given legal authority to beat and intimidate slackers and dissenters
> 
> h. Leading artists and writers dedicated their work to proselytizing for the government.
> http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Classical_Liberalism_vs_Modern_Liberal_Conservatism.pdf p. 9
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RW will not be able to deny one single aspect listed above.
> He is left with no choice but to espouse Fascism.
> 
> 
> It is the Liberal/Progressive's concupiscence.....the inordinate lust for power and control, in evidence 'til this very day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who was Edmund Burke?
> The philosopher who is generally considered the father of modern conservatism.
> 
> Thread-http://www.usmessageboard.com/5001042-post1.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If I should claim any man as my master, that man would be Burke"
> Woodrow Wilson
Click to expand...


Wilson was both a racist and a fascist.

Wilson's quote means nothing, dolt.

When do you grow up an recognize that reality is defined by actions, not by words?

Ever?


Can you deny any of the statements about Wilson?
Any?


None?

Now, think about what that means.


----------



## Bfgrn

PoliticalChic said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Woodrow Wilson is truly the icon of the Progressives....and with good reason.
> He made the United States into the first Fascist Nation....as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'The first true enterprise of this kind was established in the in the United States under the *20th century&#8217;s first fascist dictator: Woodrow Wilson.* During WW I, under the Progressive Woodrow Wilson, American was a fascist nation.
> 
> a. Had the world&#8217;s first modern propaganda ministry
> 
> b. Political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon and thrown in jail for simply expressing private opinions.
> 
> c. The national leader accused foreigners and immigrants of injecting treasonous &#8216;poison&#8217; into the  American bloodstream
> 
> d.	Newspapers and magazines were closed for criticizing the government
> 
> e. Almost 100,000 government propaganda agents were sent out to whip up support for the regime and the war
> 
> f. College professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues
> 
> g. Nearly a quarter million &#8216;goons&#8217; were given legal authority to beat and intimidate &#8216;slackers&#8217; and dissenters
> 
> h. Leading artists and writers dedicated their work to proselytizing for the government.
> http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Classical_Liberalism_vs_Modern_Liberal_Conservatism.pdf p. 9
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RW will not be able to deny one single aspect listed above.
> He is left with no choice but to espouse Fascism.
> 
> 
> It is the Liberal/Progressive's concupiscence.....the inordinate lust for power and control, in evidence 'til this very day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who was Edmund Burke?
> The philosopher who is generally considered the father of modern conservatism.
> 
> Thread-http://www.usmessageboard.com/5001042-post1.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If I should claim any man as my master, that man would be Burke"
> Woodrow Wilson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wilson was both a racist and a fascist.
> 
> Wilson's quote means nothing, dolt.
> 
> When do you grow up an recognize that reality is defined by actions, not by words?
> 
> Ever?
> 
> 
> Can you deny any of the statements about Wilson?
> Any?
> 
> 
> None?
> 
> Now, think about what that means.
Click to expand...


Pure right wing propaganda. The world according to the Koch Brother's propaganda ministry; funded by all the major polluters on the planet. 

PC, you are the embodiment of active ignorance.

You wouldn't know Burke if it hit you in the face. There is nothing about your agenda that resembles Burke. It is so far to the right that Mussolini and Hitler would be embarrassed.

Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke

And as far as your icon Ronbo Reagan, it took every President who preceded him combined to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt. It took Reagan only five years to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. 

Reagan was the embodiment of the 'welfare queen' he chided. Reagan was the most fiscally irresponsible president in our history. Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a &#8220;tax and spend&#8221; policy, to a &#8220;borrow and spend&#8221; policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.

Ironic you quote Murray Rothbard...






*The Myths of Reaganomics*

Mises Daily: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 by Murray N. Rothbard

I come to bury Reaganomics, not to praise it.

How well has Reaganomics achieved its own goals? Perhaps the best way of discovering those goals is to recall the heady days of Ronald Reagan's first campaign for the presidency, especially before his triumph at the Republican National Convention in 1980. In general terms, Reagan pledged to return, or advance, to a free market and to "get government off our backs."

Specifically, Reagan called for a massive cut in government spending, an even more drastic cut in taxation (particularly the income tax), a balanced budget by 1984 (that wild-spender, Jimmy Carter you see, had raised the budget deficit to $74 billion a year, and this had to be eliminated), and a return to the gold standard, where money is supplied by the market rather than by government. In addition to a call for free markets domestically, Reagan affirmed his deep commitment to freedom of international trade. Not only did the upper echelons of the administration sport Adam Smith ties, in honor of that moderate free-trader, but Reagan himself affirmed the depth of the influence upon him of the mid-19th century laissez-faire economist, Frederic Bastiat, whose devastating and satiric attacks on protectionism have been anthologized in economics readings ever since.

The gold standard was the easiest pledge to dispose of. President Reagan appointed an allegedly impartial gold commission to study the problem&#8212;a commission overwhelmingly packed with lifelong opponents of gold. The commission presented its predictable report, and gold was quickly interred.

Let's run down the other important areas:

*Government Spending.* How well did Reagan succeed in cutting government spending, surely a critical ingredient in any plan to reduce the role of government in everyone's life? In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal government spent $591 billion. In 1986, the last recorded year of the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing government expenditures.

Sophisticated economists say that these absolute numbers are an unfair comparison, that we should compare federal spending in these two years as percentage of gross national product. But this strikes me as unfair in the opposite direction, because the greater the amount of inflation generated by the federal government, the higher will be the GNP. We might then be complimenting the government on a lower percentage of spending achieved by the government's generating inflation by creating more money. But even taking these percentages of GNP figures, we get federal spending as percent of GNP in 1980 as 21.6%, and after six years of Reagan, 24.3%. A better comparison would be percentage of federal spending to net private product, that is, production of the private sector. That percentage was 31.1% in 1980, and a shocking 34.3% in 1986. So even using percentages, the Reagan administration has brought us a substantial increase in government spending.

*Also, the excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget.*

Deficits. The next, and admittedly the most embarrassing, failure of Reaganomic goals is the deficit. Jimmy Carter habitually ran deficits of $40-50 billion and, by the end, up to $74 billion; but by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion, a level that seems to be permanent, despite desperate attempts to cook the figures in one-shot reductions.

This is by far the largest budget deficit in American history. It is true that the $50 billion deficits in World War II were a much higher percentage of the GNP; but the point is that that was a temporary, one-shot situation, the product of war finance. But the war was over in a few years; and the current federal deficits now seem to be a recent, but still permanent part of the American heritage.

One of the most curious, and least edifying, sights in the Reagan era was to see the Reaganites completely change their tune of a lifetime. At the very beginning of the Reagan administration, the conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives, convinced that deficits would disappear immediately, received a terrific shock when they were asked by the Reagan administration to vote for the usual annual increase in the statutory debt limit. These Republicans, some literally with tears in their eyes, protested that never in their lives had they voted for an increase in the national debt limit, but they were doing it just this one time because they "trusted Ronald Reagan" to balance the budget from then on. The rest, alas, is history, and the conservative Republicans never saw fit to cry again. Instead, they found themselves adjusting rather easily to the new era of huge permanent deficits. The Gramm-Rudman law, allegedly designed to eradicate deficits in a few years, has now unsurprisingly bogged down in enduring confusion.

The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily


----------



## Toronado3800

PoliticalChic said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that was tongue-in-cheek, Wicked....
> 
> ...but here is my major gripe with King Franklin the First:
> 
> He made all sorts if changes to the Constitution, but didn't have the courage to use the amendment process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can more or less agree with your last statement!  FDR may have saved America but did it a little shady like.
> 
> Heck, I say he created our America but still your point is valid the Cobstitution needs Ammendments more often. (like with the healthcare bill!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> My prediction all along was that the Court would find it constitutional.
> 
> Your point?
Click to expand...


Oh, I am NOT the legal expert but I think as good an idea as compulsive health insurance is, it is unconstitutional and the court got it wrong.  Thankfully?  Like I think it was you said, folks are too chicken sometimes to ammend the Constitution.

To go back to Reagan, I remember being younger and thinking "can a President just do that?" after our shelling and bombing sprees and the invasion of Grenada then the Bush 1 invasion of Panama.  So if them guys who can somehow declare war are our Constitutional Conservatives......they better find another platform to run on.

FWIW as I get older I see more of the New Deal influence in Reagan and find him more complex.  Communist hater.  Big deficit spender to pump the economy.  Militarily crazy but perhaps like Truman just to scare the Russians.  Bank Bailouter.  Union Buster but imposed the auto import tariff.  

Weird complex man.  Reagan lovers interest me also.  Seems they love the mystique while being against half the things the man did as President.  Obama deficit - BAD even though it gets smaller every year.  Reagan deficit good - even though his yearly trend was terrible.  This too big to fail / bailout - bad.  Reagan bailing out S&Ls - good.  Odd man that Reagan with power over folk's minds.


----------



## Locke11_21

Mad Scientist said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last 100 years
> 
> 1. FDR
> 2. Ike
> *3. Wilson*
> 4. Truman
> 5. Obama
> 6. Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson is the asshole who put us under Banker Control. Is that why you listed him?
Click to expand...



Teddy Roosevelt is the America-hating asshole who gave us Woodrow Wilson.  Roosevelt ran as a 3rd party candidate with the Progressive Bull Moose party which cost Howard Taft the presidency.  Remember, it was also Teddy Roosevelt who said "to hell with the Constitution".  Roosevelt was the first treasonist America-hating president.


----------



## Meathead

Wilson would have been a great president, but he ultimately failed.  Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan were great and will always be so because they succeeded and their accomplishments are the stuff of legend. The jury is still out on Obama, but unless he gets a tailwind of great success, he will be among the worst two-term presidents.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Bfgrn said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If I should claim any man as my master, that man would be Burke"
> Woodrow Wilson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson was both a racist and a fascist.
> 
> Wilson's quote means nothing, dolt.
> 
> When do you grow up an recognize that reality is defined by actions, not by words?
> 
> Ever?
> 
> 
> Can you deny any of the statements about Wilson?
> Any?
> 
> 
> None?
> 
> Now, think about what that means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pure right wing propaganda. The world according to the Koch Brother's propaganda ministry; funded by all the major polluters on the planet.
> 
> PC, you are the embodiment of active ignorance.
> 
> You wouldn't know Burke if it hit you in the face. There is nothing about your agenda that resembles Burke. It is so far to the right that Mussolini and Hitler would be embarrassed.
> 
> Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> And as far as your icon Ronbo Reagan, it took every President who preceded him combined to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt. It took Reagan only five years to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.
> 
> Reagan was the embodiment of the 'welfare queen' he chided. Reagan was the most fiscally irresponsible president in our history. Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a &#8220;tax and spend&#8221; policy, to a &#8220;borrow and spend&#8221; policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.
> 
> Ironic you quote Murray Rothbard...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Myths of Reaganomics*
> 
> Mises Daily: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 by Murray N. Rothbard
> 
> I come to bury Reaganomics, not to praise it.
> 
> How well has Reaganomics achieved its own goals? Perhaps the best way of discovering those goals is to recall the heady days of Ronald Reagan's first campaign for the presidency, especially before his triumph at the Republican National Convention in 1980. In general terms, Reagan pledged to return, or advance, to a free market and to "get government off our backs."
> 
> Specifically, Reagan called for a massive cut in government spending, an even more drastic cut in taxation (particularly the income tax), a balanced budget by 1984 (that wild-spender, Jimmy Carter you see, had raised the budget deficit to $74 billion a year, and this had to be eliminated), and a return to the gold standard, where money is supplied by the market rather than by government. In addition to a call for free markets domestically, Reagan affirmed his deep commitment to freedom of international trade. Not only did the upper echelons of the administration sport Adam Smith ties, in honor of that moderate free-trader, but Reagan himself affirmed the depth of the influence upon him of the mid-19th century laissez-faire economist, Frederic Bastiat, whose devastating and satiric attacks on protectionism have been anthologized in economics readings ever since.
> 
> The gold standard was the easiest pledge to dispose of. President Reagan appointed an allegedly impartial gold commission to study the problem&#8212;a commission overwhelmingly packed with lifelong opponents of gold. The commission presented its predictable report, and gold was quickly interred.
> 
> Let's run down the other important areas:
> 
> *Government Spending.* How well did Reagan succeed in cutting government spending, surely a critical ingredient in any plan to reduce the role of government in everyone's life? In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal government spent $591 billion. In 1986, the last recorded year of the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing government expenditures.
> 
> Sophisticated economists say that these absolute numbers are an unfair comparison, that we should compare federal spending in these two years as percentage of gross national product. But this strikes me as unfair in the opposite direction, because the greater the amount of inflation generated by the federal government, the higher will be the GNP. We might then be complimenting the government on a lower percentage of spending achieved by the government's generating inflation by creating more money. But even taking these percentages of GNP figures, we get federal spending as percent of GNP in 1980 as 21.6%, and after six years of Reagan, 24.3%. A better comparison would be percentage of federal spending to net private product, that is, production of the private sector. That percentage was 31.1% in 1980, and a shocking 34.3% in 1986. So even using percentages, the Reagan administration has brought us a substantial increase in government spending.
> 
> *Also, the excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget.*
> 
> Deficits. The next, and admittedly the most embarrassing, failure of Reaganomic goals is the deficit. Jimmy Carter habitually ran deficits of $40-50 billion and, by the end, up to $74 billion; but by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion, a level that seems to be permanent, despite desperate attempts to cook the figures in one-shot reductions.
> 
> This is by far the largest budget deficit in American history. It is true that the $50 billion deficits in World War II were a much higher percentage of the GNP; but the point is that that was a temporary, one-shot situation, the product of war finance. But the war was over in a few years; and the current federal deficits now seem to be a recent, but still permanent part of the American heritage.
> 
> One of the most curious, and least edifying, sights in the Reagan era was to see the Reaganites completely change their tune of a lifetime. At the very beginning of the Reagan administration, the conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives, convinced that deficits would disappear immediately, received a terrific shock when they were asked by the Reagan administration to vote for the usual annual increase in the statutory debt limit. These Republicans, some literally with tears in their eyes, protested that never in their lives had they voted for an increase in the national debt limit, but they were doing it just this one time because they "trusted Ronald Reagan" to balance the budget from then on. The rest, alas, is history, and the conservative Republicans never saw fit to cry again. Instead, they found themselves adjusting rather easily to the new era of huge permanent deficits. The Gramm-Rudman law, allegedly designed to eradicate deficits in a few years, has now unsurprisingly bogged down in enduring confusion.
> 
> The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily
Click to expand...



Woodrow Wilson:
a. Had the world&#8217;s first modern propaganda ministry

b. Political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon and thrown in jail for simply expressing private opinions. 

c. The national leader accused foreigners and immigrants of injecting treasonous &#8216;poison&#8217; into the American bloodstream

d.	Newspapers and magazines were closed for criticizing the government

e. Almost 100,000 government propaganda agents were sent out to whip up support for the regime and the war

f. College professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues 

g. Nearly a quarter million &#8216;goons&#8217; were given legal authority to beat and intimidate &#8216;slackers&#8217; and dissenters

h. Leading artists and writers dedicated their work to proselytizing for the government.




No, none of the above is untrue.


You, being educate, would be an example of untrue.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson was both a racist and a fascist.
> 
> Wilson's quote means nothing, dolt.
> 
> When do you grow up an recognize that reality is defined by actions, not by words?
> 
> Ever?
> 
> 
> Can you deny any of the statements about Wilson?
> Any?
> 
> 
> None?
> 
> Now, think about what that means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pure right wing propaganda. The world according to the Koch Brother's propaganda ministry; funded by all the major polluters on the planet.
> 
> PC, you are the embodiment of active ignorance.
> 
> You wouldn't know Burke if it hit you in the face. There is nothing about your agenda that resembles Burke. It is so far to the right that Mussolini and Hitler would be embarrassed.
> 
> Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> And as far as your icon Ronbo Reagan, it took every President who preceded him combined to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt. It took Reagan only five years to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.
> 
> Reagan was the embodiment of the 'welfare queen' he chided. Reagan was the most fiscally irresponsible president in our history. Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a &#8220;tax and spend&#8221; policy, to a &#8220;borrow and spend&#8221; policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.
> 
> Ironic you quote Murray Rothbard...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Myths of Reaganomics*
> 
> Mises Daily: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 by Murray N. Rothbard
> 
> I come to bury Reaganomics, not to praise it.
> 
> How well has Reaganomics achieved its own goals? Perhaps the best way of discovering those goals is to recall the heady days of Ronald Reagan's first campaign for the presidency, especially before his triumph at the Republican National Convention in 1980. In general terms, Reagan pledged to return, or advance, to a free market and to "get government off our backs."
> 
> Specifically, Reagan called for a massive cut in government spending, an even more drastic cut in taxation (particularly the income tax), a balanced budget by 1984 (that wild-spender, Jimmy Carter you see, had raised the budget deficit to $74 billion a year, and this had to be eliminated), and a return to the gold standard, where money is supplied by the market rather than by government. In addition to a call for free markets domestically, Reagan affirmed his deep commitment to freedom of international trade. Not only did the upper echelons of the administration sport Adam Smith ties, in honor of that moderate free-trader, but Reagan himself affirmed the depth of the influence upon him of the mid-19th century laissez-faire economist, Frederic Bastiat, whose devastating and satiric attacks on protectionism have been anthologized in economics readings ever since.
> 
> The gold standard was the easiest pledge to dispose of. President Reagan appointed an allegedly impartial gold commission to study the problem&#8212;a commission overwhelmingly packed with lifelong opponents of gold. The commission presented its predictable report, and gold was quickly interred.
> 
> Let's run down the other important areas:
> 
> *Government Spending.* How well did Reagan succeed in cutting government spending, surely a critical ingredient in any plan to reduce the role of government in everyone's life? In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal government spent $591 billion. In 1986, the last recorded year of the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing government expenditures.
> 
> Sophisticated economists say that these absolute numbers are an unfair comparison, that we should compare federal spending in these two years as percentage of gross national product. But this strikes me as unfair in the opposite direction, because the greater the amount of inflation generated by the federal government, the higher will be the GNP. We might then be complimenting the government on a lower percentage of spending achieved by the government's generating inflation by creating more money. But even taking these percentages of GNP figures, we get federal spending as percent of GNP in 1980 as 21.6%, and after six years of Reagan, 24.3%. A better comparison would be percentage of federal spending to net private product, that is, production of the private sector. That percentage was 31.1% in 1980, and a shocking 34.3% in 1986. So even using percentages, the Reagan administration has brought us a substantial increase in government spending.
> 
> *Also, the excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget.*
> 
> Deficits. The next, and admittedly the most embarrassing, failure of Reaganomic goals is the deficit. Jimmy Carter habitually ran deficits of $40-50 billion and, by the end, up to $74 billion; but by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion, a level that seems to be permanent, despite desperate attempts to cook the figures in one-shot reductions.
> 
> This is by far the largest budget deficit in American history. It is true that the $50 billion deficits in World War II were a much higher percentage of the GNP; but the point is that that was a temporary, one-shot situation, the product of war finance. But the war was over in a few years; and the current federal deficits now seem to be a recent, but still permanent part of the American heritage.
> 
> One of the most curious, and least edifying, sights in the Reagan era was to see the Reaganites completely change their tune of a lifetime. At the very beginning of the Reagan administration, the conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives, convinced that deficits would disappear immediately, received a terrific shock when they were asked by the Reagan administration to vote for the usual annual increase in the statutory debt limit. These Republicans, some literally with tears in their eyes, protested that never in their lives had they voted for an increase in the national debt limit, but they were doing it just this one time because they "trusted Ronald Reagan" to balance the budget from then on. The rest, alas, is history, and the conservative Republicans never saw fit to cry again. Instead, they found themselves adjusting rather easily to the new era of huge permanent deficits. The Gramm-Rudman law, allegedly designed to eradicate deficits in a few years, has now unsurprisingly bogged down in enduring confusion.
> 
> The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Woodrow Wilson:
> a. Had the world&#8217;s first modern propaganda ministry
> 
> b. Political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon and thrown in jail for simply expressing private opinions.
> 
> c. The national leader accused foreigners and immigrants of injecting treasonous &#8216;poison&#8217; into the American bloodstream
> 
> d.	Newspapers and magazines were closed for criticizing the government
> 
> e. Almost 100,000 government propaganda agents were sent out to whip up support for the regime and the war
> 
> f. College professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues
> 
> g. Nearly a quarter million &#8216;goons&#8217; were given legal authority to beat and intimidate &#8216;slackers&#8217; and dissenters
> 
> h. Leading artists and writers dedicated their work to proselytizing for the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, none of the above is untrue.
> 
> 
> You, being educate, would be an example of untrue.
Click to expand...


Wow, heady stuff

Do you mean that in WWI we actually engaged in propaganda? Perish the thought


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Treason is noble compared to what your side stands for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your posts are becoming more and more outlandish.
> 
> I'm beginning to fear for your health.
> 
> Or....you may not understand the term 'treason.'
> 
> Let me help:
> 
> trea·son
> /&#712;tr&#275;z&#601;n/
> Noun
> The crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
> The action of betraying someone or something.
> Synonyms
> treachery - betrayal - perfidy - disloyalty - sellout
Click to expand...


I stand sanely by what I said. 

The treasonous Americans that I see are actually on the right.


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> More cut & paste from USMB's resident non-thinker.
> 
> Cut-N-Run Reagan was a RINO.  By today's standards, McCain and Mittens are both more conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well....as you must be the 'great thinker,' could you find any errors in the post to which you ostensibly are responding?
> 
> 
> If you cannot....the conclusion of the OP is overwhelming.
> 
> You're on.......Let's see what you've got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Wow....it was that easy to expose the 'great thinker.'
> 
> He ran away and hid.*
> 
> 
> My, oh, my....frightened away!  What a delicate child you are, Synthy....
> 
> .you must wash in Woolite.
Click to expand...


He probably fell asleep reading one of your posts.


----------



## NoNukes

Quote: Originally Posted by rightwinger 
Last 100 years

1. FDR
2. Ike
3. Wilson
4. Truman
5. Obama
6. Reagan

I would rate both Nixon and Clinton higher than Reagan.


----------



## Votto

Synthaholic said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grover Cleveland.
> 
> 
> 
> More than 100 years ago, dumbass.
Click to expand...


In other words, who was the greatest progressive president of all time.  After all, it was a century dominated exlusively by progressives.

As for Reagan, conservatives view him as their only representative.  However, as has been said, he enlarged government, and did not limit it.  He increased the debt, and did not reduce it.

I guess it beats coming to the realization that as a conservative, you have no representation in government and never will have.

As for Wilson, he by far had the greatest accomplishments of the progressive movement.  After all, he enabled the system to exist via the federal income tax in order to feed the beast.  Then he created the Fed to centrally control the economy.  Progressives claim that it was created to promote stalization, but fail to mention that shortly after their creation the Great Depression hit.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pure right wing propaganda. The world according to the Koch Brother's propaganda ministry; funded by all the major polluters on the planet.
> 
> PC, you are the embodiment of active ignorance.
> 
> You wouldn't know Burke if it hit you in the face. There is nothing about your agenda that resembles Burke. It is so far to the right that Mussolini and Hitler would be embarrassed.
> 
> Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> And as far as your icon Ronbo Reagan, it took every President who preceded him combined to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt. It took Reagan only five years to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.
> 
> Reagan was the embodiment of the 'welfare queen' he chided. Reagan was the most fiscally irresponsible president in our history. Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.
> 
> Ironic you quote Murray Rothbard...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Myths of Reaganomics*
> 
> Mises Daily: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 by Murray N. Rothbard
> 
> I come to bury Reaganomics, not to praise it.
> 
> How well has Reaganomics achieved its own goals? Perhaps the best way of discovering those goals is to recall the heady days of Ronald Reagan's first campaign for the presidency, especially before his triumph at the Republican National Convention in 1980. In general terms, Reagan pledged to return, or advance, to a free market and to "get government off our backs."
> 
> Specifically, Reagan called for a massive cut in government spending, an even more drastic cut in taxation (particularly the income tax), a balanced budget by 1984 (that wild-spender, Jimmy Carter you see, had raised the budget deficit to $74 billion a year, and this had to be eliminated), and a return to the gold standard, where money is supplied by the market rather than by government. In addition to a call for free markets domestically, Reagan affirmed his deep commitment to freedom of international trade. Not only did the upper echelons of the administration sport Adam Smith ties, in honor of that moderate free-trader, but Reagan himself affirmed the depth of the influence upon him of the mid-19th century laissez-faire economist, Frederic Bastiat, whose devastating and satiric attacks on protectionism have been anthologized in economics readings ever since.
> 
> The gold standard was the easiest pledge to dispose of. President Reagan appointed an allegedly impartial gold commission to study the problema commission overwhelmingly packed with lifelong opponents of gold. The commission presented its predictable report, and gold was quickly interred.
> 
> Let's run down the other important areas:
> 
> *Government Spending.* How well did Reagan succeed in cutting government spending, surely a critical ingredient in any plan to reduce the role of government in everyone's life? In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal government spent $591 billion. In 1986, the last recorded year of the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing government expenditures.
> 
> Sophisticated economists say that these absolute numbers are an unfair comparison, that we should compare federal spending in these two years as percentage of gross national product. But this strikes me as unfair in the opposite direction, because the greater the amount of inflation generated by the federal government, the higher will be the GNP. We might then be complimenting the government on a lower percentage of spending achieved by the government's generating inflation by creating more money. But even taking these percentages of GNP figures, we get federal spending as percent of GNP in 1980 as 21.6%, and after six years of Reagan, 24.3%. A better comparison would be percentage of federal spending to net private product, that is, production of the private sector. That percentage was 31.1% in 1980, and a shocking 34.3% in 1986. So even using percentages, the Reagan administration has brought us a substantial increase in government spending.
> 
> *Also, the excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget.*
> 
> Deficits. The next, and admittedly the most embarrassing, failure of Reaganomic goals is the deficit. Jimmy Carter habitually ran deficits of $40-50 billion and, by the end, up to $74 billion; but by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion, a level that seems to be permanent, despite desperate attempts to cook the figures in one-shot reductions.
> 
> This is by far the largest budget deficit in American history. It is true that the $50 billion deficits in World War II were a much higher percentage of the GNP; but the point is that that was a temporary, one-shot situation, the product of war finance. But the war was over in a few years; and the current federal deficits now seem to be a recent, but still permanent part of the American heritage.
> 
> One of the most curious, and least edifying, sights in the Reagan era was to see the Reaganites completely change their tune of a lifetime. At the very beginning of the Reagan administration, the conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives, convinced that deficits would disappear immediately, received a terrific shock when they were asked by the Reagan administration to vote for the usual annual increase in the statutory debt limit. These Republicans, some literally with tears in their eyes, protested that never in their lives had they voted for an increase in the national debt limit, but they were doing it just this one time because they "trusted Ronald Reagan" to balance the budget from then on. The rest, alas, is history, and the conservative Republicans never saw fit to cry again. Instead, they found themselves adjusting rather easily to the new era of huge permanent deficits. The Gramm-Rudman law, allegedly designed to eradicate deficits in a few years, has now unsurprisingly bogged down in enduring confusion.
> 
> The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woodrow Wilson:
> a. Had the worlds first modern propaganda ministry
> 
> b. Political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon and thrown in jail for simply expressing private opinions.
> 
> c. The national leader accused foreigners and immigrants of injecting treasonous poison into the American bloodstream
> 
> d.	Newspapers and magazines were closed for criticizing the government
> 
> e. Almost 100,000 government propaganda agents were sent out to whip up support for the regime and the war
> 
> f. College professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues
> 
> g. Nearly a quarter million goons were given legal authority to beat and intimidate slackers and dissenters
> 
> h. Leading artists and writers dedicated their work to proselytizing for the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, none of the above is untrue.
> 
> 
> You, being educate, would be an example of untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, heady stuff
> 
> Do you mean that in WWI we actually engaged in propaganda? Perish the thought
Click to expand...




Let's counter the vacuous stuff that you usually post with actual information...and, as you have attempted to shield Wilson, it will indicate your fascist leaning....


1.	The Wilson Propaganda Ministry

a.	George Creel was named to head the Committee on Public Information, the CPI. How liberal was he: served as police commissioner in Denver, depriving policemen of guns and nightsticks(JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie)  Fear was a vital tool, an important element to be bred into the civilian population. (Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, p.109) He recruited about 75,000 "Four Minute Men," who spoke about the War at social events for an ideal length of four minutes, considering that the average human attention span was judged at the time to be four minutes.( George Creel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

b.	The official position of the US government's Committee on Public Information was: "The force of an idea lies in its inspirational value. It matters very little if it is true or false." JTM | Full text | Comments on the nonpharmaceutical interventions in New York City and Chicago during the 1918 influenza pandemic
BTW....the same idea came from Georges Sorel, ideological father of the Left.

c.	Wilsons Sedition Act, May 1918 banned uttering, printing, writing, or publishing any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the United States government  of the military.

d.	The postmaster general had authority to deny mailing privileges to any publication: at least 75 were banned. The supply of newsprint was halted by the War Industries Board of any journal that disparaged the draft.  

e.	The censorship of The Masses was prosecuted under the Espionage Act of June 1917, because it carried a cartoon proclaiming that it was a war to make the world safe for capitalism, and editorials praising draft resistors. Six editors trial resulted in hung juries. 

f.	He proclaimed that the greatest threat came from hyphenated Americans: I cannot say too often- any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic whenever he gets ready. CONGRESS CHEERS AS WILSON URGES CURB ON PLOTTERS - Wild Applause Greets the President's Denunciation of Disloyal Citizens. ACCLAIM DEFENSE PLANS Members of Both Parties Express Approval of His Sentiments on Preparedness. UPHOLDS PAN-AMERICANISM Warns

g.	The Nation, on April 17, 1920, recounted how a clothing salesman received six months in jail for saying that Vladimir Lenin was smart. "The Most Brainiest Man?" The Red Scare and Free Speech in Connecticut 

Because the Oklahoma Council of Defense was an extralegal organization, numerous incidents of extreme measures occurred to eliminate dissent. Men were beaten with leather straps and tarred and feathered. OKLAHOMA COUNCIL OF DEFENSE



Here....let me help you: claim it was too long so you didn't read it....

That help?


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Woodrow Wilson:
> a. Had the world&#8217;s first modern propaganda ministry
> 
> b. Political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon and thrown in jail for simply expressing private opinions.
> 
> c. The national leader accused foreigners and immigrants of injecting treasonous &#8216;poison&#8217; into the American bloodstream
> 
> d.	Newspapers and magazines were closed for criticizing the government
> 
> e. Almost 100,000 government propaganda agents were sent out to whip up support for the regime and the war
> 
> f. College professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues
> 
> g. Nearly a quarter million &#8216;goons&#8217; were given legal authority to beat and intimidate &#8216;slackers&#8217; and dissenters
> 
> h. Leading artists and writers dedicated their work to proselytizing for the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, none of the above is untrue.
> 
> 
> You, being educate, would be an example of untrue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, heady stuff
> 
> Do you mean that in WWI we actually engaged in propaganda? Perish the thought
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's counter the vacuous stuff that you usually post with actual information...and, as you have attempted to shield Wilson, it will indicate your fascist leaning....
> 
> 
> 1.	The Wilson Propaganda Ministry
> 
> a.	George Creel was named to head the Committee on Public Information, the CPI. How liberal was he: &#8220;served as police commissioner in Denver, depriving policemen of guns and nightsticks&#8221;(JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie)  Fear was a vital tool, &#8220;an important element to be bred into the civilian population.&#8221; (Goldberg, &#8220;Liberal Fascism,&#8221; p.109) He recruited about 75,000 "Four Minute Men," who spoke about the War at social events for an ideal length of four minutes, considering that the average human attention span was judged at the time to be four minutes.( George Creel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
> 
> b.	The official position of the US government's Committee on Public Information was: "The force of an idea lies in its inspirational value. It matters very little if it is true or false." JTM | Full text | Comments on the nonpharmaceutical interventions in New York City and Chicago during the 1918 influenza pandemic
> BTW....the same idea came from Georges Sorel, ideological father of the Left.
> 
> c.	Wilson&#8217;s Sedition Act, May 1918 banned &#8220;uttering, printing, writing, or publishing any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the United States government  of the military.
> 
> d.	The postmaster general had authority to deny mailing privileges to any publication: at least 75 were banned. The supply of newsprint was halted by the War Industries Board of any journal that disparaged the draft.
> 
> e.	The censorship of &#8220;The Masses&#8221; was prosecuted under the Espionage Act of June 1917, because it carried a cartoon proclaiming that it was a war to &#8220;make the world safe for capitalism,&#8221; and editorials praising draft resistors. Six editors&#8217; trial resulted in hung juries.
> 
> f.	He proclaimed that the greatest threat came from &#8216;hyphenated&#8217; Americans: &#8220;I cannot say too often- any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic whenever he gets ready.&#8221; CONGRESS CHEERS AS WILSON URGES CURB ON PLOTTERS - Wild Applause Greets the President's Denunciation of Disloyal Citizens. ACCLAIM DEFENSE PLANS Members of Both Parties Express Approval of His Sentiments on Preparedness. UPHOLDS PAN-AMERICANISM Warns
> 
> g.	&#8220;The Nation, on April 17, 1920, recounted how a clothing salesman received six months in jail for saying that Vladimir Lenin was smart.&#8221; "The Most Brainiest Man?" The Red Scare and Free Speech in Connecticut
> 
> Because the Oklahoma Council of Defense was an extralegal organization, numerous incidents of extreme measures occurred to eliminate dissent. Men were beaten with leather straps and tarred and feathered. OKLAHOMA COUNCIL OF DEFENSE
> 
> 
> 
> Here....let me help you: claim it was too long so you didn't read it....
> 
> That help?
Click to expand...


Yea....shit like this tends to happen in times of war

How do you think we ended up with that stinker "Patriot Act" ???


----------



## Synthaholic

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well....as you must be the 'great thinker,' could you find any errors in the post to which you ostensibly are responding?
> 
> 
> If you cannot....the conclusion of the OP is overwhelming.
> 
> You're on.......Let's see what you've got.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Wow....it was that easy to expose the 'great thinker.'
> 
> He ran away and hid.*
> 
> 
> My, oh, my....frightened away!  What a delicate child you are, Synthy....
> 
> &#8230;.you must wash in Woolite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He probably fell asleep reading one of your posts.
Click to expand...

No, I replied to her - she, in her typical dishonesty, ignored it and then claims I've run away.

This is what she does, unfortunately.


----------



## NoNukes

Synthaholic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Wow....it was that easy to expose the 'great thinker.'
> 
> He ran away and hid.*
> 
> 
> My, oh, my....frightened away!  What a delicate child you are, Synthy....
> 
> .you must wash in Woolite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He probably fell asleep reading one of your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I replied to her - she, in her typical dishonesty, ignored it and then claims I've run away.
> 
> This is what she does, unfortunately.
Click to expand...


Could you put that in separate numbered sentences please?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Toronado3800 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, look at those who thanked you for this thread, must make you so proud.
> 
> So, your opinion is yours, and I'm sure your not alone notwithstanding the many surveys wherein the top five have always included FDR, TR and your favorite WW (of the last 100 years, of course.)
> 
> That aside, one of the great achievments of our remote and unkown ancestors was _mesurement_.  Now measurement is only a form of description, but its advantage is it allows us to provide quantative descriptions in place of qualitive ones, as you have done.
> 
> Would you elaborate on the entire record of President Reagan which makes him the greatest of the last 100 years?  Compare and contrast him to TR and FDR and make an argument that Reagan made history and not revised history made the legend of RR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan freed the Eastern Europeans from the horrific oppression of Soviet Communism, the very same countries FDR turned over control to one of history's 2 greatest mass murderers "Uncle" Joe Stalin
> 
> And if FDR's awful economic performance makes him "great", Reagan's economic performance makes him a God
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about Frank?  They were both deficit spenders to pump the economy...  If you voted for Reagan Bush and Bush it makes sense that you like deficit spending big government.
Click to expand...


I know this is hard maybe impossible for you to understand because Democrats look to big government and Progressive leaders like Rihanna looks to Chris Brown but I despise the Bushes. I suspect that HW was personally involved in the Reagan assassination and his son fucked Conservatives far worse than any Liberal coyld hsve


----------



## Synthaholic

My list, based on accomplishments as POTUS:



 FDR
Johnson
Truman
Wilson
Nixon
Obama
Kennedy
Clinton
Eisenhower
Coolidge
George H.W. Bush
Reagan
Carter
Taft
Ford
Hoover
George W. Bush
Harding


Teddy Roosevelt was more than 100 years ago.


----------



## Synthaholic

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan freed the Eastern Europeans from the horrific oppression of Soviet Communism, the very same countries FDR turned over control to one of history's 2 greatest mass murderers "Uncle" Joe Stalin
> 
> And if FDR's awful economic performance makes him "great", Reagan's economic performance makes him a God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about Frank?  They were both deficit spenders to pump the economy...  If you voted for Reagan Bush and Bush it makes sense that you like deficit spending big government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know this is hard maybe impossible for you to understand because Democrats look to big government and Progressive leaders like Rihanna looks to Chris Brown but I despise the Bushes. *I suspect that HW was personally involved in the Reagan assassination* and his son fucked Conservatives far worse than any Liberal coyld hsve
Click to expand...



Wow.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Toronado3800 said:


> Oh Frank, June 1945.  Do you send Patton east?
> 
> Be proud and answer.  If I was President in 1870 I don't know if I would have stopped manifest destiny from destroying the natives.
> 
> In June of 45 I would have been militarily leery of a war with Russia.  You?  What eould you have done?



A few things actually before heading east. First reconstitute all German units and integrate them with US units. Provide air cover for industries producing tanks and guns and ammo, put engineers on the task of coordinating German munitions on US units, image the Sherman Easy 8 with the 88L71 gun. Set up factories to produce massive amounts of rocket and cannon ammo for the Army air force because the proper name for Soviet tanks tank destroyers and artillery without air cover is "target practice"


----------



## CrusaderFrank

FDR: handed million of slaves and victims to Stalin, dragged the US economy down for 7 fucking years so he could experiment with a centrally planned economy.

Where the greatness?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Synthaholic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about Frank?  They were both deficit spenders to pump the economy...  If you voted for Reagan Bush and Bush it makes sense that you like deficit spending big government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know this is hard maybe impossible for you to understand because Democrats look to big government and Progressive leaders like Rihanna looks to Chris Brown but I despise the Bushes. *I suspect that HW was personally involved in the Reagan assassination* and his son fucked Conservatives far worse than any Liberal coyld hsve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
Click to expand...


It's like LBJ whacking JFK and MLK, it's there, you just need to think about it

Oh, right, I see why you'd have a problem with that


----------



## PoliticalChic

CrusaderFrank said:


> FDR: handed million of slaves and victims to Stalin, dragged the US economy down for 7 fucking years so he could experiment with a centrally planned economy.
> 
> Where the greatness?



"But the exposure to investors that Morgenthau was getting through the gold purchase project of 1933 was already teaching him something. Investors didn't like the arbitrariness. It took away their confidence. One day Morgenthau asked FDR why the president had chosen to drive up the price of gold by 21 cents. The president cavalierly said he'd done that because 21 was seven times three, and three was a lucky number. "If anyone ever knew how we really set the gold price through a combination of lucky numbers etc., I think they would be frightened," Morgenthau wrote in his diary. And they were: In the second half of 1933 a powerful stock rally flattened."
FDR, Obama and 'Confidence' - Council on Foreign Relations

"The president cavalierly..."
As he did with so very many things......


----------



## Synthaholic

CrusaderFrank said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know this is hard maybe impossible for you to understand because Democrats look to big government and Progressive leaders like Rihanna looks to Chris Brown but I despise the Bushes. *I suspect that HW was personally involved in the Reagan assassination* and his son fucked Conservatives far worse than any Liberal coyld hsve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It's like LBJ whacking JFK and MLK*, it's there, you just need to think about it
> 
> Oh, right, I see why you'd have a problem with that
Click to expand...


----------



## PoliticalChic

Synthaholic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It's like LBJ whacking JFK and MLK*, it's there, you just need to think about it
> 
> Oh, right, I see why you'd have a problem with that
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Seems, without emoticons, you'd be pretty much mute.


But...mute is appropriate considering the content and import of your posts.


----------



## Synthaholic

PoliticalChic said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It's like LBJ whacking JFK and MLK*, it's there, you just need to think about it
> 
> Oh, right, I see why you'd have a problem with that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems, without emoticons, you'd be pretty much mute.
> 
> 
> But...mute is appropriate considering the content and import of your posts.
Click to expand...


Wrong again, Poster Of Other People's Opinions.

Instead of the emoticon I could have easily typed "you're crazy".


----------



## PoliticalChic

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems, without emoticons, you'd be pretty much mute.
> 
> 
> But...mute is appropriate considering the content and import of your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again, Poster Of Other People's Opinions.
> 
> Instead of the emoticon I could have easily typed "you're crazy".
Click to expand...




How would you determine that an opinion isn't mine, dunce?

That's why you need to stick to emoticons.


----------



## Synthaholic

PoliticalChic said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems, without emoticons, you'd be pretty much mute.
> 
> 
> But...mute is appropriate considering the content and import of your posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, Poster Of Other People's Opinions.
> 
> Instead of the emoticon I could have easily typed "you're crazy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you determine that an opinion isn't mine, dunce?
> 
> That's why you need to stick to emoticons.
Click to expand...

I never see your opinions.  Just Ann Coulter's, or whomever you are cutting and pasting at any given moment.


----------



## rightwinger

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, Poster Of Other People's Opinions.
> 
> Instead of the emoticon I could have easily typed "you're crazy".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you determine that an opinion isn't mine, dunce?
> 
> That's why you need to stick to emoticons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never see your opinions.  Just Ann Coulter's, or whomever you are cutting and pasting at any given moment.
Click to expand...


Ann Coulters opinion IS her opinion

Try to keep up will ya?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Truthmatters said:


> reagan ballooned the deficit.



exactly.all these idiots who rank him as the greatest president in the last 100 years are just that.It was his policys that led us to having the the deficit reach a trillion worse than all presents before him COMBINED!!!! Im sure others here have pointed out facts as well but I got some more I will be posting tomorrow that proves this corrupt bastard couldnt carry JFK's jockstrap who was easily by far the greatest president hands down in the last 100 years.at that time,Reagan was the most corrupt president ever.each since then has been worse than him.

i got a lot more i will post on reagans corruption tomorrow.i am just getting started.everyone here should ignore agent rightwinger troll.He ignores facts that prove him wrong as evidenced here.oh and it IS about presidents so dont let the tile of the thread fools you.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/sports/267171-nfl-playoffs-new-orleans-bound-14.html

did you happen to notice how he ran away and had no rebuttal to the facts that prove him wrong?



the american sheople think Reagan was great cause they give him credit for the collapse of communism in Russia when the TRUTH of the matter is it would have happened at that time no matter who was president cause it was internal strifes withing the soviet union and infighting there that led to the collpase of communism.many history experts have said that as well.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, Poster Of Other People's Opinions.
> 
> Instead of the emoticon I could have easily typed "you're crazy".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you determine that an opinion isn't mine, dunce?
> 
> That's why you need to stick to emoticons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never see your opinions.  Just Ann Coulter's, or whomever you are cutting and pasting at any given moment.
Click to expand...




So your view is that the passages quoted are selected at random?
Whatever comes up that day?


No....even you can't be that stupid.

The truth is that you are unable to compete, much less defeat, the well constructed OP's...so the best you can do is carp about my style.


That's the truth, isn't it.


Advice: avail yourself of the institutions known as libraries. 
Have an adult help you get a card....then you can borrow books

The next step may be frightening to you, so I won't detail how those things called 'books'
are used.
But....you may get the idea.


Of course, the degree of difficulty is considerably greater than using emoticons....so you may decide against those steps.


But...with effort....someday you may be other than a compendium of fatuity


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you determine that an opinion isn't mine, dunce?
> 
> That's why you need to stick to emoticons.
> 
> 
> 
> I never see your opinions.  Just Ann Coulter's, or whomever you are cutting and pasting at any given moment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ann Coulters opinion IS her opinion
> 
> Try to keep up will ya?
Click to expand...





So....where did you two meet....eHarmony?


----------



## PoliticalChic

9/11 inside job said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> reagan ballooned the deficit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> exactly.all these idiots who rank him as the greatest president in the last 100 years are just that.It was his policys that led us to having the the deficit reach a trillion worse than all presents before him COMBINED!!!! Im sure others here have pointed out facts as well but I got some more I will be posting tomorrow that proves this corrupt bastard couldnt carry JFK's jockstrap who was easily by far the greatest president hands down in the last 100 years.at that time,Reagan was the most corrupt president ever.each since then has been worse than him.
> 
> i got a lot more i will post on reagans corruption tomorrow.i am just getting started.everyone here should ignore agent rightwinger troll.He ignores facts that prove him wrong as evidenced here.oh and it IS about presidents so dont let the tile of the thread fools you.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/sports/267171-nfl-playoffs-new-orleans-bound-14.html
> 
> did you happen to notice how he ran away and had no rebuttal to the facts that prove him wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> the american sheople think Reagan was great cause they give him credit for the collapse of communism in Russia when the TRUTH of the matter is it would have happened at that time no matter who was president cause it was internal strifes withing the soviet union and infighting there that led to the collpase of communism.many history experts have said that as well.
Click to expand...




So....today is your first day out of the 'nervous' hospital?


----------



## Dante

*How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan*

How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan - Salon.com

 Monday, Feb 2, 2009 03:28 AM PST
How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan
With the Gipper's reputation flagging after Clinton, neoconservatives launched a stealthy campaign to remake him as a "great" president.
By Will Bunch



> In a sense, some of the credit for triggering this may belong to those supposedly liberal editors at the New York Times, and their decision at the end of 1996 to publish that Arthur Schlesinger Jr. survey of the presidents. The below-average rating by the historians for Reagan, coming right on the heels of Clintons&#8217; easy reelection victory, was a wake-up call for these people who came to Washington in the 1980s as the shock troops of a revolution and now saw everything slipping away. The first Reagan salvos came from the Heritage Foundation, the same conservative think tank that also had feted the 10th anniversary of the Reagan tax cut in 1991. After its initial article slamming the Times, the foundation&#8217;s magazine, Policy Review, came back in July 1997 with a second piece for its 20th anniversary issue: &#8220;Reagan Betrayed: Are Conservatives Fumbling His Legacy?&#8221;
> 
> The coming contours of the Reagan myth were neatly laid out in a series of short essays from the leaders of the conservative movement: that the Gipper deserved all or at least most of the credit for winning the Cold War, that the economic boom that Americans were enjoying in 1997 was the result of the Reagan tax cut (and not the march toward balanced budgets, lower interest rates and targeted investment), and that the biggest problem with the GOP was, as the title suggested, not Reagan&#8217;s legacy but a new generation of weak-kneed leaders who were getting it all wrong. The tone was established by none other than Reagan&#8217;s own son, Michael, now himself a talk-radio host, who wrote: &#8220;Although my father is the one afflicted with Alzheimer&#8217;s disease, I sometimes think the Republicans are suffering a much greater memory loss. They have forgotten Ronald Reagan&#8217;s accomplishments &#8212; and that is why we have lost so many of them.&#8221;



*How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan*



> The Ronald Reagan Legacy Project was hatched in the spring of 1997 &#8212; and perhaps like any successful guerrilla operation, there was an element of surprise. There was no formal announcement, nothing to tip off any alarmists on the left. Rather than incorporate the Reagan project as a separate entity, which carried the potential of greater scrutiny of its operations and its finances, it was simply a unit of the group that Norquist had been overseeing for more than a decade, the Americans for Tax Reform. The Reagan Legacy Project would not even get its first mention in print until October 23, 1997 &#8212; by then its first bold proposal had two key backers in Georgia Rep. Bob Barr and that state&#8217;s Republican Sen. Paul Coverdell. They had endorsed legislation that would rename the Capitol region&#8217;s busy domestic airport, Washington National, as Reagan National. The renaming would not only mean that millions of air travelers would pass through the facility named for the 40th president, but a disproportionate number would be from the nation&#8217;s liberal elites, especially in Big Media, who used the airport&#8217;s popular shuttle service. Simply put, Reagan National Airport would be a weekly thumb in the eye of the Yankee elites who were still belittling the aging Gipper&#8217;s presidency.



*How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan* 

---

*Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101*
*1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives*​
This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit



> *1988:* Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
> George Will
> 
> As the end of President Reagan&#8217;s final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their own&#8212;a crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific. But *recent events&#8212;Reagan&#8217;s recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan.*
> 
> Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985). Attempts by administration hardliners to get &#8220;soft&#8221; officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of &#8220;moral disarmament&#8221; and Safire mocking Reagan&#8217;s rapport with Gorbachev: &#8220;He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachev&#8217;s eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination.&#8221; It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]
> 
> Entity Tags: George Will, George Shultz, William Safire, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan



So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA


----------



## Meathead

Yeah, well if Salon says it, it must be true. Still, it doesn't change the fact that Reagan's greatness is unassailable. Feeble and repeated attempts to do so by embittered lefties bear testament to exactly that.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never see your opinions.  Just Ann Coulter's, or whomever you are cutting and pasting at any given moment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ann Coulters opinion IS her opinion
> 
> Try to keep up will ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So....where did you two meet....eHarmony?
Click to expand...



Do you ever have an original thought to offer?


----------



## rightwinger

Meathead said:


> Yeah, well if Salon says it, it must be true. Still, it doesn't change the fact that Reagan's greatness is unassailable. Feeble and repeated attempts to do so by embittered lefties bear testament to exactly that.



Historians have become lukewarm on Reagans greatness. As time goes by his legacy is fading


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Clearly, Reagan owes some of his true Greatness to FDR. Had FDR not enabled "Uncle" Joe Stalin to enslave all of Easter Europe, Reagan would not have helped free those tens of millions of poor suffering souls


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ann Coulters opinion IS her opinion
> 
> Try to keep up will ya?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So....where did you two meet....eHarmony?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever have an original thought to offer?
Click to expand...


So....you two don't wanna discuss it?

No prob!


Your secret's safe with me!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

FDR v Reagan: the Greatness Test

FDR: Crushed the US economy for 7 years
Reagan: Started the greatest peacetime boom in US history

FDR: Enabled history's 2 Greatest Mass Murderers, Stalin and Mao
Reagan: Liberated Eastern Europe from Soviet Communism

You can easily see why Progressives rate FDR as "Great" right?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

rightwinger said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, well if Salon says it, it must be true. Still, it doesn't change the fact that Reagan's greatness is unassailable. Feeble and repeated attempts to do so by embittered lefties bear testament to exactly that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historians have become lukewarm on Reagans greatness. As time goes by his legacy is fading
Click to expand...


Thankfully, many people lived through the Reagan presidency and are able to look at the facts and think for themselves and don't rely on "Historians" to tell us what happened


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....where did you two meet....eHarmony?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever have an original thought to offer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So....you two don't wanna discuss it?
> 
> No prob!
> 
> 
> Your secret's safe with me!
Click to expand...


I cant understand your post.

Could you number it please?


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever have an original thought to offer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So....you two don't wanna discuss it?
> 
> No prob!
> 
> 
> Your secret's safe with me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cant understand your post.
> 
> Could you number it please?
Click to expand...




Friendly advice: People might take you more seriously if youd walk instead of skip.
.and stop that annoying bobbing your head like a parakeet.


----------



## there4eyeM

CrusaderFrank said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, well if Salon says it, it must be true. Still, it doesn't change the fact that Reagan's greatness is unassailable. Feeble and repeated attempts to do so by embittered lefties bear testament to exactly that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historians have become lukewarm on Reagans greatness. As time goes by his legacy is fading
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thankfully, many people lived through the Reagan presidency and are able to look at the facts and think for themselves and don't rely on "Historians" to tell us what happened
Click to expand...


Yes, and we know that this clown was the tool of the same people later behind 'W' to much the same effect; i.e., crushing indebtedness and foolish foreign entanglements that would remove choice from future administrations and guarantee that vested interests remain in charge.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....you two don't wanna discuss it?
> 
> No prob!
> 
> 
> Your secret's safe with me!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cant understand your post.
> 
> Could you number it please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friendly advice: People might take you more seriously if you&#8217;d walk instead of skip.
> &#8230;.and stop that annoying bobbing your head like a parakeet.
Click to expand...


The least you can do is *highlight* the important parts for me


----------



## CrusaderFrank

there4eyeM said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historians have become lukewarm on Reagans greatness. As time goes by his legacy is fading
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully, many people lived through the Reagan presidency and are able to look at the facts and think for themselves and don't rely on "Historians" to tell us what happened
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and we know that this clown was the tool of the same people later behind 'W' to much the same effect; i.e., crushing indebtedness and foolish foreign entanglements that would remove choice from future administrations and guarantee that vested interests remain in charge.
Click to expand...


Crushing indebtedness was thanks to the Democrat Congress.

Foolish foreign entanglements? You mean collaborating with the Brits and Poles to defeat the USSR?


----------



## Meathead

A year and a half into Obama's first administration, a Sienna Poll of Historians ranked Obama *15th*, ahead of Reagan (18) and just behind Clinton at 14. We can put Historians rankings of recent presidents right up there with Nobel Peace Prizes in relevance to presidential legacies.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39283.html


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Meathead said:


> A year and a half into Obama's first administration, a Sienna Poll of Historians ranked Obama *15th*, ahead of Reagan (18) and just behind Clinton at 14. We can put Historians rankings of recent presidents right up there with Nobel Peace Prizes in relevance to presidential legacies.
> 
> Professors rank President Obama 15th best president - Emily Schultheis - POLITICO.com



Arafat, Hitler and Krugamn also got one


----------



## Bfgrn

Reagan was such a visionary...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Progs are forever bitter that Reagan defeated the USSR


----------



## Meathead

CrusaderFrank said:


> Progs are forever bitter that Reagan defeated the USSR


True, they just can't seem to get over it.


----------



## there4eyeM

I don't know who 'progs' are, but I know what to call those that believe Reagan defeated the U.S.S.R. and that his other policies and actions were correct; deluded.


----------



## Meathead

there4eyeM said:


> I don't know who 'progs' are, but I know what to call those that believe Reagan defeated the U.S.S.R. and that his other policies and actions were correct; deluded.


Not terribly bright on either count, are we?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

there4eyeM said:


> I don't know who 'progs' are, but I know what to call those that believe Reagan defeated the U.S.S.R. and that his other policies and actions were correct; deluded.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtYdjbpBk6A]Reagan at Brandenburg Gate - "tear down this wall" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## CrusaderFrank

That's how deep their hatred is for Reagan for crushing their home team; they lived through it and still only believe what they are ordered to think


----------



## rightwinger

CrusaderFrank said:


> Progs are forever bitter that Reagan defeated the USSR



Reagans greatest accomplishment was not that he defeated the USSR but that he did not try to exploit a crumbling Soviet empire

Allowing them to restructure with some dignity prevented an armed response


----------



## regent

It took two people to end the cold war, Reagan and Gorbachev. Had either not wanted to end the war it would not have ended. Reagan was fearful of a nuclear war, Gorbachev had a crumbling empire on his hands. Reagan was lucky Gorbachev was in power and wanted to stop the crumbling. Republicans attribute the crumbling to Reagan, but most historians of foreign affairs trace the crumbling back in time to the USSR's economic polices.  Would any American president at the time passed up the opportunity to end the cold war?


----------



## Synthaholic

CrusaderFrank said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully, many people lived through the Reagan presidency and are able to look at the facts and think for themselves and don't rely on "Historians" to tell us what happened
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and we know that this clown was the tool of the same people later behind 'W' to much the same effect; i.e., crushing indebtedness and foolish foreign entanglements that would remove choice from future administrations and guarantee that vested interests remain in charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Crushing indebtedness was thanks to the Democrat Congress.*
> 
> Foolish foreign entanglements? You mean collaborating with the Brits and Poles to defeat the USSR?
Click to expand...


By this logic, our current crushing indebtedness is thanks to the Republican Congress.

Correct?


----------



## Synthaholic

CrusaderFrank said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> A year and a half into Obama's first administration, a Sienna Poll of Historians ranked Obama *15th*, ahead of Reagan (18) and just behind Clinton at 14. We can put Historians rankings of recent presidents right up there with Nobel Peace Prizes in relevance to presidential legacies.
> 
> Professors rank President Obama 15th best president - Emily Schultheis - POLITICO.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arafat, Hitler and Krugamn also got one
Click to expand...

Hitler never got a Nobel, dumbfuck.  He even forbid any German from accepting one.

Dumbass Frank doesn't know his Nobel from his Time Man Of The Year.


----------



## Synthaholic

> Cons are forever bitter that Pope John Paul II defeated the USSR




Fixed.


----------



## Bfgrn

Synthaholic said:


> Cons are forever bitter that Pope John Paul II defeated the USSR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fixed.
Click to expand...


Don't forget Lech Wa&#322;&#281;sa, Solidarity and the courageous Polish people.


----------



## Meathead

_*&#8220;He was a man with firm positions, with which he undoubtedly contributed to the fall of communism.&#8221;*_ Vaclav Havel
_*
"When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989."*_
Lech Walesa

But of course a couple of pea-brained teenyboppers know more about the fall of communism than those who lived through it.


----------



## Bfgrn

Meathead said:


> _*&#8220;He was a man with firm positions, with which he undoubtedly contributed to the fall of communism.&#8221;*_ Vaclav Havel
> _*
> "When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989."*_
> Lech Walesa
> 
> But of course a couple of pea-brained teenyboppers know more about the fall of communism than those who lived through it.



Teenybopper? I wish!

Ironic, Reagan supported workers and unions in Poland, just not in America.

Hey, where were you when you heard the news President Kennedy was shot in a motorcade in Dallas Texas? I had my left foot on the kitchen chair tying my sneaker to go play football, I heard the CBS bulletin on the Philco TV in the living room. I lived through the cold war. It should have ended almost 30 years earlier. If you want to stop being a real meathead, educate yourself on how the treasonous CIA tried numerous times to force America into a war with the Soviet Union. Start with May Day, 1960, Francis Gary Powers, and how the treasonous CIA prompted President Eisenhower to issue a dire warning about the military industrial complex in his farewell address.

"The fall of the Berlin Wall makes for nice pictures. But it all started in the shipyards."
Lech Walesa


----------



## Meathead

Bfgrn said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*He was a man with firm positions, with which he undoubtedly contributed to the fall of communism.*_ Vaclav Havel
> _*
> "When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989."*_
> Lech Walesa
> 
> But of course a couple of pea-brained teenyboppers know more about the fall of communism than those who lived through it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Teenybopper? I wish!
> 
> Ironic, Reagan supported workers and unions in Poland, just not in America.
> 
> Hey, where were you when you heard the news President Kennedy was shot in a motorcade in Dallas Texas? I had my left foot on the kitchen chair tying my sneaker to go play football, I heard the CBS bulletin on the Philco TV in the living room. I lived through the cold war. It should have ended almost 30 years earlier. If you want to stop being a real meathead, educate yourself on how the treasonous CIA tried numerous times to force America into a war with the Soviet Union. Start with May Day, 1960, Francis Gary Powers, and how the treasonous CIA prompted President Eisenhower to issue a dire warning about the military industrial complex in his farewell address.
> 
> "The fall of the Berlin Wall makes for nice pictures. But it all started in the shipyards."
> Lech Walesa
Click to expand...

 I was in Europe in school when I heard about Kennedy. In the morning my mother told me he'd been shot. A few hours later we were informed of his death in school.

Well, at least you didn't contest the pea-brained part. Unlike your age, it is far more apparent. So, you're not going challenge Walesa or Havel or Reagan's contributions to the ending of the Cold War? I thought you just might be that stupid.


----------



## regent

The end of the cold war came about because two people wanted to end it, Reagan and Gorbachev. 
Had either Reagan or Gorbachev wanted to keep the cold war alive it would have remained alive. 
Still it seems that American presidents before Reagan also wanted to end the cold war, so in the end was it Reagan or Gorbachev that was the key to ending the cold war?


----------



## Bfgrn

Meathead said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*He was a man with firm positions, with which he undoubtedly contributed to the fall of communism.*_ Vaclav Havel
> _*
> "When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989."*_
> Lech Walesa
> 
> But of course a couple of pea-brained teenyboppers know more about the fall of communism than those who lived through it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Teenybopper? I wish!
> 
> Ironic, Reagan supported workers and unions in Poland, just not in America.
> 
> Hey, where were you when you heard the news President Kennedy was shot in a motorcade in Dallas Texas? I had my left foot on the kitchen chair tying my sneaker to go play football, I heard the CBS bulletin on the Philco TV in the living room. I lived through the cold war. It should have ended almost 30 years earlier. If you want to stop being a real meathead, educate yourself on how the treasonous CIA tried numerous times to force America into a war with the Soviet Union. Start with May Day, 1960, Francis Gary Powers, and how the treasonous CIA prompted President Eisenhower to issue a dire warning about the military industrial complex in his farewell address.
> 
> "The fall of the Berlin Wall makes for nice pictures. But it all started in the shipyards."
> Lech Walesa
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was in Europe in school when I heard about Kennedy. In the morning my mother told me he'd been shot. A few hours later we were informed of his death in school.
> 
> Well, at least you didn't contest the pea-brained part. Unlike your age, it is far more apparent. So, you're not going challenge Walesa or Havel or Reagan's contributions to the ending of the Cold War? I thought you just might be that stupid.
Click to expand...


"The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie  deliberate, contrived and dishonest  but the myth  persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
President John F. Kennedy

Experts on the Soviet Union and the United States from inside and outside Russia not only challenge the myth Reagan contributed to ending the cold war, they make a strong case that he extended it. And he wasted BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars on Star Wars and wasteful defense spending.


Long the leading Soviet expert on the United States, Georgi Arbatov, head of the Moscow-based Institute for the Study of the U.S.A. and Canada, wrote his memoirs in 1992. A Los Angeles Times book review by Robert Scheer summed up a portion of it:

Arbatov understood all too well the failings of Soviet totalitarianism in comparison to the economy and politics of the West. It is clear from this candid and nuanced memoir that the movement for change had been developing steadily inside the highest corridors of power ever since the death of Stalin. Arbatov not only provides considerable evidence for the controversial notion that this change would have come about without foreign pressure, he insists that the U.S. military buildup during the Reagan years actually impeded this development.

George F. Kennan agrees. The former US ambassador to the Soviet Union, and father of the theory of "containment" of the same country, asserts that "the suggestion that any United States administration had the power to influence decisively the course of a tremendous domestic political upheaval in another great country on another side of the globe is simply childish." He contends that the extreme militarization of American policy strengthened hard-liners in the Soviet Union. "Thus the general effect of Cold War extremism was to delay rather than hasten the great change that overtook the Soviet Union."

Though the arms-race spending undoubtedly damaged the fabric of the Soviet civilian economy and society even more than it did in the United States, this had been going on for 40 years by the time Mikhail Gorbachev came to power without the slightest hint of impending doom. Gorbachev's close adviser, Aleksandr Yakovlev, when asked whether the Reagan administration's higher military spending, combined with its "Evil Empire" rhetoric, forced the Soviet Union into a more conciliatory position, responded:

It played no role. None. I can tell you that with the fullest responsibility. Gorbachev and I were ready for changes in our policy regardless of whether the American president was Reagan, or Kennedy, or someone even more liberal. It was clear that our military spending was enormous and we had to reduce it.


----------



## Synthaholic

Meathead said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*He was a man with firm positions, with which he undoubtedly contributed to the fall of communism.*_ Vaclav Havel
> _*
> "When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989."*_
> Lech Walesa
> 
> But of course a couple of pea-brained teenyboppers know more about the fall of communism than those who lived through it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Teenybopper? I wish!
> 
> Ironic, Reagan supported workers and unions in Poland, just not in America.
> 
> Hey, where were you when you heard the news President Kennedy was shot in a motorcade in Dallas Texas? I had my left foot on the kitchen chair tying my sneaker to go play football, I heard the CBS bulletin on the Philco TV in the living room. I lived through the cold war. It should have ended almost 30 years earlier. If you want to stop being a real meathead, educate yourself on how the treasonous CIA tried numerous times to force America into a war with the Soviet Union. Start with May Day, 1960, Francis Gary Powers, and how the treasonous CIA prompted President Eisenhower to issue a dire warning about the military industrial complex in his farewell address.
> 
> "The fall of the Berlin Wall makes for nice pictures. But it all started in the shipyards."
> Lech Walesa
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was in Europe in school when I heard about Kennedy. In the morning my mother told me he'd been shot. A few hours later we were informed of his death in school.
> 
> Well, at least you didn't contest the pea-brained part. Unlike your age, it is far more apparent. So, you're not going challenge Walesa or Havel or Reagan's *contributions *to the ending of the Cold War? I thought you just might be that stupid.
Click to expand...



They all _contributed_.  But St. Ronnie Of RKO Studios does not get the majority of the credit.  Gorby, the Pope, and Walesa are much more directly responsible.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> The end of the cold war came about because two people wanted to end it, Reagan and Gorbachev.
> Had either Reagan or Gorbachev wanted to keep the cold war alive it would have remained alive.
> Still it seems that American presidents before Reagan also wanted to end the cold war, so in the end was it Reagan or Gorbachev that was the key to ending the cold war?



"The end of the cold war came about because two people wanted to end it, Reagan and Gorbachev."

Wrong.



"At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable: *"There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured *Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.

Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart. His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in 1986, where Gorbachev would not budge on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1


----------



## Meathead

Doubtless communism fell for many complex reasons. However, the US was the only superpower to confront it. Reagan abandoned the long-held policy of Detante and confronting (and frankly scaring the shit out of) the Soviets. It was under these pressures that Gorbachev rose to power, as even the old Soviet guard came to the realization that they needed someone who, as Maggie Thatcher put it, "we can work with'". Reagan's role in the demise of communism cannot be shortchanged. He started out to to change America, and he changed the world. He was undoubtedly hugely instrumental in the fall of communism, all that without firing a shot.


----------



## Rozman

Meathead said:


> Doubtless communism fell for many complex reasons. However, the US was the only superpower to confront it. Reagan abandoned the long-held policy of Detante and confronting (and frankly scaring the shit out of) the Soviets. It was under these pressures that Gorbachev rose to power, as even the old Soviet guard came to the realization that they needed someone who, as Maggie Thatcher put it, "we can work with'". Reagan's role in the demise of communism cannot be shortchanged. He started out to to change America, and he changed the world. He was undoubtedly hugely instrumental in the fall of communism, all that without firing a shot.



And Obama got that chick all the birth control she needed...
You just can't downplay Obama's place in history with that.


----------



## regent

If Stalin had still been the honcho in the USSR would the cold war have ended?


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> If Stalin had still been the honcho in the USSR would the cold war have ended?



If the dog didn't stop, would he have caught the rabbit.....and other imaginary topics.



How about you keep the parameters at what actually happened, and what Gorbachev actually said.

He had no intention of losing the Cold War.

Reagan, Thatcher and the Pope forced him to.


----------



## editec

I think if I were forced to choose the greater POTUS of the XXth century, I'd have to go with Theodore Roosevelt.

Wasn't perfect, but balance I think he did more good than bad.


----------



## Papageorgio

Mad Scientist said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last 100 years
> 
> 1. FDR
> 2. Ike
> *3. Wilson*
> 4. Truman
> 5. Obama
> 6. Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson is the asshole who put us under Banker Control. Is that why you listed him?
Click to expand...


Wilson was the biggest racist to walk the White House, he was all for eugenics and the wiping out of inferior races, 

No wonder rightwinger thinks so highly of him. He set the tone for Progressives today.


----------



## Bfgrn

editec said:


> I think if I were forced to choose the greater POTUS of the XXth century, I'd have to go with Theodore Roosevelt.
> 
> Wasn't perfect, but balance I think he did more good than bad.



In the framework of the cold war, Nikita Khrushchev had his favorite.

Kennedy often said he wanted his epitaph to be "He kept the peace." Even Khrushchev and Castro, Kennedy's toughest foreign adversaries, came to appreciate J.F.K.'s commitment to that goal. The roly-poly Soviet leader, clowning and growling, had thrown the young President off his game when they met at the Vienna summit in 1961. But after weathering storms like the Cuban missile crisis, the two leaders had settled into a mutually respectful quest for détente. When Khrushchev got the news from Dallas in November 1963, he broke down and sobbed in the Kremlin, unable to perform his duties for days. Despite his youth, Kennedy was a "real statesman," Khrushchev later wrote in his memoir, after he was pushed from power less than a year following J.F.K.'s death. If Kennedy had lived, he wrote, the two men could have brought peace to the world.

Read more: Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME


----------



## rightwinger

Papageorgio said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last 100 years
> 
> 1. FDR
> 2. Ike
> *3. Wilson*
> 4. Truman
> 5. Obama
> 6. Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson is the asshole who put us under Banker Control. Is that why you listed him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wilson was the biggest racist to walk the White House, he was all for eugenics and the wiping out of inferior races,
> 
> No wonder rightwinger thinks so highly of him. He set the tone for Progressives today.
Click to expand...


Wilson was a product of his times and had views towards blacks and women that were representative of his era


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Stalin had still been the honcho in the USSR would the cold war have ended?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the dog didn't stop, would he have caught the rabbit.....and other imaginary topics.
> 
> 
> 
> How about you keep the parameters at what actually happened, and what Gorbachev actually said.
> 
> He had no intention of losing the Cold War.
> 
> Reagan, Thatcher and the Pope forced him to.
Click to expand...


Historians play around with the what-ifs it helps shed light on the possible actions. 
So maybe it has to be done slowly and methodically.
Did either Gorbachev and Reagan not want to end the cold war? 
If not, was it Reagan or Gorbachev that did not want the cold war?


----------



## Papageorgio

rightwinger said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson is the asshole who put us under Banker Control. Is that why you listed him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson was the biggest racist to walk the White House, he was all for eugenics and the wiping out of inferior races,
> 
> No wonder rightwinger thinks so highly of him. He set the tone for Progressives today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wilson was a product of his times and had views towards blacks and women that were representative of his era
Click to expand...


No he didn't FDR wasn't that way, Teddy and Coolidge weren't that way. How disgusting you excuse racism.


----------



## rightwinger

Papageorgio said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson was the biggest racist to walk the White House, he was all for eugenics and the wiping out of inferior races,
> 
> No wonder rightwinger thinks so highly of him. He set the tone for Progressives today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson was a product of his times and had views towards blacks and women that were representative of his era
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he didn't FDR wasn't that way, Teddy and Coolidge weren't that way. How disgusting you excuse racism.
Click to expand...


Not at all

Keep in mind we are talking about an era roughly half way between the Civil War and the Civil Rights era.  Blacks were free, but in no way considered equal in our society. That was still 50 years away. It was not only the rednecks in the South but the intellectuals of the day who considered blacks to be biologically inferior

Wilson also had some archaic views towards women and their ability to take a leading role in our society

It is hard to look at politicians from 100 years ago and judge them by todays standards


----------



## Papageorgio

rightwinger said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson was a product of his times and had views towards blacks and women that were representative of his era
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No he didn't FDR wasn't that way, Teddy and Coolidge weren't that way. How disgusting you excuse racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all
> 
> Keep in mind we are talking about an era roughly half way between the Civil War and the Civil Rights era.  Blacks were free, but in no way considered equal in our society. That was still 50 years away. It was not only the rednecks in the South but the intellectuals of the day who considered blacks to be biologically inferior
> 
> Wilson also had some archaic views towards women and their ability to take a leading role in our society
> 
> It is hard to look at politicians from 100 years ago and judge them by todays standards
Click to expand...


And Lincoln was 50 years earlier and didn't treat black they way Wilson did.


----------



## rightwinger

Papageorgio said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> No he didn't FDR wasn't that way, Teddy and Coolidge weren't that way. How disgusting you excuse racism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all
> 
> Keep in mind we are talking about an era roughly half way between the Civil War and the Civil Rights era.  Blacks were free, but in no way considered equal in our society. That was still 50 years away. It was not only the rednecks in the South but the intellectuals of the day who considered blacks to be biologically inferior
> 
> Wilson also had some archaic views towards women and their ability to take a leading role in our society
> 
> It is hard to look at politicians from 100 years ago and judge them by todays standards
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Lincoln was 50 years earlier and didn't treat black they way Wilson did.
Click to expand...


Lincoln had his own social and political structure to deal with. To Lincoln, just allowing blacks to be free was a major step

The America of the early 1900s had a KKK a million strong. It was a major political power. It was hard enough passing anti-lynching legislation let alone civil rights legislation.


----------



## Papageorgio

rightwinger said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all
> 
> Keep in mind we are talking about an era roughly half way between the Civil War and the Civil Rights era.  Blacks were free, but in no way considered equal in our society. That was still 50 years away. It was not only the rednecks in the South but the intellectuals of the day who considered blacks to be biologically inferior
> 
> Wilson also had some archaic views towards women and their ability to take a leading role in our society
> 
> It is hard to look at politicians from 100 years ago and judge them by todays standards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Lincoln was 50 years earlier and didn't treat black they way Wilson did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln had his own social and political structure to deal with. To Lincoln, just allowing blacks to be free was a major step
> 
> The America of the early 1900s had a KKK a million strong. It was a major political power. It was hard enough passing anti-lynching legislation let alone civil rights legislation.
Click to expand...


Which Wilson had no intention of doing, he was for eugenics and stopping the black race from procreating. He hated blacks, he wanted them all dead, it was his agenda. He was an evil person with bigotry and hatred behind his moves.


----------



## rightwinger

Papageorgio said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Lincoln was 50 years earlier and didn't treat black they way Wilson did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln had his own social and political structure to deal with. To Lincoln, just allowing blacks to be free was a major step
> 
> The America of the early 1900s had a KKK a million strong. It was a major political power. It was hard enough passing anti-lynching legislation let alone civil rights legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which Wilson had no intention of doing, he was for eugenics and stopping the black race from procreating. He hated blacks, he wanted them all dead, it was his agenda. He was an evil person with bigotry and hatred behind his moves.
Click to expand...


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Stalin had still been the honcho in the USSR would the cold war have ended?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the dog didn't stop, would he have caught the rabbit.....and other imaginary topics.
> 
> 
> 
> How about you keep the parameters at what actually happened, and what Gorbachev actually said.
> 
> He had no intention of losing the Cold War.
> 
> Reagan, Thatcher and the Pope forced him to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Historians play around with the what-ifs it helps shed light on the possible actions.
> So maybe it has to be done slowly and methodically.
> Did either Gorbachev and Reagan not want to end the cold war?
> If not, was it Reagan or Gorbachev that did not want the cold war?
Click to expand...


What if the British had an aircraft carrier in 1777?

...or if the French did?


Nope....within the context of the Cold War, 'playing around' simply means avoiding the truth.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Synthaholic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and we know that this clown was the tool of the same people later behind 'W' to much the same effect; i.e., crushing indebtedness and foolish foreign entanglements that would remove choice from future administrations and guarantee that vested interests remain in charge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Crushing indebtedness was thanks to the Democrat Congress.*
> 
> Foolish foreign entanglements? You mean collaborating with the Brits and Poles to defeat the USSR?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By this logic, our current crushing indebtedness is thanks to the Republican Congress.
> 
> Correct?
Click to expand...


Correct, some of it is absolutely due to that scumbag Tom Delay


----------



## Papageorgio

rightwinger said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln had his own social and political structure to deal with. To Lincoln, just allowing blacks to be free was a major step
> 
> The America of the early 1900s had a KKK a million strong. It was a major political power. It was hard enough passing anti-lynching legislation let alone civil rights legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which Wilson had no intention of doing, he was for eugenics and stopping the black race from procreating. He hated blacks, he wanted them all dead, it was his agenda. He was an evil person with bigotry and hatred behind his moves.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


It is well documented, his hatred for blacks, his wanting to suppress the black race by eugenics, which was a popular progressive movement. If you don't believe me, do research on eugenics and Wilson. It is an eye opener. Much better than you denying because it may hurt your view of Wilson.


----------



## Synthaholic

rightwinger said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson is the asshole who put us under Banker Control. Is that why you listed him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson was the biggest racist to walk the White House, he was all for eugenics and the wiping out of inferior races,
> 
> No wonder rightwinger thinks so highly of him. He set the tone for Progressives today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wilson was a product of his times and had views towards blacks and women that were representative of his era
Click to expand...

Just ask Ty Cobb!


----------



## Synthaholic

CrusaderFrank said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Crushing indebtedness was thanks to the Democrat Congress.*
> 
> Foolish foreign entanglements? You mean collaborating with the Brits and Poles to defeat the USSR?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By this logic, our current crushing indebtedness is thanks to the Republican Congress.
> 
> Correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, *some of it* is absolutely due to that scumbag Tom Delay
Click to expand...


With the rest of it coming from McConnell, Hastert, Armey, and Boehner.


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the dog didn't stop, would he have caught the rabbit.....and other imaginary topics.
> 
> 
> 
> How about you keep the parameters at what actually happened, and what Gorbachev actually said.
> 
> He had no intention of losing the Cold War.
> 
> Reagan, Thatcher and the Pope forced him to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historians play around with the what-ifs it helps shed light on the possible actions.
> So maybe it has to be done slowly and methodically.
> Did either Gorbachev and Reagan not want to end the cold war?
> If not, was it Reagan or Gorbachev that did not want the cold war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if the British had an aircraft carrier in 1777?
> 
> ...or if the French did?
> 
> 
> Nope....within the context of the Cold War, 'playing around' simply means avoiding the truth.
Click to expand...


I thought two questions were too complicated so let me cut it to one: 
do you believe that both, Reagan and Gorbachev wanted to end the cold war?


----------



## Meathead

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historians play around with the what-ifs it helps shed light on the possible actions.
> So maybe it has to be done slowly and methodically.
> Did either Gorbachev and Reagan not want to end the cold war?
> If not, was it Reagan or Gorbachev that did not want the cold war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if the British had an aircraft carrier in 1777?
> 
> ...or if the French did?
> 
> 
> Nope....within the context of the Cold War, 'playing around' simply means avoiding the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought two questions were too complicated so let me cut it to one:
> do you believe that both, Reagan and Gorbachev wanted to end the cold war?
Click to expand...

They did, and Gorbachev was the one to capitulate. It was as close to getting an unconditional surrender without actually getting an unconditional surrender. Few Russians, not even Gorbachev, wanted what transpired - a complete collapse of the Soviet sphere of influence and the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union itself. Those were Reagan's goals, and he got them in spades.


----------



## Staidhup

Ronald Reagan believed and personified the common man, regardless of social or economic status. It was his unwavering belief that if you teach a man to fish he will feed his family and that sustainable opportunity could never be derived from government but that of the private sector. He recognized that the only hope for ending the cold war was through strength not weakness, furthermore to secure a lasting peace it required a strong national defense.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historians play around with the what-ifs it helps shed light on the possible actions.
> So maybe it has to be done slowly and methodically.
> Did either Gorbachev and Reagan not want to end the cold war?
> If not, was it Reagan or Gorbachev that did not want the cold war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if the British had an aircraft carrier in 1777?
> 
> ...or if the French did?
> 
> 
> Nope....within the context of the Cold War, 'playing around' simply means avoiding the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought two questions were too complicated so let me cut it to one:
> do you believe that both, Reagan and Gorbachev wanted to end the cold war?
Click to expand...


Possibly you missed the testimony in post #145:


"At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. *And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable: "There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured *Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.

Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart. His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in *1986, where Gorbachev would not budge *on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...g=content;col1



No hypothesizing necessary.


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if the British had an aircraft carrier in 1777?
> 
> ...or if the French did?
> 
> 
> Nope....within the context of the Cold War, 'playing around' simply means avoiding the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought two questions were too complicated so let me cut it to one:
> do you believe that both, Reagan and Gorbachev wanted to end the cold war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Possibly you missed the testimony in post #145:
> 
> 
> "At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. *And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable: "There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured *Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.
> 
> Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart. His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in *1986, where Gorbachev would not budge *on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving."
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...g=content;col1
> 
> 
> 
> No hypothesizing necessary.
Click to expand...


Maybe better start here, is the cold war over?


----------



## Meathead

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought two questions were too complicated so let me cut it to one:
> do you believe that both, Reagan and Gorbachev wanted to end the cold war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly you missed the testimony in post #145:
> 
> 
> "At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. *And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable: "There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured *Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.
> 
> Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart. His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in *1986, where Gorbachev would not budge *on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving."
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...g=content;col1
> 
> 
> 
> No hypothesizing necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe better start here, is the cold war over?
Click to expand...

Now you're just being annoying.


----------



## Synthaholic

Meathead said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly you missed the testimony in post #145:
> 
> 
> "At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. *And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable: "There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured *Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.
> 
> Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart. His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in *1986, where Gorbachev would not budge *on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving."
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...g=content;col1
> 
> 
> 
> No hypothesizing necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe better start here, is the cold war over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're just being annoying.
Click to expand...

No, he's trying to nail Jello (PoliticalChic) to a wall (truth).


----------



## PoliticalChic

Synthaholic said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe better start here, is the cold war over?
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're just being annoying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, he's trying to nail Jello (PoliticalChic) to a wall (truth).
Click to expand...


Seems you'd like to be able to do so.


You'll need an education to be in the running.....


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Synthaholic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> By this logic, our current crushing indebtedness is thanks to the Republican Congress.
> 
> Correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, *some of it* is absolutely due to that scumbag Tom Delay
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the rest of it coming from McConnell, Hastert, Armey, and Boehner.
Click to expand...


Yeah, the Democrats have no responsibility whatsoever. (What a fucking jackass)


----------



## Papageorgio

CrusaderFrank said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, *some of it* is absolutely due to that scumbag Tom Delay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the rest of it coming from McConnell, Hastert, Armey, and Boehner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the Democrats have no responsibility whatsoever. (What a fucking jackass)
Click to expand...


They love to deny any responsibility from anything. Look at GM, it is all Obama's masterpiece. Solyndra is not anyone's fault.


----------



## PoliticalChic

CrusaderFrank said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, *some of it* is absolutely due to that scumbag Tom Delay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the rest of it coming from McConnell, Hastert, Armey, and Boehner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the Democrats have no responsibility whatsoever. (What a fucking jackass)
Click to expand...


Point of order!

Referring to Sindy as you did, parenthetically, above, is factually incorrect.

Or...at least somewhat of a mixed metaphor.

Jackass is another term for a male mule.
"mules are the offspring from a cross species mating (male donkeys and female horses)
since the two diffrent species have diffrent numbers of cromosomes the *offspring is infertile."*
Do mules reproduce? - Straight Dope Message Board


Never let it be said that I don't stick up for Sindy!


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought two questions were too complicated so let me cut it to one:
> do you believe that both, Reagan and Gorbachev wanted to end the cold war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly you missed the testimony in post #145:
> 
> 
> "At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. *And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable: "There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured *Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.
> 
> Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart. His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in *1986, where Gorbachev would not budge *on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving."
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...g=content;col1
> 
> 
> 
> No hypothesizing necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe better start here, is the cold war over?
Click to expand...




Ninny.


----------



## Synthaholic

CrusaderFrank said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, *some of it* is absolutely due to that scumbag Tom Delay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the rest of it coming from McConnell, Hastert, Armey, and Boehner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the Democrats have no responsibility whatsoever. (What a fucking jackass)
Click to expand...


Account for Democrat money for that *$16 TRILLION*.

Here, I'll start:

The stimulus - $787 Billion.

Your turn - good luck!  



ETA: PoliticalChic is welcome to help you.


----------



## Synthaholic

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly you missed the testimony in post #145:
> 
> 
> "At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. *And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable: "There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured *Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.
> 
> Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart. His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in *1986, where Gorbachev would not budge *on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving."
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...g=content;col1
> 
> 
> 
> No hypothesizing necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe better start here, is the cold war over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ninny.
Click to expand...

See regent?  I told you you were dealing with a


----------



## PoliticalChic

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe better start here, is the cold war over?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ninny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See regent?  I told you you were dealing with a
Click to expand...




Ninny-in-Training.


----------



## Synthaholic

PoliticalChic said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ninny.
> 
> 
> 
> See regent?  I told you you were dealing with a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ninny-in-Training.
Click to expand...

You've got a PhD in it, Parrot.


----------



## Liability

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought two questions were too complicated so let me cut it to one:
> do you believe that both, Reagan and Gorbachev wanted to end the cold war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly you missed the testimony in post #145:
> 
> 
> "At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. *And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable: "There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured *Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.
> 
> Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart. His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in *1986, where Gorbachev would not budge *on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving."
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...g=content;col1
> 
> 
> 
> No hypothesizing necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe better start here, is the cold war over?
Click to expand...


It's cute when regent imagines s/he is making a point.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> See regent?  I told you you were dealing with a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ninny-in-Training.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've got a PhD in it, Parrot.
Click to expand...



Good boy!
While your posts are jejune, and appear more like simian gabble.....
I feel so ecumenical when I allow the lesser among us to run along side.

I'll simply pretend that this is like government school, pat you on the head, and ignore you.


----------



## Liability

I oughta pos rep PoliticalChic just for using "jejune" in a post here at USMB.

Kinda wasted on the likes of Synthia, though.


----------



## Dante

> Conservative Opposition - Hardline conservatives protest Gorbachev&#8217;s visit to Washington, and the signing of the treaty, in the strongest possible terms. When Reagan suggests that Gorbachev address a joint session of Congress, Congressional Republicans, led by House member Dick Cheney (R-WY&#8212;see 1983), rebel.
> 
> Cheney says: &#8220;Addressing a joint meeting of Congress is a high honor, one of the highest honors we can accord anyone. Given the fact of continuing Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, Soviet repression in Eastern Europe, and Soviet actions in Africa and Central America, it is totally inappropriate to confer this honor upon Gorbachev. He is an adversary, not an ally.&#8221;
> 
> Conservative Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Committee is more blunt in his assessment of the treaty agreement: &#8220;Reagan is a weakened president, weakened in spirit as well as in clout, and not in a position to make judgments about Gorbachev at this time.&#8221; Conservative pundit William F. Buckley calls the treaty a &#8220;suicide pact.&#8221;
> 
> Fellow conservative pundit George Will calls Reagan &#8220;wildly wrong&#8221; in his dealings with the Soviets. Conservatives gather to bemoan what they call &#8220;summit fever,&#8221; accusing Reagan of &#8220;appeasement&#8221; both of communists and of Congressional liberals, and protesting Reagan&#8217;s &#8220;cutting deals with the evil empire&#8221; (see March 8, 1983).
> 
> They mount a letter-writing campaign, generating some 300,000 letters, and launch a newspaper ad campaign that compares Reagan to former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.
> 
> Senators Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Steven Symms (R-ID) try to undercut the treaty by attempting to add amendments that would make the treaty untenable; Helms will lead a filibuster against the treaty as well.
> Senate Ratification and a Presidential Rebuke - All the protests from hardline opponents of the treaty come to naught.


.....................  http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=george_will_1


----------



## Synthaholic

Liability said:


> I oughta pos rep PoliticalChic just for using "jejune" in a post here at USMB.
> 
> *Kinda wasted on the likes of Synthia, though*.



Correct, welsher!  She should have directed it at you.

But that would require intellectual honesty.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

rightwinger said:


> Last 100 years
> 
> 1. FDR
> 2. Ike
> 3. Wilson
> 4. Truman
> 5. Obama
> 6. Reagan


Reagan vs. Obama  Another Reminder of Obama's Failed Economic Policies
Reagan vs. Obama  Another Reminder of Obama's Failed Economic Policies


----------



## rightwinger

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last 100 years
> 
> 1. FDR
> 2. Ike
> 3. Wilson
> 4. Truman
> 5. Obama
> 6. Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan vs. Obama  Another Reminder of Obama's Failed Economic Policies
> Reagan vs. Obama  Another Reminder of Obama's Failed Economic Policies
Click to expand...


Reagans star is fading as the impact of his "economic revolution" is being felt by millions of Americans

The Trickle Down bubble has burst


----------



## Meathead

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last 100 years
> 
> 1. FDR
> 2. Ike
> 3. Wilson
> 4. Truman
> 5. Obama
> 6. Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan vs. Obama  Another Reminder of Obama's Failed Economic Policies
> Reagan vs. Obama  Another Reminder of Obama's Failed Economic Policies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagans star is fading as the impact of his "economic revolution" is being felt by millions of Americans
> 
> The Trickle Down bubble has burst
Click to expand...

Let's see, Reagan till 1988, 4 years Bush I, 8 years Clinton, 8 years Bush II, sure, I see your point. Doe anyone really expect unparalleled economic growth into perpetuity? It's a bit like blaming Eisenhower for the Carter recession. It's feeble, give it up and maybe your pain will ebb.


----------



## rightwinger

Meathead said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan vs. Obama  Another Reminder of Obama's Failed Economic Policies
> Reagan vs. Obama  Another Reminder of Obama's Failed Economic Policies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagans star is fading as the impact of his "economic revolution" is being felt by millions of Americans
> 
> The Trickle Down bubble has burst
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's see, Reagan till 1988, 4 years Bush I, 8 years Clinton, 8 years Bush II, sure, I see your point. Doe anyone really expect unparalleled economic growth into perpetuity? It's a bit like blaming Eisenhower for the Carter recession. It's feeble, give it up and maybe your pain will ebb.
Click to expand...


Very true

Since Reagan we have had economic booms and busts. The one constant is that the wealtiest Americans have accumulated more wealth while the middle class workforce has remained stagnant


----------



## Meathead

rightwinger said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagans star is fading as the impact of his "economic revolution" is being felt by millions of Americans
> 
> The Trickle Down bubble has burst
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see, Reagan till 1988, 4 years Bush I, 8 years Clinton, 8 years Bush II, sure, I see your point. Doe anyone really expect unparalleled economic growth into perpetuity? It's a bit like blaming Eisenhower for the Carter recession. It's feeble, give it up and maybe your pain will ebb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very true
> 
> Since Reagan we have had economic booms and busts. The one constant is that the wealtiest Americans have accumulated more wealth while the middle class workforce has remained stagnant
Click to expand...

The middle class workforce has not remained stagnant, as you pot it. Middle class buying power has increased as national wealth has increased. The variable which is resented in Obama's class warfare campaign is the inference that because someone became richer, they have become poorer. It's a variation of the zero-sum game and an inherent fallacy. Being fodder for bleeding hearts and the feeble minded (certainly not mutually exclusive terms) does not make it true.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last 100 years
> 
> 1. FDR
> 2. Ike
> 3. Wilson
> 4. Truman
> 5. Obama
> 6. Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan vs. Obama  Another Reminder of Obama's Failed Economic Policies
> Reagan vs. Obama  Another Reminder of Obama's Failed Economic Policies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagans star is fading as the impact of his "economic revolution" is being felt by millions of Americans
> 
> The Trickle Down bubble has burst
Click to expand...


You don't get it, obama is failure Reagan is growth and economical prosperity.
Which do you want?


----------



## rightwinger

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan vs. Obama  Another Reminder of Obama's Failed Economic Policies
> Reagan vs. Obama  Another Reminder of Obama's Failed Economic Policies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagans star is fading as the impact of his "economic revolution" is being felt by millions of Americans
> 
> The Trickle Down bubble has burst
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get it, obama is failure Reagan is growth and economical prosperity.
> Which do you want?
Click to expand...


Reagan was a gimmic

The gimmic did not work


----------



## CrusaderFrank

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last 100 years
> 
> 1. FDR
> 2. Ike
> 3. Wilson
> 4. Truman
> 5. Obama
> 6. Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan vs. Obama  Another Reminder of Obama's Failed Economic Policies
> Reagan vs. Obama  Another Reminder of Obama's Failed Economic Policies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagans star is fading as the impact of his "economic revolution" is being felt by millions of Americans
> 
> The Trickle Down bubble has burst
Click to expand...


Your boy Obama busted it


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagans star is fading as the impact of his "economic revolution" is being felt by millions of Americans
> 
> The Trickle Down bubble has burst
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get it, obama is failure Reagan is growth and economical prosperity.
> Which do you want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan was a gimmic
> 
> The gimmic did not work
Click to expand...


Now.....why would you fib and say Reagan's plans didn't work?

Oh....'cause you're a Lib and Libs don't have to restrict their blabs to the truth!


Reminder:

1. And the tax cuts of the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 stimulated economic growth. As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the* reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid. *http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm



2. As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economic began a strong and sustained pattern of growth. US Department of the Treasury



3.	The benefits from Reaganomics:

a.	The economy grew at a 3.4% average ratecompared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b.	Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c.	Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d.	Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e.	The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95)             FDsys - Browse ERP

f.	Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation.  Dinesh DSouza, Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader, p. 116  



Why don't you explain the above in comparison to the wizard for whom you voted?

Or....simply say you always vote for failure.


----------



## oldfart

rightwinger said:


> Last 100 years
> 
> 1. FDR
> 2. Ike
> 3. Wilson
> 4. Truman
> 5. Obama
> 6. Reagan



Since 1904:

GREAT
1.  Dwight Eisenhower
2.  Harry Truman
     Richard Nixon*
     Lyndon Johnson*

NEAR-GREAT
3.  Theodore Roosevelt
4.  Lyndon Johnson
5.  Franklin D Roosevelt
6.  William Howard Taft

SIGNIFICANT

7.  Bill Clinton
8.  John F Kennedy
9.  Ronald Reagan
10. Gerald Ford
11. George H W Bush

MEDIOCRE

12. Calvin Coolidge
13. Jimmy Carter
14. Woodrow Wilson **

DISASTROUS

15. Herbert Hoover
16. George W Bush
17. Richard Nixon
18. Warren G Harding

UNRANKED (term unfinished)

Barrack Obama  (if ranked based on performance to this date, I would put him in the 9--10 range.  

*  If we ignore a certain flaw in each of these presidents, the balance of their legacy would undoubtedly put them near the top of great presidents.  

** Clearly in the running for most over-rated president.


----------



## oldfart

Liability said:


> I oughta pos rep PoliticalChic just for using "jejune" in a post here at USMB.
> 
> Kinda wasted on the likes of Synthia, though.



Can we just take away her thesaurus privileges?


----------



## rightwinger

oldfart said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> I oughta pos rep PoliticalChic just for using "jejune" in a post here at USMB.
> 
> Kinda wasted on the likes of Synthia, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can we just take away her thesaurus privileges?
Click to expand...


That would be as bad as taking away her "Rightclick copy" privileges


----------



## rightwinger

oldfart said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last 100 years
> 
> 1. FDR
> 2. Ike
> 3. Wilson
> 4. Truman
> 5. Obama
> 6. Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since 1904:
> 
> GREAT
> 1.  Dwight Eisenhower
> 2.  Harry Truman
> Richard Nixon*
> Lyndon Johnson*
> 
> NEAR-GREAT
> 3.  Theodore Roosevelt
> 4.  Lyndon Johnson
> 5.  Franklin D Roosevelt
> 6.  William Howard Taft
> 
> SIGNIFICANT
> 
> 7.  Bill Clinton
> 8.  John F Kennedy
> 9.  Ronald Reagan
> 10. Gerald Ford
> 11. George H W Bush
> 
> MEDIOCRE
> 
> 12. Calvin Coolidge
> 13. Jimmy Carter
> 14. Woodrow Wilson **
> 
> DISASTROUS
> 
> 15. Herbert Hoover
> 16. George W Bush
> 17. Richard Nixon
> 18. Warren G Harding
> 
> UNRANKED (term unfinished)
> 
> Barrack Obama  (if ranked based on performance to this date, I would put him in the 9--10 range.
> 
> *  If we ignore a certain flaw in each of these presidents, the balance of their legacy would undoubtedly put them near the top of great presidents.
> 
> ** Clearly in the running for most over-rated president.
Click to expand...


I think LBJ had a great legislative resume with groundbreaking civil rights and poverty programs. But you can't discount his blunderous foreign policy decisions in executing the Viet Nam War when evaluating his presidency

Nixon as well had great accomplishments. But the impact of Watergate shook the country to the core and has to be considered his legacy


----------



## regent

I wonder what the rating criteria the average citizen uses for judging presidents? Is it just a good or bad feeling,  or even  something good or bad that we remember, some little incident or even a cliche or little bon mot. Is it a reflection of  Limbaugh or Maddow or just what? Books have been written about the way ordinary citizens judge presidents and they way historians judge presidents. For ordinary citizens I would say that we judge the way we voted, and the way we voted is determined by our political party. 
Do historians use the same criteria as ordinary citizens or do they have a different criteria, more objective, can they defy their political party and political beliefs?


----------



## rightwinger

regent said:


> I wonder what the rating criteria the average citizen uses for judging presidents? Is it just a good or bad feeling,  or even  something good or bad that we remember, some little incident or even a cliche or little bon mot. Is it a reflection of  Limbaugh or Maddow or just what? Books have been written about the way ordinary citizens judge presidents and they way historians judge presidents. For ordinary citizens I would say that we judge the way we voted, and the way we voted is determined by our political party.
> Do historians use the same criteria as ordinary citizens or do they have a different criteria, more objective, can they defy their political party and political beliefs?



My criteria are simple

1. What challenges did you face as President?
2. How did you respond to those challenges?
3. What was the lasting impact of your presidency?


----------



## Meathead

There are those who changed not only America, but the world FDR, Reagan. The top two. One who tried to change America and the world but failed, Wilson. The rest were simply caretakers of various degree of competence and accomplishment.


----------



## rightwinger

Meathead said:


> There are those who changed not only America, but the world FDR, Reagan. The top two. One who tried to change America and the world but failed, Wilson. The rest were simply caretakers of various degree of competence and accomplishment.



George W Bush tried to change the world

He had visions of inserting Democracy into Southwest Asia and initiating a regional revolution for democracy. He invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq and installed democracies. He failed in that he he did not anticipate the resulting internal power struggles and the extent of loss of lives to Americans.


----------



## oldfart

Meathead said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagans star is fading as the impact of his "economic revolution" is being felt by millions of Americans
> 
> The Trickle Down bubble has burst
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see, Reagan till 1988, 4 years Bush I, 8 years Clinton, 8 years Bush II, sure, I see your point. Doe anyone really expect unparalleled economic growth into perpetuity? It's a bit like blaming Eisenhower for the Carter recession. It's feeble, give it up and maybe your pain will ebb.
Click to expand...


Generally I agree with you that economic policies have effects in the one-year to three-year range and a few policies have a more long-term effect.  But the "statute of limitations" on blaming (or crediting) a particular president for the performance of the economy should run out two or three years after they leave office.  

The exception should be presidents who claim a legacy of a fundamental shift in how economic policy is formulated.  By this standard, FDR's influence for good or ill stretches far beyond his terms in office.  LBJ and Ronald Reagan also fall into this category, IMHO.  

With Reagan, I think the economic legacy still animates the Republican Party and is influential today.  If you want the positive legacy, you have to also accept the ongoing effects of those shifts in the attitude toward governance.  Reagan's legacy attitude toward government and political economy had several facets:

1.  "High" income tax rates have a disincentive effect on personal effort and therefore had to be drastically reduced (top rate from 70% to 35%).  

2.  The government is not part of the solution to economic problems; it is mainly the problem.  This justifies drastically reduced regulation of business and major cuts in non-military spending programs.  

3.  The social safety net can be severely cut without severe economic consequences.  

4.  Tax cuts and military buildups do not have to be paid for; deficits for these purposes do not matter economically.  

Part of this is ideology and part is testable economic theory.  Viewed as testable economic theory, each of the above four points seems to me to be vulnerable, but I concede that someone could argue that the policy was right even if carrying it to far might have serious adverse consequences.  

As ideology, it is what it is. 

So I don't see an argument that Reagan's economic policies drove American economic history much into the 90's; but if anyone wants to dismiss the negative (or positive) aspects of his economic philosophy, they have to throw it all out, not just the part they don't like.


----------



## PoliticalChic

oldfart said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> I oughta pos rep PoliticalChic just for using "jejune" in a post here at USMB.
> 
> Kinda wasted on the likes of Synthia, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can we just take away her thesaurus privileges?
Click to expand...


An admission that my vocabulary is greater than yours???

Bravo.


Now....for all the other areas in which I leave you in the dust.
C'mon....confession is good for he soul.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> I oughta pos rep PoliticalChic just for using "jejune" in a post here at USMB.
> 
> Kinda wasted on the likes of Synthia, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can we just take away her thesaurus privileges?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be as bad as taking away her "Rightclick copy" privileges
Click to expand...




Green with envy?


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

PoliticalChic said:


> Today is the birthday of Ronald Reagan.
> 
> February 6, 1911
> 
> 1. "*In spite of all the evidence that points to the free market as the most efficient system, we continue down a road that is bearing out the prophecy of De Tocqueville, *...if we weren't constantly on guard, we would find ourselves covered by a network of regulations controlling every activity. [Tocqueville] said if that came to pass we would one day find ourselves a nation of timid animals with government the shepherd.
> 
> It all comes down to this basic premise: if you lose your economic freedom, you lose your political freedom and in fact all freedom. Freedom is something that cannot be passed on genetically. It is never more than one generation away from extinction. Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it. Once freedom is gone, it's gone for a long, long time. Already, too many of us, particularly those in business and industry, have chosen to switch rather than fight."
> Ronald Reagan, 1978
> Hillsdale College - Imprimis Issue
> 
> 
> 
> 2. *"The liberal press called upon Reagan to remove the tactical nuclear arsenal from Europe. *Europeans fell easy prey to the false theory that a nuclear war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO in Europe would remain inside the continent. Freeze supporters here in the U.S. clamored that the strategic arsenal based inside America was more than enough to stop any attack in Germany.
> 
> The Hollywood establishment labeled Reagan a reckless "cowboy" who would press the nuclear button at the drop of a hat. The wide liberal criticism openly insulted Reagan as a senile fool who could carry the world into global nuclear war.
> 
> *Reagan did not give in. *Instead of caving to the political pressure, Reagan went against the polls, against the liberal media and against Hollywood's advice to disarm in the face of the Soviet threat. Reagan opted instead to match Moscow's firepower and up the ante. "
> The Legacy of Ronald Reagan &#8211; Peace
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3."SO ON WHOM or what do we bestow *the title of the "evil empire's" killer? *Was it Mikhail Gorbachev himself who pulled down what Lenin and Stalin had built up? It is tempting to finger Gorbachev, but this would ascribe too much wisdom and foresight to a man who wanted merely to reform, but not to relinquish, the empire. At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable: "There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.
> 
> *Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart.* His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in 1986, where Gorbachev would not budge on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving. He recalls in An American Life how he stood up from the table to proclaim that the meeting was over. Then he turned to his Secretary of State: "Let's go, George. We're leaving." Like any good diplomat, Shultz was crushed by so much roughness, but Reagan was completely unfazed. Later on, he explained: "I went to Reykjavik determined that *everything was negotiable except two things, our freedom and our future."*
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Ronald Reagan, though dismissed by Europeans as a second-rate actor and fondler of cue cards, possessed that magic faculty that separates run-of-the mill politicos from history-molding leaders.* "I didn't understand", recalls Time's Joe Klein, "how truly monumental, and morally important, Reagan's anti-communism was* until I visited the Soviet Union in 1987." He continues with a seemingly trivial vignette. Attending the Bolshoi Ballet, he was nudged by his minder: "'Ronald Reagan. Evil empire', he whispered with dramatic intensity and shot a glance toward his lap where he had hidden two enthusiastic thumbs up. 'Yes!'"
> 
> When an American president manages to pluck the soul strings of those who have been raised to fear and despise what he represents, *he surely deserves the honorific 'great.'*
> 
> *Ronald Reagan.*



On being asked why he so admired a bobble headed idiot like Reagan, a high school friend with similar military experience actually said: "He made me feel like my [military service] mattered. He made me feel good about it."

That shook me. That a filthy god damned scum like Reagan, an icon to halfwits pretending to understand economics and human cattle grazing their way toward the sound of the hammer, meant something to a veteran of something besides movies, about made me sick. I asked him, "Can you really have been that worthless as a soldier, to need a glad-handing New Dealer posing as a Republican to prop you up?"

He was upset. Told him to get back with me when he regained his sanity. The day  a hollywood hack who got the presidency by grabbing his ankles for Don Regan can add something to my feelings about my military service is not going to come. 

The best presidents since 1900 are in this order:

TR - understood the evils of monopolies AND big government
FDR - didn't get carried away with spending in peacetime
Truman - first president to propose a national health care system
IKE - warned against militarizing the economy

Worst presidents since 1900, worst first, are...

1. Junebug Bush - halfwit inheritor and bottom feeding scum; family was resigned to pressing friends to help support him before Karl Rove saw an easy mark and bent Junior over the neocon sawhorse. 

2. Ronald Reagan - New Dealer talked shit to nutballs; expanded the federal government; signed pay parity bills; tripled the debt shadow boxing a bankrupt empire still farming with horses when fuel was short; first wall street bailout; first bank bailout; told war stories from his movies like he was in the war. Basically a no good rotten son of a bitch all the way. His only redeeming feature is he fooled millions of nutballs into thinking he was a Republican. 

3. Clinton - a real Reagan Republican with enough evangelical chops to fool fake liberals into believing he was a Democrat. Signed NAFTA, sent more jobs offshore than any president in history, undid Glass-Steagall, deregulated essential commodities, pardoned a dangerous economic criminal Marc Rich, and for good measure degraded the office of the president for living memory. Only human to have legally banked over a hundred million dollars in ten years without improving a process, inventing something or creating a single private sector job. 

There are no other presidents in the last 100 years close enough to the level of debauchery of the American Dream to place on this list. Richard Nixon can now rest in peace.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today is the birthday of Ronald Reagan.
> 
> February 6, 1911
> 
> 1. "*In spite of all the evidence that points to the free market as the most efficient system, we continue down a road that is bearing out the prophecy of De Tocqueville, *...if we weren't constantly on guard, we would find ourselves covered by a network of regulations controlling every activity. [Tocqueville] said if that came to pass we would one day find ourselves a nation of timid animals with government the shepherd.
> 
> It all comes down to this basic premise: if you lose your economic freedom, you lose your political freedom and in fact all freedom. Freedom is something that cannot be passed on genetically. It is never more than one generation away from extinction. Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it. Once freedom is gone, it's gone for a long, long time. Already, too many of us, particularly those in business and industry, have chosen to switch rather than fight."
> Ronald Reagan, 1978
> Hillsdale College - Imprimis Issue
> 
> 
> 
> 2. *"The liberal press called upon Reagan to remove the tactical nuclear arsenal from Europe. *Europeans fell easy prey to the false theory that a nuclear war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO in Europe would remain inside the continent. Freeze supporters here in the U.S. clamored that the strategic arsenal based inside America was more than enough to stop any attack in Germany.
> 
> The Hollywood establishment labeled Reagan a reckless "cowboy" who would press the nuclear button at the drop of a hat. The wide liberal criticism openly insulted Reagan as a senile fool who could carry the world into global nuclear war.
> 
> *Reagan did not give in. *Instead of caving to the political pressure, Reagan went against the polls, against the liberal media and against Hollywood's advice to disarm in the face of the Soviet threat. Reagan opted instead to match Moscow's firepower and up the ante. "
> The Legacy of Ronald Reagan  Peace
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3."SO ON WHOM or what do we bestow *the title of the "evil empire's" killer? *Was it Mikhail Gorbachev himself who pulled down what Lenin and Stalin had built up? It is tempting to finger Gorbachev, but this would ascribe too much wisdom and foresight to a man who wanted merely to reform, but not to relinquish, the empire. At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable: "There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.
> 
> *Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart.* His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in 1986, where Gorbachev would not budge on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving. He recalls in An American Life how he stood up from the table to proclaim that the meeting was over. Then he turned to his Secretary of State: "Let's go, George. We're leaving." Like any good diplomat, Shultz was crushed by so much roughness, but Reagan was completely unfazed. Later on, he explained: "I went to Reykjavik determined that *everything was negotiable except two things, our freedom and our future."*
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Ronald Reagan, though dismissed by Europeans as a second-rate actor and fondler of cue cards, possessed that magic faculty that separates run-of-the mill politicos from history-molding leaders.* "I didn't understand", recalls Time's Joe Klein, "how truly monumental, and morally important, Reagan's anti-communism was* until I visited the Soviet Union in 1987." He continues with a seemingly trivial vignette. Attending the Bolshoi Ballet, he was nudged by his minder: "'Ronald Reagan. Evil empire', he whispered with dramatic intensity and shot a glance toward his lap where he had hidden two enthusiastic thumbs up. 'Yes!'"
> 
> When an American president manages to pluck the soul strings of those who have been raised to fear and despise what he represents, *he surely deserves the honorific 'great.'*
> 
> *Ronald Reagan.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On being asked why he so admired a bobble headed idiot like Reagan, a high school friend with similar military experience actually said: "He made me feel like my [military service] mattered. He made me feel good about it."
> 
> That shook me. That a filthy god damned scum like Reagan, an icon to halfwits pretending to understand economics and human cattle grazing their way toward the sound of the hammer, meant something to a veteran of something besides movies, about made me sick. I asked him, "Can you really have been that worthless as a soldier, to need a glad-handing New Dealer posing as a Republican to prop you up?"
> 
> He was upset. Told him to get back with me when he regained his sanity. The day  a hollywood hack who got the presidency by grabbing his ankles for Don Regan can add something to my feelings about my military service is not going to come.
> 
> The best presidents since 1900 are in this order:
> 
> TR - understood the evils of monopolies AND big government
> FDR - didn't get carried away with spending in peacetime
> Truman - first president to propose a national health care system
> IKE - warned against militarizing the economy
> 
> Worst presidents since 1900, worst first, are...
> 
> 1. Junebug Bush - halfwit inheritor and bottom feeding scum; family was resigned to pressing friends to help support him before Karl Rove saw an easy mark and bent Junior over the neocon sawhorse.
> 
> 2. Ronald Reagan - New Dealer talked shit to nutballs; expanded the federal government; signed pay parity bills; tripled the debt shadow boxing a bankrupt empire still farming with horses when fuel was short; first wall street bailout; first bank bailout; told war stories from his movies like he was in the war. Basically a no good rotten son of a bitch all the way. His only redeeming feature is he fooled millions of nutballs into thinking he was a Republican.
> 
> 3. Clinton - a real Reagan Republican with enough evangelical chops to fool fake liberals into believing he was a Democrat. Signed NAFTA, sent more jobs offshore than any president in history, undid Glass-Steagall, deregulated essential commodities, pardoned a dangerous economic criminal Marc Rich, and for good measure degraded the office of the president for living memory. Only human to have legally banked over a hundred million dollars in ten years without improving a process, inventing something or creating a single private sector job.
> 
> There are no other presidents in the last 100 years close enough to the level of debauchery of the American Dream to place on this list. Richard Nixon can now rest in peace.
Click to expand...




From post #195:

1. And the tax cuts of the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 stimulated economic growth. As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid. http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-g...t/reagtxct.htm



2. As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economic began a strong and sustained pattern of growth. US Department of the Treasury



3.	The benefits from Reaganomics:

a.	The economy grew at a 3.4% average ratecompared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b.	Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c.	Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d.	Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e.	The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) FDsys - Browse ERP

f.	Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh DSouza, Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader, p. 116


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

Reagan inherited an industrial economy in a rough patch. Nothing could have held the US economy back in the early 1980s, although Reagan's hilariously keynesian supply side  (in the words of Pap Bush "voodoo" economics) did extend the recession of 1981-82. 

Reagan's legacy is an asset-based economy fueled by credit. The Wizard of Oz had more going on than people claiming credit for the credit financed economy of the 1990s. I am laughing out loud at the nutball fantasy ReagaNUTics had a good day. A single good day. And so are serious Zionist neocons.  

There isn't enough bullshit (see, "correlation is not cause") in the nutball handbook and there aren't enough neocon think tanks to fool anyone with enough on the ball to pour piss out of a boot while reading the heel label.  

But thanks for playing. You probably think Clinton was a Democrat because that's what the label said. Public education since (Reagan fed into the pay parity bogusness) has a lot to answer for is the bottom line.

Reagan was a joke. A joke on America.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Reagan inherited an industrial economy in a rough patch. Nothing could have held the US economy back in the early 1980s, although Reagan's hilariously keynesian supply side nonsense did extend the recession of 1981.
> 
> Reagan's legacy is an asset-based economy fueled by credit. The Wizard of Oz had more going on than people claiming credit for the credit financed economy of the 1990s. I am laughing out loud at the nutball fantasy ReagaNUTics had a good day. A single good day. And so are serious Zionist neocons.
> 
> There isn't enough bullshit (see, "correlation is not cause") in the nutball handbook and there aren't enough neocon think tanks to fool anyone with enough on the ball to pour piss out of a boot while reading the heel label.
> 
> But thanks for playing. You probably think Clinton was a Democrat because that's what the label said. Public education since (Reagan fed into the pay parity bogusness) has a lot to answer for is the bottom line.
> 
> Reagan was a joke. A joke on America.





"You probably think Clinton was a Democrat because.....blah, blah, blah....."

No, actually...
...I simply think you're a dunce.


It's clear due to your avoidance of Reagan's amazing turning around of the economy.



"But thanks for playing."
How clever....could you possibly be any more of a clichéd?


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

PoliticalChic said:


> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan inherited an industrial economy in a rough patch. Nothing could have held the US economy back in the early 1980s, although Reagan's hilariously keynesian supply side nonsense did extend the recession of 1981.
> 
> Reagan's legacy is an asset-based economy fueled by credit. The Wizard of Oz had more going on than people claiming credit for the credit financed economy of the 1990s. I am laughing out loud at the nutball fantasy ReagaNUTics had a good day. A single good day. And so are serious Zionist neocons.
> 
> There isn't enough bullshit (see, "correlation is not cause") in the nutball handbook and there aren't enough neocon think tanks to fool anyone with enough on the ball to pour piss out of a boot while reading the heel label.
> 
> But thanks for playing. You probably think Clinton was a Democrat because that's what the label said. Public education since (Reagan fed into the pay parity bogusness) has a lot to answer for is the bottom line.
> 
> Reagan was a joke. A joke on America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You probably think Clinton was a Democrat because.....blah, blah, blah....."
> 
> No, actually...
> ...I simply think you're a dunce.
> 
> 
> It's clear due to your avoidance of Reagan's amazing turning around of the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> "But thanks for playing."
> How clever....could you possibly be any more of a clichéd?
Click to expand...


Who's the dunce, here, babe? Someone stupid enough to believe Reagan turned the economy around, or someone that understands the horsepower of the greatest industrial nation ever to be sold out by a bobble headed idiot? 

If you have enough emotional self control to read the facts on Reagan here they are:

1. Tripled the debt
2. Signed pay parity bills 
3. Expanded the federal government in size and power while at the same time convincing morons he was doing the opposite
4. First finance sector bailouts (S&Ls, and it was during Reagan's presidency that the Fed started buying private sector paper for the purpose of propping up markets - all the while braying about the purity of markets). 
5. Expanded direct corporate welfare beyond Nixon's "revenue sharing" horseshit to state and local governments, possibly the stupidest people ever to bumble into "other people's money". 
6. Continued on purpose what the moron, LBJ, started by accident - returning the MIC to the biggest lobby buying congressscum
7. Lied about his military service (although by the time he praised Nazi war heroes at Bitzberg, he was getting senile). 

What can possibly be more cliched than gaggles of halfwits following a charismatic to a bad place, then spending the rest of their lives in denial and publicly suppressing buyer's remorse by bragging about their love of the charismatic? 

All in all, while bovine America basked in the evangelical skills of a man wrapped in the flag and surrounded by religious nuts, many rational Americans understood that corporations had finally got their man into the white house. 

The only reason I paid any attention to the man was to see if a big time Democrat would blow him on camera. For those with the chops to run the numbers and connect cause-effect dots, it can't be missed that it was during the Reagan presidency that America lost its way. All it takes is integrity to admit it. Go ahead, try it. One imagines it won't be the worst morning after of your life. 

Next.


----------



## Synthaholic

rightwinger said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what the rating criteria the average citizen uses for judging presidents? Is it just a good or bad feeling,  or even  something good or bad that we remember, some little incident or even a cliche or little bon mot. Is it a reflection of  Limbaugh or Maddow or just what? Books have been written about the way ordinary citizens judge presidents and they way historians judge presidents. For ordinary citizens I would say that we judge the way we voted, and the way we voted is determined by our political party.
> Do historians use the same criteria as ordinary citizens or do they have a different criteria, more objective, can they defy their political party and political beliefs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My criteria are simple
> 
> 1. What challenges did you face as President?
> 2. How did you respond to those challenges?
> 3. What was the lasting impact of your presidency?
Click to expand...


I would add:

4. Did you leave the country in better shape than you found it.


----------



## Synthaholic

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we just take away her thesaurus privileges?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be as bad as taking away her "Rightclick copy" privileges
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Green with envy?
Click to expand...

More like 'flush with originality'.

Take a lesson, parrot.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Synthaholic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what the rating criteria the average citizen uses for judging presidents? Is it just a good or bad feeling,  or even  something good or bad that we remember, some little incident or even a cliche or little bon mot. Is it a reflection of  Limbaugh or Maddow or just what? Books have been written about the way ordinary citizens judge presidents and they way historians judge presidents. For ordinary citizens I would say that we judge the way we voted, and the way we voted is determined by our political party.
> Do historians use the same criteria as ordinary citizens or do they have a different criteria, more objective, can they defy their political party and political beliefs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My criteria are simple
> 
> 1. What challenges did you face as President?
> 2. How did you respond to those challenges?
> 3. What was the lasting impact of your presidency?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would add:
> 
> 4. Did you leave the country in better shape than you found it.
Click to expand...


Good point. Reagan demolished your home team the USSR, no wonder you hate him


----------



## Synthaholic

CrusaderFrank said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> My criteria are simple
> 
> 1. What challenges did you face as President?
> 2. How did you respond to those challenges?
> 3. What was the lasting impact of your presidency?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would add:
> 
> 4. Did you leave the country in better shape than you found it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good point. Reagan demolished your home team the USSR, no wonder you hate him
Click to expand...

The retard has awoken from his afternoon nap.


----------



## Meathead

rightwinger said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are those who changed not only America, but the world FDR, Reagan. The top two. One who tried to change America and the world but failed, Wilson. The rest were simply caretakers of various degree of competence and accomplishment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George W Bush tried to change the world
> 
> He had visions of inserting Democracy into Southwest Asia and initiating a regional revolution for democracy. He invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq and installed democracies. He failed in that he he did not anticipate the resulting internal power struggles and the extent of loss of lives to Americans.
Click to expand...

He was successful, however, in installing democratic institutions in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He did not change the world, but he damned sure changed those two countries.


----------



## Synthaholic

Meathead said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are those who changed not only America, but the world FDR, Reagan. The top two. One who tried to change America and the world but failed, Wilson. The rest were simply caretakers of various degree of competence and accomplishment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George W Bush tried to change the world
> 
> He had visions of inserting Democracy into Southwest Asia and initiating a regional revolution for democracy. He invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq and installed democracies. He failed in that he he did not anticipate the resulting internal power struggles and the extent of loss of lives to Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was successful, however, in installing democratic institutions in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He did not change the world, but he damned sure changed those two countries.
Click to expand...

It was forced upon them.  Let's see how long they keep it.


----------



## oldfart

regent said:


> I wonder what the rating criteria the average citizen uses for judging presidents? Is it just a good or bad feeling,  or even  something good or bad that we remember, some little incident or even a cliche or little bon mot. Is it a reflection of  Limbaugh or Maddow or just what? Books have been written about the way ordinary citizens judge presidents and they way historians judge presidents. For ordinary citizens I would say that we judge the way we voted, and the way we voted is determined by our political party.



I think that some presidents leave more of an impression than others.  These are the presidents that are loved and hated for what they did in the shared experience of those who lived through their era.  Teddy Roosevelt will always be the Progressive Era, FDR the New Deal and recovery from the Depression, and Kennedy and Reagan are iconic for what people decided they stood for, whether that image is correct or not.  As for Jimmy Carter and Calvin Coolidge, most people say "Meh".  

Hopefully good historians stay away from the hagiography.  I was born and raised in Springfield Illinois and have always been a student of Lincoln.  I have come to the opinion that almost everything we "know" about Lincoln is wrong.  Many of the stories that have been discounted by the likes of Sandburg turn out to be true, and Billy Herndon has been elevated from buffoon to great historical scholar.  Some of the best Lincoln scholarship in the last hundred and fifty years has occurred in the last decade and a half.  I sense that much the same could be said of many historical figures, which is why history is important and why each generation must put fresh eyes on the past and make an independent evaluation of presidents and other major figures.  It keeps the game interesting.  


regent said:


> Do historians use the same criteria as ordinary citizens or do they have a different criteria, more objective, can they defy their political party and political beliefs?



I think that good historians try to be relatively objective and share the values of their culture.  The worst biases are those the historian never recognizes because they permeate their culture.  There is always a debate about judging historical figures by contemporary standards.  For example, those who claim Lincoln is a racist are using a term that would have no meaning in 1858.  But the contrary is also false;  there are some basic values that should be invariant over time, like respect for family units.  Even Machievelli saw limits to what a sovereign could do and maintain control of his people.  

Overall I think that historians in general apply the same values to evaluate a historical figure as the casual reader would.  They probably question a bit more and make an effort to recognize bias and evaluate it.  Of course, being able to avoid simplistic fallacies does not make anyone right, any more than being able to win an argument makes the position correct.  That's a big part of the fun.


----------



## oldfart

rightwinger said:


> I think LBJ had a great legislative resume with groundbreaking civil rights and poverty programs. But you can't discount his blunderous foreign policy decisions in executing the Viet Nam War when evaluating his presidency
> 
> Nixon as well had great accomplishments. But the impact of Watergate shook the country to the core and has to be considered his legacy



And apart from the unpleasantness in the second act; how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?


----------



## oldfart

Meathead said:


> There are those who changed not only America, but the world FDR, Reagan. The top two. One who tried to change America and the world but failed, Wilson. The rest were simply caretakers of various degree of competence and accomplishment.



I have to agree on Wilson.  I also think it is easy to miss the profound influence that Truman and Eisenhower made for good in the post-WWII world.  Much of what is good in our society today is the result of their initiatives and values.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be as bad as taking away her "Rightclick copy" privileges
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Green with envy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More like 'flush with originality'.
> 
> Take a lesson, parrot.
Click to expand...





I note you haven't run out of emoticons....the thesaurus of the ignorant.

With very little effort, you have become to serious posters what the Washington Generals are to the Harlem Globetrotters.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan inherited an industrial economy in a rough patch. Nothing could have held the US economy back in the early 1980s, although Reagan's hilariously keynesian supply side nonsense did extend the recession of 1981.
> 
> Reagan's legacy is an asset-based economy fueled by credit. The Wizard of Oz had more going on than people claiming credit for the credit financed economy of the 1990s. I am laughing out loud at the nutball fantasy ReagaNUTics had a good day. A single good day. And so are serious Zionist neocons.
> 
> There isn't enough bullshit (see, "correlation is not cause") in the nutball handbook and there aren't enough neocon think tanks to fool anyone with enough on the ball to pour piss out of a boot while reading the heel label.
> 
> But thanks for playing. You probably think Clinton was a Democrat because that's what the label said. Public education since (Reagan fed into the pay parity bogusness) has a lot to answer for is the bottom line.
> 
> Reagan was a joke. A joke on America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You probably think Clinton was a Democrat because.....blah, blah, blah....."
> 
> No, actually...
> ...I simply think you're a dunce.
> 
> 
> It's clear due to your avoidance of Reagan's amazing turning around of the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> "But thanks for playing."
> How clever....could you possibly be any more of a clichéd?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's the dunce, here, babe? Someone stupid enough to believe Reagan turned the economy around, or someone that understands the horsepower of the greatest industrial nation ever to be sold out by a bobble headed idiot?
> 
> If you have enough emotional self control to read the facts on Reagan here they are:
> 
> 1. Tripled the debt
> 2. Signed pay parity bills
> 3. Expanded the federal government in size and power while at the same time convincing morons he was doing the opposite
> 4. First finance sector bailouts (S&Ls, and it was during Reagan's presidency that the Fed started buying private sector paper for the purpose of propping up markets - all the while braying about the purity of markets).
> 5. Expanded direct corporate welfare beyond Nixon's "revenue sharing" horseshit to state and local governments, possibly the stupidest people ever to bumble into "other people's money".
> 6. Continued on purpose what the moron, LBJ, started by accident - returning the MIC to the biggest lobby buying congressscum
> 7. Lied about his military service (although by the time he got to Bitzberg, he was probably more senile than anyone new.
> 
> What can possibly be more cliched than gaggles of halfwits following a charismatic to a bad place, then spending the rest of their lives in denial and publicly suppressing buyer's remorse by bragging about their love of the charismatic?
> 
> All in all, while bovine America basked in the evangelical skills of a man wrapped in the flag and surrounded by religious nuts, many rational Americans understood that corporations had finally got their man into the white house.
> 
> The only reason I paid any attention to the man was to see if a big time Democrat would blow him on camera. For those with the chops to run the numbers and connect cause-effect dots, it can't be missed that it was during the Reagan presidency that America lost its way. All it takes is integrity to admit it. Go ahead, try it. One imagines it won't be the worst morning after of your life.
> 
> Next.
Click to expand...




As you haven't commented on the facts that I filed, I'll assume that you have no answer to same.


Care to compare that record to the failure currently in the White House?


Or, perhaps, sink to your knees and genuflect in awe as to how Reagan defeated the 'Evil Empire' without firing a shot?



Do so.....and perhaps you might appear less of an ignoramus.


----------



## rightwinger

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Reagan inherited an industrial economy in a rough patch. Nothing could have held the US economy back in the early 1980s, although Reagan's hilariously keynesian supply side  (in the words of Pap Bush "voodoo" economics) did extend the recession of 1981-82.
> 
> Reagan's legacy is an asset-based economy fueled by credit. The Wizard of Oz had more going on than people claiming credit for the credit financed economy of the 1990s. I am laughing out loud at the nutball fantasy ReagaNUTics had a good day. A single good day. And so are serious Zionist neocons.
> 
> There isn't enough bullshit (see, "correlation is not cause") in the nutball handbook and there aren't enough neocon think tanks to fool anyone with enough on the ball to pour piss out of a boot while reading the heel label.
> 
> But thanks for playing. You probably think Clinton was a Democrat because that's what the label said. Public education since (Reagan fed into the pay parity bogusness) has a lot to answer for is the bottom line.
> 
> Reagan was a joke. A joke on America.



We are still feeling the punchline of Reagans joke


----------



## rightwinger

Meathead said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are those who changed not only America, but the world FDR, Reagan. The top two. One who tried to change America and the world but failed, Wilson. The rest were simply caretakers of various degree of competence and accomplishment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George W Bush tried to change the world
> 
> He had visions of inserting Democracy into Southwest Asia and initiating a regional revolution for democracy. He invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq and installed democracies. He failed in that he he did not anticipate the resulting internal power struggles and the extent of loss of lives to Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was successful, however, in installing democratic institutions in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He did not change the world, but he damned sure changed those two countries.
Click to expand...


My view of Democracy has always been you have to earn it. 

Having someone else conquer and hand it to you does not work. What Bush accomplished was further destabilizing a region that was on the brink. He made Iran stronger in the region


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

PoliticalChic said:


> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You probably think Clinton was a Democrat because.....blah, blah, blah....."
> 
> No, actually...
> ...I simply think you're a dunce.
> 
> 
> It's clear due to your avoidance of Reagan's amazing turning around of the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> "But thanks for playing."
> How clever....could you possibly be any more of a clichéd?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's the dunce, here, babe? Someone stupid enough to believe Reagan turned the economy around, or someone that understands the horsepower of the greatest industrial nation ever to be sold out by a bobble headed idiot?
> 
> If you have enough emotional self control to read the facts on Reagan here they are:
> 
> 1. Tripled the debt
> 2. Signed pay parity bills
> 3. Expanded the federal government in size and power while at the same time convincing morons he was doing the opposite
> 4. First finance sector bailouts (S&Ls, and it was during Reagan's presidency that the Fed started buying private sector paper for the purpose of propping up markets - all the while braying about the purity of markets).
> 5. Expanded direct corporate welfare beyond Nixon's "revenue sharing" horseshit to state and local governments, possibly the stupidest people ever to bumble into "other people's money".
> 6. Continued on purpose what the moron, LBJ, started by accident - returning the MIC to the biggest lobby buying congressscum
> 7. Lied about his military service (although by the time he got to Bitzberg, he was probably more senile than anyone new.
> 
> What can possibly be more cliched than gaggles of halfwits following a charismatic to a bad place, then spending the rest of their lives in denial and publicly suppressing buyer's remorse by bragging about their love of the charismatic?
> 
> All in all, while bovine America basked in the evangelical skills of a man wrapped in the flag and surrounded by religious nuts, many rational Americans understood that corporations had finally got their man into the white house.
> 
> The only reason I paid any attention to the man was to see if a big time Democrat would blow him on camera. For those with the chops to run the numbers and connect cause-effect dots, it can't be missed that it was during the Reagan presidency that America lost its way. All it takes is integrity to admit it. Go ahead, try it. One imagines it won't be the worst morning after of your life.
> 
> Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. As you haven't commented on the facts that I filed, I'll assume that you have no answer to same.
> 
> 
> 2. Care to compare that record to the failure currently in the White House?
> 
> 
> 3. Or, perhaps, sink to your knees and genuflect in awe as to how Reagan defeated the 'Evil Empire' without firing a shot?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Do so.....and perhaps you might appear less of an ignoramus.
Click to expand...


1. Actually each of my responses destroyed every fantasy and delusion human cattle hold about Reagan. (Cluephone note: you might not want everybody to know the extent to which public education has failed you.) 

2. Obama is an inexperienced corporate shill, just like Reagan. It isn't clear whether your inability to interpret the facts is some mental limitation or dishonesty. In either event, a measure of your mental defect is bringing up Obama in a discussion of another big spending asshole. 

3. The USSR was bankrupt when Reagan was elected. They couldn't even afford hormone shots for the East German "women's" Olympic teams by 1980. The idea the USSR were going to nuke America was popular only among people seeking something to fear. That sort of trait has definitely been traced to genetic defect. If Reagan had focused on industry instead of making up war stories and playing with his plastic soldiers he might have amounted to something in real life instead of just inside the heads of delusional neocons. 

4. As long as you are posting fantasy, delusion, and  buttlicking the fake Republican New Dealer who rolled zillions of nutballs in the dim recesses of their minds there is no chance anyone with a three digit IQ is going to worry about my limits. Mostly they'll be hoping you really do live way far away without access to anything sharp. 

In sum, Wonder Woman, you might want to work on your math, logic and presentation skills. There appear to be a few... issues.


----------



## regent

Is Reagan to be excused for Iran-Contra because of alzheimer? Did Reagan know of Iran Contra while it was being executed during his presidency or did he just not remember when asked later?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

The "American" Left hates Reagan because Reagan never understood the love the Soviets had for their Eastern European slave nations


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

PoliticalChic said:


> Today is the birthday of Ronald Reagan.
> 
> February 6, 1911
> 
> [dime a dozen nutball nonsense omitted to cut to the chase]
> 
> *Happy Birthday to ...*
> *Ronald Reagan.*



To quote Adams correctly, facts are stubborn things...* Exective abstract:* During Reagan's terms laughing clowns entertained cheering fools while knaves looted the bank. Aware folks rate presidents by the EFFECTS of their policies. Halfwit America associates presidents with contemporaneous economic results, most of which are results of previous presidential policies. Reagan set the stage for dividing America by pitting money against labor in ways that were believed ended in 1930. Clinton finished implementing Reagan's economic policies, and the Bush League took voodoo economics (aka, asset-based economics) to their inevitable conclusion: down the drain.​*Reagan's promises*
  1. Reduce federal spending
  2. Reduce income taxes
   3. Reduce regulation
   4. Reduce inflation

*Reagan's actual performance* as rated when he left office (some records have been broken)

  1. Promise to reduce federal spendinga. Tripled  national debt from $900kk to $2.8kkk in eight years, raising it from  26%GDP to 41%GDP; before Reagan the fastest tripling of peacetime  national debt took 31 years
            b. Doubled foreign aid $10kk to $22kk
            c. 53% increase in on budget federal spending; 60% gross increase in federal spending
            d. 230,000 more *CIVILIAN* federal employees
  e. Doubled subsidies to defense firms lobbying congress
            f. More than doubled farm subsidies
            g. Doubled subsidies to educational unions
            h. Signed pay parity bills​2. Reduce income taxes create prosperitya. Largest across the board tax increase in US history (TERFA) 1982
  b. Largest middle class tax increase in US history (TRA) 1986
  c. Unemployment AVERAGED 7.5%, the highest ever eight year average
  d. Real rate of GDP growth 2.8% vs 3.4% under Carter
  e. Productivity growth 1.4% vs 1.9% under Carter​3. Reduce regulationa. First federal bailout of private banks (S&Ls)
  b. First federal bailouts of Wall Street (FED buying private sector securities)
c. Increased ethanol subsidies (1984, from 50c to 60c/gal)
d. Offered blanket pardon to eight million illegal aliens; 2.9 million took him up but all benefited. 
e. Opened borders to cheap Asian goods (Taiwan, Japan then) at cost of millions of US jobs​4. Reduce inflationa. Borrowed money to hide the inflationary effects of changing economy toward asset base
  b. Changed character of US job base from industrial to retail (MLM type instead of production)
  c. Changed statistical bases for recording official economic situation numbers​Summary on Reagan

  Reagan delivered higher taxes to working class Americans, lower taxes  on people and corporations exploiting American workers, and he did it  with a smile, hitting every mark on his stage. In sum Reagan   was a  shallow thinking gladhanding corporate shill; Otis Chandler hired him to  beat Pat Brown in California, then handed his boy off to Don Regan.  Reagan's stage managers kept him center stage shadow boxing a bankrupt   and tottering empire to the applause of halfwit America, while they  worked behind the scenes with corrupt congresses to loot the federal  treasury. By the time he left office WF Buckley and Barry Goldwater had  come to regret ever supporting Reagan. All that kept them silent in  public was their own complicity in electing someone that stupid and  weak.  

  A footnote: Reagan's acting chops were not recognized in life; in real  time he fooled that segment who could be fooled. That was then. An  important measure of the worth of a person is whether they continue to  buy the Legend of Ronald Reagan or not.


----------



## oldfart

regent said:


> Is Reagan to be excused for Iran-Contra because of alzheimer? Did Reagan know of Iran Contra while it was being executed during his presidency or did he just not remember when asked later?



Just my personal opinion:  Reagan had a large capacity for self-delusion throughout  his life.  He either was constantly aware and involved in Iran--Contra or he initiated it and then chose to have "plausible deniability" which is probably more likely.  Reagan was not stupid when it came to politics;  he knew what a bomb a smoking gun tying him to Iran--Contra would be.  At some point late in his second term Alzheimer could have been a factor, but I don't think a major one.  

Reagan is responsible for Iran--Contra in the same way that Cheney is responsible for the Plame affair.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Reagan freed the decedents of the people FDR's "Uncle" Joe Stalin enslaved


----------



## Toronado3800

CrusaderFrank said:


> Reagan freed the decedents of the people FDR's "Uncle" Joe Stalin enslaved



Frank, what do you mean?  

Do you mean Reagan got my kid to pay the interest on his "prosperity"?

Do you mean the U.S.S.R. came apart while Reagan was in office and FDR successfully avoided a war we might not have won in a decade?  Yak vs Corsair or T34 vs Sherman anyone?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Toronado3800 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan freed the decedents of the people FDR's "Uncle" Joe Stalin enslaved
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank, what do you mean?
> 
> Do you mean Reagan got my kid to pay the interest on his "prosperity"?
> 
> Do you mean the U.S.S.R. came apart while Reagan was in office and FDR successfully avoided a war we might not have won in a decade?  Yak vs Corsair or T34 vs Sherman anyone?
Click to expand...



"....FDR successfully avoided a war...."

...by simply kneeling before Stalin and giving him whatever he wished.
FDR was in the thrall of Joe Stalin.


----------



## CrimsonNan

I'm a newbie and not sure how to post, but anyway, I will try to say Happy Birthday Reagan Feb.6th.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> Is Reagan to be excused for Iran-Contra because of alzheimer? Did Reagan know of Iran Contra while it was being executed during his presidency or did he just not remember when asked later?




1.	The Iran-Contra scandal involved the sale of arms to Iran, basically to ransom American hostages that Islamic extremists held, and diverting proceeds from the sale to the Contras in Nicaragua. *Neither the sale nor the diversions of funds were clear violations of existing laws: subsequent independent counsel investigations never directly charged anyone with crimes for either the arms sales nor the diversions. *

2.	 "... reversal of NSC staff member Oliver North and National Security Adviser John Poindexters convictions. The Court of Appeals reversed their convictions because they successfully argued that witnesses in their trials might have been affected by publicized immunized congressional testimony, even though the prosecutors themselves had taken painstaking efforts to avoid encountering information about the hearings."
Understanding the Iran-Contra Affairs - The Legal Aftermath            (convictions: Understanding the Iran-Contra Affairs - The Legal Aftermath)


a.	Two points should be made clear. *The Democrat Congress was strongly in favor of the communists of Nicaragua, *and the scandal was an attempt to tie the hands of the President, who was strongly anti-communist. And, two, congressional attempts to conduct foreign policy were, at the very least, constitutionally dubious. Reagan often complained  that it was not possible to carry out foreign policy with 535 secretaries of state in Congress.


b.	See John Lockes Second Treatise of Government, the primary inspiration for the Declaration of Independence, for the nature of the prerogative in the executive branch. He defined it as nothing but the power of doing public good without a rule. John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government: Chapter 11 
and  Indeed, it is appropriate that the laws themselves should in some cases give way to the executive power, 
John Locke's Second Treatise of Government Chapter 14


c.	Thomas Jefferson to John B. Colvin:  ... circumstances do not sometimes occur, which make it a duty in officers of high trust, to assume authorities beyond the law, ... Article 2, Section 3: Thomas Jefferson to John B. Colvin



3.	Locke concluded that* the people would, ultimately, decide*: The people, Locke wrote, observing the whole tendency of their actions to be the public good, contested not what was done without law to that end, or, if any human frailty or mistakefor princes are but men, made as othersappeared in some small declinations from that end, yet it was visible the main of their conduct tended to nothing but the care of the public. The people, therefore, finding reason to be satisfied with these princes whenever they acted without or contrary to the letter of the law, acquiesced in what they did. Op. cit.


a.	*The outcome of the constitutional struggle over the Iran-Contra matter would be decided in that exact way: by public judgment* of the political clash in Washington. The joint House-Senate committee investigation of the Iran-Contra affairan investigation Democrats likened to Watergate and hoped would end with Reagans impeachmenttook a turn President Reagans critics had not expected when Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North appeared and delivered *a devastatingly effective attack on liberals in Congress* for their irresponsible meddling in foreign policy. 

Public opinion decisively shifted in Reagans favor, and the liberal dream of driving another Republican president from office died quickly. In other words, the people judged, just as Locke said they should, and *judged that Reagan had acted properly,* if not necessarily wisely. 
The Unsolvable Problem of Executive Power | Power Line



Nor is it surprising that you have the typical bumper-sticker understanding of the Iran-Contra issue.

In fact....I'll bet you even believe that there are pictures of J. Edgar Hoover in a dress.


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

Interesting how quickly people who never heard a shot fired in anger will shed the blood of their betters. It'd be good to see every individual supporting war required to serve in a combat capacity. 

If, for example, remf cowards and infamous chickenhawks Reagan or Junebug had heard the command "fix bayonets" inside a wire there is reasonable probability US history would be significantly different.


----------



## Toronado3800

PoliticalChic said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan freed the decedents of the people FDR's "Uncle" Joe Stalin enslaved
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank, what do you mean?
> 
> Do you mean Reagan got my kid to pay the interest on his "prosperity"?
> 
> Do you mean the U.S.S.R. came apart while Reagan was in office and FDR successfully avoided a war we might not have won in a decade?  Yak vs Corsair or T34 vs Sherman anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "....FDR successfully avoided a war...."
> 
> ...by simply kneeling before Stalin and giving him whatever he wished.
> FDR was in the thrall of Joe Stalin.
Click to expand...


Let me speak plainly, Stalin sucked.  Being in a room with the monster and not being able to kill him had to suck.

The cold war was pretty hard fought to.  Like you say though, capitalism beats socialism and maybe FDR had that opinion that eventually our economic system would allow us to swallow theirs.

BTW, what did FDR give Stalin that angers folks?  Largely the land Russian troops were already on?  A couple more costly to maintain than useful "R" class British battleships left over from the last war with Germany?  

This was a Russia where bother fathers and their sons had to go die to reclaim their land from Germany.  Folks were angry.

The plight of Eastern Europe really SUCKED.  I still don't know what we could have done, started the cold war six months sooner?

The outcome of any war with Russia was debatable also.  I see us and the Brits being pushed back to Dunkirk before our navy accomplished what, landing in Siberia?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's the dunce, here, babe? Someone stupid enough to believe Reagan turned the economy around, or someone that understands the horsepower of the greatest industrial nation ever to be sold out by a bobble headed idiot?
> 
> If you have enough emotional self control to read the facts on Reagan here they are:
> 
> 1. Tripled the debt
> 2. Signed pay parity bills
> 3. Expanded the federal government in size and power while at the same time convincing morons he was doing the opposite
> 4. First finance sector bailouts (S&Ls, and it was during Reagan's presidency that the Fed started buying private sector paper for the purpose of propping up markets - all the while braying about the purity of markets).
> 5. Expanded direct corporate welfare beyond Nixon's "revenue sharing" horseshit to state and local governments, possibly the stupidest people ever to bumble into "other people's money".
> 6. Continued on purpose what the moron, LBJ, started by accident - returning the MIC to the biggest lobby buying congressscum
> 7. Lied about his military service (although by the time he got to Bitzberg, he was probably more senile than anyone new.
> 
> What can possibly be more cliched than gaggles of halfwits following a charismatic to a bad place, then spending the rest of their lives in denial and publicly suppressing buyer's remorse by bragging about their love of the charismatic?
> 
> All in all, while bovine America basked in the evangelical skills of a man wrapped in the flag and surrounded by religious nuts, many rational Americans understood that corporations had finally got their man into the white house.
> 
> The only reason I paid any attention to the man was to see if a big time Democrat would blow him on camera. For those with the chops to run the numbers and connect cause-effect dots, it can't be missed that it was during the Reagan presidency that America lost its way. All it takes is integrity to admit it. Go ahead, try it. One imagines it won't be the worst morning after of your life.
> 
> Next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. As you haven't commented on the facts that I filed, I'll assume that you have no answer to same.
> 
> 
> 2. Care to compare that record to the failure currently in the White House?
> 
> 
> 3. Or, perhaps, sink to your knees and genuflect in awe as to how Reagan defeated the 'Evil Empire' without firing a shot?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Do so.....and perhaps you might appear less of an ignoramus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Actually each of my responses destroyed every fantasy and delusion human cattle hold about Reagan. (Cluephone note: you might not want everybody to know the extent to which public education has failed you.)
> 
> 2. Obama is an inexperienced corporate shill, just like Reagan. It isn't clear whether your inability to interpret the facts is some mental limitation or dishonesty. In either event, a measure of your mental defect is bringing up Obama in a discussion of another big spending asshole.
> 
> 3. The USSR was bankrupt when Reagan was elected. They couldn't even afford hormone shots for the East German "women's" Olympic teams by 1980. The idea the USSR were going to nuke America was popular only among people seeking something to fear. That sort of trait has definitely been traced to genetic defect. If Reagan had focused on industry instead of making up war stories and playing with his plastic soldiers he might have amounted to something in real life instead of just inside the heads of delusional neocons.
> 
> 4. As long as you are posting fantasy, delusion, and  buttlicking the fake Republican New Dealer who rolled zillions of nutballs in the dim recesses of their minds there is no chance anyone with a three digit IQ is going to worry about my limits. Mostly they'll be hoping you really do live way far away without access to anything sharp.
> 
> In sum, Wonder Woman, you might want to work on your math, logic and presentation skills. There appear to be a few... issues.
Click to expand...



"The USSR was bankrupt when Reagan was elected. They couldn't even afford hormone shots for the East German "women's" Olympic teams by 1980. The idea the USSR were going to nuke America was popular only among people seeking something to fear."





"Many forces contributed to the fall of the "Evil Empire", but foremost among them was the deployment of those 464 cruise and 108 Pershing II missiles slated to offset triple-warhead Soviet SS-20s and Backfire bombers that could reach all of Western Europe (but not the American homeland). Needless to say, it was not the "theo-logic" of deterrence that drove the counter-deployment. The drama was not really about "circular-errors probable" or "hard-target kill capabilities." The name of the game was as old as Thucydides' disquisitions on Peloponnesian power politics. It was a pure test of will and strength, and on its outcome hung, as it turned out, history. Yet what a slender thread it was."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_3/?tag=content;col1



So....you must believe that, among all of the other falsities to which you subscribe, 

"triple-warhead Soviet SS-20s and Backfire bombers that could reach all of Western Europe" are less expensive than "hormone shots for the East German "women's" Olympic teams by 1980."


'you might want to work on your math, logic and presentation skills.'
That sound?  Me, laughing at you.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Toronado3800 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frank, what do you mean?
> 
> Do you mean Reagan got my kid to pay the interest on his "prosperity"?
> 
> Do you mean the U.S.S.R. came apart while Reagan was in office and FDR successfully avoided a war we might not have won in a decade?  Yak vs Corsair or T34 vs Sherman anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "....FDR successfully avoided a war...."
> 
> ...by simply kneeling before Stalin and giving him whatever he wished.
> FDR was in the thrall of Joe Stalin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me speak plainly, Stalin sucked.  Being in a room with the monster and not being able to kill him had to suck.
> 
> The cold war was pretty hard fought to.  Like you say though, capitalism beats socialism and maybe FDR had that opinion that eventually our economic system would allow us to swallow theirs.
> 
> BTW, what did FDR give Stalin that angers folks?  Largely the land Russian troops were already on?  A couple more costly to maintain than useful "R" class British battleships left over from the last war with Germany?
> 
> This was a Russia where bother fathers and their sons had to go die to reclaim their land from Germany.  Folks were angry.
> 
> The plight of Eastern Europe really SUCKED.  I still don't know what we could have done, started the cold war six months sooner?
> 
> The outcome of any war with Russia was debatable also.  I see us and the Brits being pushed back to Dunkirk before our navy accomplished what, landing in Siberia?
Click to expand...




Yet....you're not disagreeing that FDR gave Stalin everything that he wished....at a time when the US was the only nation with nuclear weapons.

Nor....that FDR had a vice president who has been revealed as having worked with the NKVD, and promoted spies in his administration.

Strange how you guys can never read those tea leaves.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Interesting how quickly people who never heard a shot fired in anger will shed the blood of their betters. It'd be good to see every individual supporting war required to serve in a combat capacity.
> 
> If, for example, remf cowards and infamous chickenhawks Reagan or Junebug had heard the command "fix bayonets" inside a wire there is reasonable probability US history would be significantly different.




What a tough guy!
I knew you were really macho by the hair transplants you had in the palms of your hands.


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

PoliticalChic said:


> Yet....you're not disagreeing that FDR gave Stalin everything that he wished....at a time when the US was the only nation with nuclear weapons.
> 
> Nor....that FDR had a vice president who has been revealed as having worked with the NKVD, and promoted spies in his administration.
> 
> Strange how you guys can never read those tea leaves.



In addition when MacArthur wanted to bury the Chinese, Truman set the US up to drag South Korea behind it like a bad leg. Instead of kicking the shit out of the Chinese and getting it over with, American citizens ended up with the Asian equivalent of Israel, all cost and no benefit. 

By 1980 America's body politic had degenerated to the point where voters had to choose between a chickenshit micromanager and a gladhanding nutball halfwit. As quick as Reagan could open the borders to cheap Asian labor (SK, Japan and Taiwan) to act as deflationary agents making the FriedmaNUT credit-based economy look like it could work. 

Sad, really. But as someone above posted, we are all living in the economy Reagan made inevitable.


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

And I knew you by the smell of fish.


----------



## Synthaholic

PoliticalChic said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan freed the decedents of the people FDR's "Uncle" Joe Stalin enslaved
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank, what do you mean?
> 
> Do you mean Reagan got my kid to pay the interest on his "prosperity"?
> 
> Do you mean the U.S.S.R. came apart while Reagan was in office and FDR successfully avoided a war we might not have won in a decade?  Yak vs Corsair or T34 vs Sherman anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "....FDR successfully avoided a war...."
> 
> ...by simply kneeling before Stalin and giving him whatever he wished.
> FDR was in the thrall of Joe Stalin.
Click to expand...


FDR's polio would have kept him from kneeling before anyone, halfwit.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Interesting how quickly people who never heard a shot fired in anger will shed the blood of their betters. It'd be good to see every individual supporting war required to serve in a combat capacity.
> 
> If, for example, remf cowards and infamous chickenhawks Reagan or Junebug had heard the command "fix bayonets" inside a wire there is reasonable probability US history would be significantly different.



Could you be any more pathetic?


----------



## Synthaholic

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting how quickly people who never heard a shot fired in anger will shed the blood of their betters. It'd be good to see every individual supporting war required to serve in a combat capacity.
> 
> If, for example, remf cowards and infamous chickenhawks Reagan or Junebug had heard the command "fix bayonets" inside a wire there is reasonable probability US history would be significantly different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you be any more pathetic?
Click to expand...

Yes - he could have your posting history.


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

There was a time it might have turned out that my emotional and intellectual limits would be similar to yours, CrusaderFunk. Suicide was in my thoughts then, but all that is many years behind me. 

Thanks for asking.

ON EDIT: And thanks for the laugh of the week, S. Suicide would be back in my thoughts if my brain degenerated to the point asset-based economic policy made sense and I was actually admitting that on a public forum.


----------



## Toronado3800

PoliticalChic said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "....FDR successfully avoided a war...."
> 
> ...by simply kneeling before Stalin and giving him whatever he wished.
> FDR was in the thrall of Joe Stalin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me speak plainly, Stalin sucked.  Being in a room with the monster and not being able to kill him had to suck.
> 
> The cold war was pretty hard fought to.  Like you say though, capitalism beats socialism and maybe FDR had that opinion that eventually our economic system would allow us to swallow theirs.
> 
> BTW, what did FDR give Stalin that angers folks?  Largely the land Russian troops were already on?  A couple more costly to maintain than useful "R" class British battleships left over from the last war with Germany?
> 
> This was a Russia where bother fathers and their sons had to go die to reclaim their land from Germany.  Folks were angry.
> 
> The plight of Eastern Europe really SUCKED.  I still don't know what we could have done, started the cold war six months sooner?
> 
> The outcome of any war with Russia was debatable also.  I see us and the Brits being pushed back to Dunkirk before our navy accomplished what, landing in Siberia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet....you're not disagreeing that FDR gave Stalin everything that he wished....at a time when the US was the only nation with nuclear weapons.
> 
> Nor....that FDR had a vice president who has been revealed as having worked with the NKVD, and promoted spies in his administration.
> 
> Strange how you guys can never read those tea leaves.
Click to expand...


History compresses things.  Let's count our timeline again oversimplified.

1941 - getting bombed at Pearl Harbor was our accomplishment.  FDR was merely trying to get us into the war against the Charles Lindbergh's of the nation.

1942 - Midway, we are ready for WWII this time not trying to refight the Spanish American War, the Japanese aren't invading the West Coast.  

November 1942 we land in sorta French held, German owned Morocco.

1943 Feburary Kassarine Pass.  Oops, are we ready for the big leagues yet?

September - Yea!  We land in Italy!  It goes ok, really.  Not great, but as well as could be expected and we CAN support an army through the Mediterranean of all places.

1944 June, the middle of the year, Yea!  We land in Normandy.  Things start slow but we break out.  

1945 April FDR dies.  Dead.  
May - Truman is President - Germany surrenders
July - Trinity test / Potsdam meeting.  We have the bomb.  Truman is President.
August - Truman flies a pack of 3 B29's fly over Japan, no fighter escort for this was Japan of summer of '45 not Germany of '43, no fighter escort, no fighting off intercepting Japanese Zeros or anything like in the movie _Red Tails_, 3 lonely B29's fly over and nuke Hiroshima.

Still FDR was DEAD when we got the bomb.  Truman is your target here.

So let's back to 43....






We are at Tehran.  Roosevelt is alive, you are in control of him.  Your power is that little brown 1943 slice of dead Germans and Italians plus whatever you think you can do this next year. What do you demand of Stalin who has just won the largest armored engagement in history.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Toronado3800 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan freed the decedents of the people FDR's "Uncle" Joe Stalin enslaved
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank, what do you mean?
> 
> Do you mean Reagan got my kid to pay the interest on his "prosperity"?
> 
> Do you mean the U.S.S.R. came apart while Reagan was in office and FDR successfully avoided a war we might not have won in a decade?  Yak vs Corsair or T34 vs Sherman anyone?
Click to expand...


I can't make a lick of sense out of your stupid post

What the fuck are you talking about?

I basically said that FDR helped to enslave Eastern Europe and 2 generation later Reagan freed them.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> There was a time it might have turned out that my emotional and intellectual limits would be similar to yours, CrusaderFunk. Suicide was in my thoughts then, but all that is many years behind me.
> 
> Thanks for asking.
> 
> ON EDIT: And thanks for the laugh of the week, S. Suicide would be back in my thoughts if my brain degenerated to the point asset-based economic policy made sense and I was actually admitting that on a public forum.



Tell me more about your war stories! I get goosebumps listening to how brave you are!!


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

PoliticalChic said:


> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting how quickly people who never heard a shot fired in anger will shed the blood of their betters. It'd be good to see every individual supporting war required to serve in a combat capacity.
> 
> If, for example, remf cowards and infamous chickenhawks Reagan or Junebug had heard the command "fix bayonets" inside a wire there is reasonable probability US history would be significantly different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a tough guy!
> I knew you were really macho by the hair transplants you had in the palms of your hands.
Click to expand...




CrusaderFrank said:


> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was a time it might have turned out that my emotional and intellectual limits would be similar to yours, CrusaderFunk. Suicide was in my thoughts then, but all that is many years behind me.
> 
> Thanks for asking.
> 
> ON EDIT: And thanks for the laugh of the week, S. Suicide would be back in my thoughts if my brain degenerated to the point asset-based economic policy made sense and I was actually admitting that on a public forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me more about your war stories! *I get goosebumps listening to how brave you are!!*
Click to expand...


No. 
You don't. 
You know nothing about me. 

If your life is typical today your life's entire foundation catalog is based in front-running fantasy and emotion instead of trial and error experience. You are the realization of the dream of the people behind the curtain Reagan stood in front of. You are a proud fool. 

Worse, you grew up watching people you admired ridicule what they couldn't understand so all you know in terms of rough and tumble is ridicule. I am laughing out loud here thinking about the angst you must experience in search of just the right nutball gal. 

Pathetic.


----------



## rightwinger

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting how quickly people who never heard a shot fired in anger will shed the blood of their betters. It'd be good to see every individual supporting war required to serve in a combat capacity.
> 
> If, for example, remf cowards and infamous chickenhawks Reagan or Junebug had heard the command "fix bayonets" inside a wire there is reasonable probability US history would be significantly different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a tough guy!
> I knew you were really macho by the hair transplants you had in the palms of your hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was a time it might have turned out that my emotional and intellectual limits would be similar to yours, CrusaderFunk. Suicide was in my thoughts then, but all that is many years behind me.
> 
> Thanks for asking.
> 
> ON EDIT: And thanks for the laugh of the week, S. Suicide would be back in my thoughts if my brain degenerated to the point asset-based economic policy made sense and I was actually admitting that on a public forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me more about your war stories! *I get goosebumps listening to how brave you are!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> You don't.
> You know nothing about me.
> 
> If your life is typical today your life's entire foundation catalog is based in front-running fantasy and emotion instead of trial and error experience.
> 
> Worse, you grew up watching people you admired ridicule what they couldn't understand so all you know in terms of rough and tumble is ridicule. I am laughing out loud here thinking about the angst you must experience in search of just the right nutball gal.
> 
> Pathetic.
Click to expand...


Leave her alone

She is an Ann Coulter wannabe

She tries to channel her on this board


----------



## Toronado3800

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan freed the decedents of the people FDR's "Uncle" Joe Stalin enslaved
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank, what do you mean?
> 
> Do you mean Reagan got my kid to pay the interest on his "prosperity"?
> 
> Do you mean the U.S.S.R. came apart while Reagan was in office and FDR successfully avoided a war we might not have won in a decade?  Yak vs Corsair or T34 vs Sherman anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't make a lick of sense out of your stupid post
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> I basically said that FDR helped to enslave Eastern Europe and 2 generation later Reagan freed them.
Click to expand...


Oh yes.  Were you not the one who would have set Patton loose on the Russians in 1945!  

Do you think we had a strong enough position in '43 to bluff Stalin?

I wonder how that would have went?  As well as Korea?  Better, worse?  Perhaps by the fall of 45 we could have nuked Berlin to keep them from pushing us into the channel?

We got the cold war.  We had a period where 10 of 30 years were spent in one world war or another and a decade in between of the Great Depression.

Wasn't the cold war and some patience our economic system would win out enough?


----------



## rightwinger

Toronado3800 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frank, what do you mean?
> 
> Do you mean Reagan got my kid to pay the interest on his "prosperity"?
> 
> Do you mean the U.S.S.R. came apart while Reagan was in office and FDR successfully avoided a war we might not have won in a decade?  Yak vs Corsair or T34 vs Sherman anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't make a lick of sense out of your stupid post
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> I basically said that FDR helped to enslave Eastern Europe and 2 generation later Reagan freed them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yes.  Were you not the one who would have set Patton loose on the Russians in 1945!
> 
> Do you think we had a strong enough position in '43 to bluff Stalin?
> 
> I wonder how that would have went?  As well as Korea?  Better, worse?  Perhaps by the fall of 45 we could have nuked Berlin to keep them from pushing us into the channel?
> 
> We got the cold war.  We had a period where 10 of 30 years were spent in one world war or another and a decade in between of the Great Depression.
> 
> Wasn't the cold war and some patience our economic system would win out enough?
Click to expand...


Frankie is a history revisionist who has wet dreams about attacking the Soviet Union


----------



## MikeK

Ronald Reagan was a Grade-B movie actor whose perfectly mundane and artificially likeable persona transported him to the status of Man From General Electric, then eventually to a starring role as President Of the United States.  To believe this posturing, flag-waving boob was anything other than a moderately skilled pretender who performed with deliberate obedience to his scripted purpose as corporatist water-carrier is to demonstrate the kind of simple-minded naivete which gradually has emerged as a malignant and quietly menacing growth on the body of American politics.  

Briefly stated, Ronald Reagan was one of the worst things that ever happened to America.  Not only because of the economic damage caused by the policies he managed to impose on us but because of the false impression he managed to convey to the receptive minds and imaginations of a veritable cult of jingoistic disciples who continue to regard him as a good President and a good American.  What Ronald Reagan really was is a second-rate Hollywood character who happened to be exactly what the faltering corporatocracy was looking for to replace the weakened and vulnerable Carter presidency and to hoodwink a population already partially brainwashed by the input of electronically induced fantasy.

The Ronald Reagan story is a factual demonstration of the hypnotic effect the movies and television can have on a national population.  And those who would like to better understand how the phenomenon works need only read Marshal MacLuhan's classic work, _The Medium Is The Message._


----------



## Synthaholic

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting how quickly people who never heard a shot fired in anger will shed the blood of their betters. It'd be good to see every individual supporting war required to serve in a combat capacity.
> 
> If, for example, remf cowards and infamous chickenhawks Reagan or Junebug had heard the command "fix bayonets" inside a wire there is reasonable probability US history would be significantly different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a tough guy!
> I knew you were really macho by the hair transplants you had in the palms of your hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was a time it might have turned out that my emotional and intellectual limits would be similar to yours, CrusaderFunk. Suicide was in my thoughts then, but all that is many years behind me.
> 
> Thanks for asking.
> 
> ON EDIT: And thanks for the laugh of the week, S. Suicide would be back in my thoughts if my brain degenerated to the point asset-based economic policy made sense and I was actually admitting that on a public forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me more about your war stories! *I get goosebumps listening to how brave you are!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> You don't.
> You know nothing about me.
> 
> If your life is typical today your life's entire foundation catalog is based in front-running fantasy and emotion instead of trial and error experience. You are the realization of the dream of the people behind the curtain Reagan stood in front of. *You are a proud fool. *
> 
> Worse, you grew up watching people you admired ridicule what they couldn't understand so all you know in terms of rough and tumble is ridicule. I am laughing out loud here thinking about the angst you must experience in search of just the right nutball gal.
> 
> Pathetic.
Click to expand...



Wow, it's like you've known CrusaderFrank for years!


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

For those who want facts about the meltdown, *Inside Job* is thoroughly sourced journalism. Every event is thoroughly referenced and can easily be verified. 

For nutballs with sufficient integrity to want to know the facts about the Icon, Reagan, *conservative* writers Donald Barlett &  James Steele's "_America_" trilogy can't be beat. Written between 1990 and 1996 "_What went wrong_", "_Who really pays the taxes_", and "_Who stole the Dream_" are the finest books ever written about the Reagan/Clinton axis of corporate shills posing as Republicans and Democrats while actively working to destroy America's middle class at least, and perhaps more in their efforts to promote global corporate hegemony. No fans of big government, Barlett and Steele do support equal access to the law; each book is thoroughly footnoted and every claim is verifiable. 

In the same time frame- perhaps a year or so later, if memory serves me well, Frank Partnoy wrote "_F.I.A.S.C.O._", to this day the best general reference on how low margin/no margin derivatives became defined as respectable, written by a man who was there. 

Those with enough going on to understand and accept Reagan's guilt and Clinton's guilt in creating an asset-based credit-fueled fake economy might want to read "_The Great American Stickup_" by Robert Scheer. Sheer is admittedly a liberal, but he doesn't do Democrats any favors describing their guilt in the runup to 2008. Even a dyslexic like me can read this book in a couple of hours. 

My favorite read on the period leading up to Junebug's no-doubt-about-it exposure as an incompetent political hack and heir to the nutty policies of Reagan and Clinton is Tiabbi's "_Griftopia_". Written from an entirely liberal point of view and taking harsh positions on nutballism, Tiabbi trashes Democrat scum with special vigor because Tiabbi feels betrayed by his own team. Bawny Fwank and similarly clueless meritocrats that followed Clinton's corporatist instincts down the drain get special trashing. Tiabbi is coarse and vulgar and so pretty much everything one wants in a writer trashing people one despises with special vigor.


----------



## Synthaholic

rightwinger said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't make a lick of sense out of your stupid post
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> I basically said that FDR helped to enslave Eastern Europe and 2 generation later Reagan freed them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes.  Were you not the one who would have set Patton loose on the Russians in 1945!
> 
> Do you think we had a strong enough position in '43 to bluff Stalin?
> 
> I wonder how that would have went?  As well as Korea?  Better, worse?  Perhaps by the fall of 45 we could have nuked Berlin to keep them from pushing us into the channel?
> 
> We got the cold war.  We had a period where 10 of 30 years were spent in one world war or another and a decade in between of the Great Depression.
> 
> Wasn't the cold war and some patience our economic system would win out enough?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Frankie is a history revisionist* who has wet dreams about attacking the Soviet Union
Click to expand...


Correct.  He wants us all to believe Joe McCarthy was a hero.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Bfgrn said:


> "Washington couldn't tell a lie, Nixon couldn't tell the truth, and Reagan couldn't tell the difference."
> Mort Sahl




Trolls like rightwinger and the others that defend the lies of reagan to no end get their ass handed to them on a platter here that reagan at that time was the most corrupt president ever and could not carry JFK's jockstrap as the greatest president of that century.JFK was our last REAL president not a puppet for the establishment,there to serve the people and honor the constitution instead of serving wall street and the zionist jews like  every president since him and thats why they CIA killed him.

not surprising, the reagan apologists are too arrogant to acknowledge these facts and admit they have been duped by the corporate controlled media and their propaganda they have spread over the years.


----------

