Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101

[Camp]

a silly person wrote:


FACT: so many Dems in Congress voted for Reagan's policies that the term REAGAN DEMOCRAT was coined to describe them.

That is not what the term Reagan Democrat meant. Had nothing to do with how Congress voted.

read it and weep leftard. then again you probably arent man enough to admit you're wrong:

Overview[edit]

The term can also be used......

"The term can also be used..."means the definition has been expanded from it's original meaning. How convenient you decided not to include the entire definition or primary difinition from wherever your definition came from. Having actually voted for Reagan for his first term as a registered independent, I think I understand what the term meant as some of my Democrat friends voted for Reagan also and called themselves Reagan Democrats. The term was used to describe democrats who voted for Reagan. Whatever changes were made to the definition after that for spin, talking points or propaganda purposes is irrelevant.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Attempting to discredit Reagans role in bringing down the USSR is like believing Abe Lincoln:Vampire Hunter is historically accurate

Have Fun with your CIA Disinformation friends. I know the KGB Wing of the CIA was totally against Reagan's efforts, it's good to see they still haven't gotten over their defeat

The KGB wing of the CIA?

YOu know you are sounding like a paranoid loon, right?

Reagan had as much to do with the fall of the USSR as a Rooster has to do with the sunrise.

Reagan called the USSR an evil empire, vowed to defeat them and he defeated them liberating hundreds of millions from your preferred political and economic system

Sent from my Chinese Supercomputer made from XBox parts Bush sent to China

 

[Darkwind]

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’s final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their own—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—Reagan’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 “soft” 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 “moral disarmament” and Safire mocking Reagan’s rapport with Gorbachev: “He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachev’s eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination.” 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

There has been revision of history, true. Your post proves it.

 

[bedowin62]

That is not what the term Reagan Democrat meant. Had nothing to do with how Congress voted.

read it and weep leftard. then again you probably arent man enough to admit you're wrong:

Overview[edit]

The term can also be used......

"The term can also be used..."means the definition has been expanded from it's original meaning. How convenient you decided not to include the entire definition or primary difinition from wherever your definition came from. Having actually voted for Reagan for his first term as a registered independent, I think I understand what the term meant as some of my Democrat friends voted for Reagan also and called themselves Reagan Democrats. The term was used to describe democrats who voted for Reagan. Whatever changes were made to the definition after that for spin, talking points or propaganda purposes in irrelevant.

crybaby; i did use the whole definition; when i explained that it could mean either Dems elected to Congress that voted for Reagan's policies; or Dems already in Congrss that voted for reagan's policies; and the democrat voters that sent them there

 

[Iceweasel]

It's interesting that some think political commentators shape history.

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

Right. He warmed up to them. That's why we got into an arms race that bankrupted them, then sweet talked them into trusting us. Wow.

 

[Camp]

read it and weep leftard. then again you probably arent man enough to admit you're wrong:

Overview[edit]

The term can also be used......

"The term can also be used..."means the definition has been expanded from it's original meaning. How convenient you decided not to include the entire definition or primary difinition from wherever your definition came from. Having actually voted for Reagan for his first term as a registered independent, I think I understand what the term meant as some of my Democrat friends voted for Reagan also and called themselves Reagan Democrats. The term was used to describe democrats who voted for Reagan. Whatever changes were made to the definition after that for spin, talking points or propaganda purposes is irrelevant.

crybaby; i did use the whole definition; when i explained that it could mean either Dems elected to Congress that voted for Reagan's policies; or Dems already in Congrss that voted for reagan's policies; and the democrat voters that sent them there

You have a distorted definition that is being twisted to make an inference that is fraudulent. So where did you get your definition?

 

[bedowin62]

"The term can also be used..."means the definition has been expanded from it's original meaning. How convenient you decided not to include the entire definition or primary difinition from wherever your definition came from. Having actually voted for Reagan for his first term as a registered independent, I think I understand what the term meant as some of my Democrat friends voted for Reagan also and called themselves Reagan Democrats. The term was used to describe democrats who voted for Reagan. Whatever changes were made to the definition after that for spin, talking points or propaganda purposes in irrelevant.

crybaby; i did use the whole definition; when i explained that it could mean either Dems elected to Congress that voted for Reagan's policies; or Dems already in Congrss that voted for reagan's policies; and the democrat voters that sent them there

You have a distorted definition that is being twisted to make an inference that is fraudulent. So where did you get your definition?

FRAUDULENT?

so Democrats in Congress and the people in the electorate that sent those democrats to congress didnt support Reagans policies/

so Dems didnt control the purse strings all 8 reagan years?

you're a fool; lying to him or herself. why should i take you seriously?

 

[Camp]

crybaby; i did use the whole definition; when i explained that it could mean either Dems elected to Congress that voted for Reagan's policies; or Dems already in Congrss that voted for reagan's policies; and the democrat voters that sent them there

You have a distorted definition that is being twisted to make an inference that is fraudulent. So where did you get your definition?

FRAUDULENT?

so Democrats in Congress and the people in the electorate that sent those democrats to congress didnt support Reagans policies/

so Dems didnt control the purse strings all 8 reagan years?

you're a fool; lying to him or herself. why should i take you seriously?

The voters didn't vote for democrats to support Reagan. That is just a friggin rediculous idea. If they wanted a House that would give unconditional support to Reagan they would have voted for Republicans to control the House. They kept the House in Democratic control to keep Reagan in balance and to force him to comprimise. The House remained in Democratic control the entire time he was President. Eventually the voters took control of the Senate away from Republicans and gave it to the Democrats.

If you stop your name calling and get some controll on you vanity you might actually learn something other than that spoon fed blabber you seem addicted to.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives believe that Eastern Europe was better off under Communism

 

[bedowin62]

You have a distorted definition that is being twisted to make an inference that is fraudulent. So where did you get your definition?

FRAUDULENT?

so Democrats in Congress and the people in the electorate that sent those democrats to congress didnt support Reagans policies/

so Dems didnt control the purse strings all 8 reagan years?

you're a fool; lying to him or herself. why should i take you seriously?

The voters didn't vote for democrats to support Reagan. That is just a friggin rediculous idea. If they wanted a House that would give unconditional support to Reagan they would have voted for Republicans to control the House. They kept the House in Democratic control to keep Reagan in balance and to force him to comprimise. The House remained in Democratic control the entire time he was President. Eventually the voters took control of the Senate away from Republicans and gave it to the Democrats.

If you stop your name calling and get some controll on you vanity you might actually learn something other than that spoon fed blabber you seem addicted to.

you're babbling and making a fool of yourself. now you are saying they didnt vote for their reps to support reagan; after telling me the ones already there that WE KNOW FOR FACT voted for reagan's policies werent what the term reagan democrat wasn meant to describe. it doesnt matter what YOU say they wanted to do; keep reagan "in balance" if they voted FOR his policies en masse.

why dont you go cry somewhere?

 

[bedowin62]

You have a distorted definition that is being twisted to make an inference that is fraudulent. So where did you get your definition?

FRAUDULENT?

so Democrats in Congress and the people in the electorate that sent those democrats to congress didnt support Reagans policies/

so Dems didnt control the purse strings all 8 reagan years?

you're a fool; lying to him or herself. why should i take you seriously?

The voters didn't vote for democrats to support Reagan. That is just a friggin rediculous idea. If they wanted a House that would give unconditional support to Reagan they would have voted for Republicans to control the House. They kept the House in Democratic control to keep Reagan in balance and to force him to comprimise. The House remained in Democratic control the entire time he was President. Eventually the voters took control of the Senate away from Republicans and gave it to the Democrats.

If you stop your name calling and get some controll on you vanity you might actually learn something other than that spoon fed blabber you seem addicted to.

by the way genius; nobody spoon-fed me anything; i'm simply relying on FACTS AND LOGIC. so many Dems voted for reagan's policies that a term was coined to describe them. on the other hand if you're trying to say that they still voted for dems to "keep Reagan in balance" they didnt do a very good job of that then voted FOR ALL OF HIS POLICIES AND opposing very few of them.
nothing you say adds up; because you just want to re-write your own Party's history and whine about things you supported; let alone had the numbers to oppose

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I see the cat has got the tongue of the reaganuts knowing they are cornered by reagans atrocities against mankind.

Or they think you're too stupid to talk to since Reagan has been out of office for a while.

changing the subject and resorting to insults as always do the reaganut trolls.

Crusader Retard is the one here having meltdowns saying "I' am the CIA disinformation agent troll when its the CIA controlled media agents like Rush Limbaugh that spreads lies about him that he eats up hook,line,and sinker.

Crusader Retards is the one obsessed with talking about Reagan being the greatest president ever,yet like you,changes the subject refusing to address facts when he is cornered with the truth having meltdowns.

you MIGHT consider telling HIM thats its nuts ignoring facts changing the subject, evading facts, then having meltdown temper tantrems telling lies about someone who is dead.

Im not the one here running away evading facts changing the subject about someone who has been in office and having meltdowns over it.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Attempting to discredit Reagans role in bringing down the USSR is like believing Abe Lincoln:Vampire Hunter is historically accurate

Have Fun with your CIA Disinformation friends. I know the KGB Wing of the CIA was totally against Reagan's efforts, it's good to see they still haven't gotten over their defeat

The KGB wing of the CIA?

YOu know you are sounding like a paranoid loon, right?

Reagan had as much to do with the fall of the USSR as a Rooster has to do with the sunrise.

your wasting your breath.Cant reason with a reagan worshipper.especially Crusader retard.

they play dodgeball with these facts about him.

 

[bedowin62]

Attempting to discredit Reagans role in bringing down the USSR is like believing Abe Lincoln:Vampire Hunter is historically accurate

Have Fun with your CIA Disinformation friends. I know the KGB Wing of the CIA was totally against Reagan's efforts, it's good to see they still haven't gotten over their defeat

The KGB wing of the CIA?

YOu know you are sounding like a paranoid loon, right?

Reagan had as much to do with the fall of the USSR as a Rooster has to do with the sunrise.

your wasting your breath.Cant reason with a reagan worshipper.especially Crusader retard.

they play dodgeball with these facts about him.

u just cant take a nutjob with a screen name like "9-11 was an inside job"
serious

 

[LA RAM FAN]

The KGB wing of the CIA?

YOu know you are sounding like a paranoid loon, right?

Reagan had as much to do with the fall of the USSR as a Rooster has to do with the sunrise.

your wasting your breath.Cant reason with a reagan worshipper.especially Crusader retard.

they play dodgeball with these facts about him.

u just cant take a nutjob with a screen name like "9-11 was an inside job"
serious

the reaganuts are playing dodgeball here as always.


you might consider adding your fellow reagan worshipper to ignore like have with me then since he has the same belief on that as well.

He DOES acknowledge how evil and corrupt the Bush family is unlike he does with reagan.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

The KGB wing of the CIA?

YOu know you are sounding like a paranoid loon, right?

Reagan had as much to do with the fall of the USSR as a Rooster has to do with the sunrise.

your wasting your breath.Cant reason with a reagan worshipper.especially Crusader retard.

they play dodgeball with these facts about him.

u just cant take a nutjob with a screen name like "9-11 was an inside job"
serious

the reaganuts are playing dodgeball here as always.


you might consider adding your fellow reagan worshipper Crusader Retard to ignore like you have with me then since he has the same belief on 9/11 as well.

He DOES acknowledge how evil and corrupt the Bush family is unlike he does with reagan.

William Bunch the author of tearign down the myth -doesnt have my screenman,yet you cowards run away from the challenge of trying to refute his facts in his book getting desperate bringing in some link about him trying to slander him instead of refuting his facts in his book.when cornered,slander the messenger instead of refuting the facts.

 

[Meathead]

The KGB wing of the CIA?

YOu know you are sounding like a paranoid loon, right?

Reagan had as much to do with the fall of the USSR as a Rooster has to do with the sunrise.

your wasting your breath.Cant reason with a reagan worshipper.especially Crusader retard.

they play dodgeball with these facts about him.

u just cant take a nutjob with a screen name like "9-11 was an inside job"
serious

Amen! His pathology is boundless.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

if we're still paying for Reagan's ineptitude than we will never recover from the moron in the White House now

you want to bitch about the moron we have in office now,then your in the wrong thread and the wrong section as well.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

[



enormous expansion of the middle class

Sorry, man, the middle class DECLINED under Reagan.

Reagan's Real Legacy | The Nation

[

largest increase in the African American Middle class in history at that point

...

[
saved us from the Carter Depression

When Carter left office, unemployment was at 7.4%. Under reagan, it hit 11.3% before Reagan changed the counting rules to include people in the military as "employed". When Reagan got re-elected, unemployment was at 7.2%. Reagan intentionally continued Carter's policy of using unemployment to curb inflation.


pesky facts about reagans pitiful performance as president are something they cover their ears to when they see them.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

russians killed a million Afghanis; just because they wanted little girls to read huh Joe?

you get dumber by the post.

then again in left-wing circles mass slaughter IS acceptable when spreading left-wing ideology

what was it Mao said?

Sorry, the only reason why a million Afghanis died was because there was a war we funded.

The Pakistanis sold us a bill of goods about how these guys they were arming were "Freedom Fighters" and we bought it.

a war funded by the reagan administration is just a too scary fact for them to accept.