Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I lived through the nightmare of Carter. I waited in the gas lines.
The BIG DEBT happened under the Clinton Recession of 2001 and Obama thereafter. Bush was doing a damn good job bringing the deficits down until the idiots Reid and Pelosi in 2006!!!
LMAO. What a fucking idiot you are.
Bush's wars were "free" eh? Bush's tax cuts were "free" also. And the prescription drug program was "free" as well.
Damn that Bush gave away the country with all those freebies.
But you still a fucking idiot.
Oh wait a minute. I think we have a truther here folks? Bush's WARs? Why is that plural? Which wars did Boooosh start?
You fucking loser.
I will be waiting for the Iraq bullshit cliche again. Which, is all you fucking losers have. I will then happily remind you about WHO proagated the existence of WMDs before Boooosh took office.
Which wars did Boooosh start? Why is that plural? You fucking loser.
The reality is Reagan was a great President because he was.Carter was an idiot; even Obama would have looked good following him...............until about year two!!!
The Ronald was a GREAT pres; it's why the left are so set on rewriting History!!! And frankly the only decent thing Bill did was chase skirt and leave the running of the country to those with a few brains. Even then he managed to fuck up the Tech and Housing industries.
Greg
The reality is Reagan was a great president for you because you wanted him to be.
Obama had scandals, that's why he's a bad president, Reagan had scandals, that's why he was a good president. That kind of fucked up argument.
the tend to omit that one ... even the part d prescription plan they forgot to allowcate money for ... then that old no children left behind ... the left betind the money to pay for it ... and remember those emergency bills for his wars they passed each and every other month for the war effort ... none go that went in to the national budget... which rolled over into the national debt ... they tend to forget that one ... then in 2009 when obama took office he put all of bushes debt into the national debt ... they tent to ignore that but are quick to claim that obama ran up the debt...Oh yeah.......much like the country was doing great in 2008....when Doofus was at the helm. Dream on.A swingandamiss. No, you guys can't tarnish reality. It doesn't work that way. Many of us were alive then, I started a company serving other businesses and know full well the economy improved greatly, even with the added debt and lowered taxes. More activity = more income.Okay. let's talk numbers...
Which President Added Most to the U.S. Debt?
Reagan increased the national debt 186% from the level that Carter left him
GW Bush increased the national debt 101% from the level that Clinton left him
Obama has increased the national debt 55.4%
So the Republicans talk a good game, but they increase the national debt even more than a Democratic administration. And many of us are still struggling to recover from the mess that GW left us.
You're tarnishing the reverent image conservatives have of the brain addled buffoon......who took guidance from his wife who took guidance from a fortune teller.....need anyone say more?
Let's ignore the fact that Doofus Bush started two worthless wars and provided tax cuts to the rich, which greatly increased the debt, and just blame Obama. Nice try, weasel.Nor will excusing/ignoring Democrat spending work. Nor will excusing 19+ trillion in debt we have now thanks to obama's social spending. The only tarnish here is between your ears.
US defense spending in no way cause the fall of the USSR....that was a job by insiders, and Reagan was no Kremlin insider...Reagan had the Soviets to deal with and spent a lot of money building up our military forcing them to eventually go broke trying to keep up with us in military weaponry/ technology and economically. It was something that had to be done in order to defeat communism and in the end, he was successful.Wow prior to Reagan no one talked about waste and fraud in government. Who knew?http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/21/the-g-o-p-s-economic-delusion
For one thing, decades of rhetoric about waste in Washington—one of Reagan’s favorite talking points—have skewed voter perceptions. “People think that there are a lot of ways to end fraud that would help balance the budget,” Nyhan says. Forty-nine per cent of those surveyed in a 2013 Fox News poll agreed that cutting “waste and fraud” could eliminate the national debt. In addition, voters have a poor sense of how government money is spent. When Trump says that he wants to close the Department of Education and the E.P.A., it might sound like a big saving. Yet their combined budgets amount to a small fraction of his proposed tax cut. Likewise with foreign aid: polls show that Americans think as much as a quarter of the federal budget goes to other countries, when it’s actually less than one per cent of total spending.
________________________________________________________________________________________
The Republicans learned from Reagan that a HUGE LIE can be forgiven if your party keeps telling the work how wonderful a President that you were, as the GOP does Reagan. Now, all the GOP hopefuls, especially the fraud Phrump, have also taken to heart the Great Reagan Lie.
The other fact that the article points out in that FOX news viewers are very to fool. They believe most anything FOX swears is true.
Is that the best response that you have? Yes, he talked about waste and fraud and then told America that eliminating it would remove the national debt. Then he turned and tripled it. THE REAGAN LIE!
Oh wait a minute. I think we have a truther here folks? Bush's WARs? Why is that plural? Which wars did Boooosh start?
we should really push for a law that says: some people shouldn't be allowed to vote. the reasons to hate someone is Pathetic.
What color is the sky in your world?US defense spending in no way cause the fall of the USSR....that was a job by insiders, and Reagan was no Kremlin insider...Reagan had the Soviets to deal with and spent a lot of money building up our military forcing them to eventually go broke trying to keep up with us in military weaponry/ technology and economically. It was something that had to be done in order to defeat communism and in the end, he was successful.Wow prior to Reagan no one talked about waste and fraud in government. Who knew?http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/21/the-g-o-p-s-economic-delusion
For one thing, decades of rhetoric about waste in Washington—one of Reagan’s favorite talking points—have skewed voter perceptions. “People think that there are a lot of ways to end fraud that would help balance the budget,” Nyhan says. Forty-nine per cent of those surveyed in a 2013 Fox News poll agreed that cutting “waste and fraud” could eliminate the national debt. In addition, voters have a poor sense of how government money is spent. When Trump says that he wants to close the Department of Education and the E.P.A., it might sound like a big saving. Yet their combined budgets amount to a small fraction of his proposed tax cut. Likewise with foreign aid: polls show that Americans think as much as a quarter of the federal budget goes to other countries, when it’s actually less than one per cent of total spending.
________________________________________________________________________________________
The Republicans learned from Reagan that a HUGE LIE can be forgiven if your party keeps telling the work how wonderful a President that you were, as the GOP does Reagan. Now, all the GOP hopefuls, especially the fraud Phrump, have also taken to heart the Great Reagan Lie.
The other fact that the article points out in that FOX news viewers are very to fool. They believe most anything FOX swears is true.
Is that the best response that you have? Yes, he talked about waste and fraud and then told America that eliminating it would remove the national debt. Then he turned and tripled it. THE REAGAN LIE!
The reality is Reagan was a great President because he was.Carter was an idiot; even Obama would have looked good following him...............until about year two!!!
The Ronald was a GREAT pres; it's why the left are so set on rewriting History!!! And frankly the only decent thing Bill did was chase skirt and leave the running of the country to those with a few brains. Even then he managed to fuck up the Tech and Housing industries.
Greg
The reality is Reagan was a great president for you because you wanted him to be.
Obama had scandals, that's why he's a bad president, Reagan had scandals, that's why he was a good president. That kind of fucked up argument.
You don't get reelected by winning 49 States without people judging your last 4 years.
You're an idiot. Like that's news. It is well known the arms race presented an unsustainable drain on the Soviets.US defense spending in no way cause the fall of the USSR....that was a job by insiders, and Reagan was no Kremlin insider...Reagan had the Soviets to deal with and spent a lot of money building up our military forcing them to eventually go broke trying to keep up with us in military weaponry/ technology and economically. It was something that had to be done in order to defeat communism and in the end, he was successful.Wow prior to Reagan no one talked about waste and fraud in government. Who knew?http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/21/the-g-o-p-s-economic-delusion
For one thing, decades of rhetoric about waste in Washington—one of Reagan’s favorite talking points—have skewed voter perceptions. “People think that there are a lot of ways to end fraud that would help balance the budget,” Nyhan says. Forty-nine per cent of those surveyed in a 2013 Fox News poll agreed that cutting “waste and fraud” could eliminate the national debt. In addition, voters have a poor sense of how government money is spent. When Trump says that he wants to close the Department of Education and the E.P.A., it might sound like a big saving. Yet their combined budgets amount to a small fraction of his proposed tax cut. Likewise with foreign aid: polls show that Americans think as much as a quarter of the federal budget goes to other countries, when it’s actually less than one per cent of total spending.
________________________________________________________________________________________
The Republicans learned from Reagan that a HUGE LIE can be forgiven if your party keeps telling the work how wonderful a President that you were, as the GOP does Reagan. Now, all the GOP hopefuls, especially the fraud Phrump, have also taken to heart the Great Reagan Lie.
The other fact that the article points out in that FOX news viewers are very to fool. They believe most anything FOX swears is true.
Is that the best response that you have? Yes, he talked about waste and fraud and then told America that eliminating it would remove the national debt. Then he turned and tripled it. THE REAGAN LIE!
Oh, so now you down to the singular? Got it. You gave up on the plural form of the word WAR
You don't get reelected with 49 States unless you're a Uniter and great President. Period.The reality is Reagan was a great President because he was.Carter was an idiot; even Obama would have looked good following him...............until about year two!!!
The Ronald was a GREAT pres; it's why the left are so set on rewriting History!!! And frankly the only decent thing Bill did was chase skirt and leave the running of the country to those with a few brains. Even then he managed to fuck up the Tech and Housing industries.
Greg
The reality is Reagan was a great president for you because you wanted him to be.
Obama had scandals, that's why he's a bad president, Reagan had scandals, that's why he was a good president. That kind of fucked up argument.
You don't get reelected by winning 49 States without people judging your last 4 years.
so you're saying Obama was a great president because he won too???
In the 1980s, the Soviet Union was engulfed by a multitude of problems. The economy, especially the agricultural sector, began to fall apart. The country lacked technological advancements and used inefficient factories, all while consumers were buying low-quality products and suffered from a shortage of social freedoms. To reform the distraught Soviet Union, the democratization of the Communist Party was promoted through Party Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev‘s policies of “perestroika” and “glasnost.”You're an idiot. Like that's news. It is well known the arms race presented an unsustainable drain on the Soviets.US defense spending in no way cause the fall of the USSR....that was a job by insiders, and Reagan was no Kremlin insider...Reagan had the Soviets to deal with and spent a lot of money building up our military forcing them to eventually go broke trying to keep up with us in military weaponry/ technology and economically. It was something that had to be done in order to defeat communism and in the end, he was successful.Wow prior to Reagan no one talked about waste and fraud in government. Who knew?http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/21/the-g-o-p-s-economic-delusion
For one thing, decades of rhetoric about waste in Washington—one of Reagan’s favorite talking points—have skewed voter perceptions. “People think that there are a lot of ways to end fraud that would help balance the budget,” Nyhan says. Forty-nine per cent of those surveyed in a 2013 Fox News poll agreed that cutting “waste and fraud” could eliminate the national debt. In addition, voters have a poor sense of how government money is spent. When Trump says that he wants to close the Department of Education and the E.P.A., it might sound like a big saving. Yet their combined budgets amount to a small fraction of his proposed tax cut. Likewise with foreign aid: polls show that Americans think as much as a quarter of the federal budget goes to other countries, when it’s actually less than one per cent of total spending.
________________________________________________________________________________________
The Republicans learned from Reagan that a HUGE LIE can be forgiven if your party keeps telling the work how wonderful a President that you were, as the GOP does Reagan. Now, all the GOP hopefuls, especially the fraud Phrump, have also taken to heart the Great Reagan Lie.
The other fact that the article points out in that FOX news viewers are very to fool. They believe most anything FOX swears is true.
Is that the best response that you have? Yes, he talked about waste and fraud and then told America that eliminating it would remove the national debt. Then he turned and tripled it. THE REAGAN LIE!
nice try but it doesn't work that way... even if you don't raise spending, you still have to raise the tax base ... last I remember no taxes were increased that would cover the national budget ...please inform us what social program caused 19 trillion dollars of debt we would love to hear your ramblings ... I've read these accusations you idiots make but your numbers just don't seem to add upA swingandamiss. No, you guys can't tarnish reality. It doesn't work that way. Many of us were alive then, I started a company serving other businesses and know full well the economy improved greatly, even with the added debt and lowered taxes. More activity = more income.Okay. let's talk numbers...
Which President Added Most to the U.S. Debt?
Reagan increased the national debt 186% from the level that Carter left him
GW Bush increased the national debt 101% from the level that Clinton left him
Obama has increased the national debt 55.4%
So the Republicans talk a good game, but they increase the national debt even more than a Democratic administration. And many of us are still struggling to recover from the mess that GW left us.
You're tarnishing the reverent image conservatives have of the brain addled buffoon......who took guidance from his wife who took guidance from a fortune teller.....need anyone say more?
Nor will excusing/ignoring Democrat spending work. Nor will excusing 19+ trillion in debt we have now thanks to obama's social spending. The only tarnish here is between your ears.
View attachment 68339
If that chart was accurate you would be running a surplus...
nothing reagan faced that will ever compare to what oama faced ... the banks failing the car companies failing the market crashing ... and you're trying to say Reagan did a better job then Obama ??? the problem you right wing nut jobs have is you refuse to see democats greatness when you see it ... that would force you to agree ...In the 1980s, the Soviet Union was engulfed by a multitude of problems. The economy, especially the agricultural sector, began to fall apart. The country lacked technological advancements and used inefficient factories, all while consumers were buying low-quality products and suffered from a shortage of social freedoms. To reform the distraught Soviet Union, the democratization of the Communist Party was promoted through Party Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev‘s policies of “perestroika” and “glasnost.”You're an idiot. Like that's news. It is well known the arms race presented an unsustainable drain on the Soviets.US defense spending in no way cause the fall of the USSR....that was a job by insiders, and Reagan was no Kremlin insider...Reagan had the Soviets to deal with and spent a lot of money building up our military forcing them to eventually go broke trying to keep up with us in military weaponry/ technology and economically. It was something that had to be done in order to defeat communism and in the end, he was successful.Wow prior to Reagan no one talked about waste and fraud in government. Who knew?
Is that the best response that you have? Yes, he talked about waste and fraud and then told America that eliminating it would remove the national debt. Then he turned and tripled it. THE REAGAN LIE!
Perestroika refers to the reconstruction of the political and economic system established by the Communist Party. Politically, contested elections were introduced to reflect the democratic practices of Western society and allow citizens to have a slight say in government. Economically, Perestroika called for de-monopolization and some semi-private businesses to function, ending the price controls established by the government for the past seven decades. The goal was to create a semi-free market system, reflecting successful capitalist practices in the economies of Germany, Japan, and the United States. Unfortunately, such an economy took time to thrive, and people found themselves stuck in a worn-out economy, which led to long-lines, strikes, and civil unrest.
Cold War Museum
we should really push for a law that says: some people shouldn't be allowed to vote. the reasons to hate someone is Pathetic.
Not fair. It would disenfranchise most of the democrat base.
As you can clearly see below Reagan had nothing to do with the wall coming down ... when it all started he tried to take claim for it ... typical reagan, taking credit for something he had nothing to do with ... but you republicans need a hero ... ya got one ... a budget raising, tax increasing, credit taking lair name Ronald reagan ...
In the early days of November 1989, East Germans turned out in massive street protests to demand Gorbachev-style reforms. Their dictatorial rulers tried to appease them by issuing "new" travel regulations. Though the rules suggested that there would be freedom, the fine print still included the national security exemptions that had always prevented East Germans from leaving. None of the people writing these new regulations took the obvious steps that would have been needed to open the border, such as consulting the Soviets or informing the border guards that such a move was coming. In short, there were no signs that authorities intended to open the wall on Nov. 9.
That night at 6, Guenter Schabowski, a member of the East German Politburo who served as its spokesman, was scheduled to hold a news conference. Shortly before it began, he received a piece of paper with an update on the regulations and a suggestion that he mention them publicly. He had not been involved in discussions about the rules and did not have time to read the document carefully before starting.
His hour-long news conference was so tedious that Tom Brokaw, who was there, remembered being "bored." But in the final minutes, an Italian journalist's question about travel spurred Schabowski's memory. He tried to summarize the new regulations but became confused, and his sentences trailed off. "Anyway, today, as far as I know, a decision has been made," he said. "It is a recommendation of the Politburo that has been taken up, that one should from the draft of a travel law, take out a passage. . ."
Among the long-winded clauses, some snippets leapt out: "exit via border crossings" and "possible for every citizen."
Suddenly, every journalist in the room had questions. "When does that go into force?" shouted one. "Immediately?" shouted another. Rattled and mumbling to himself, Schabowski flipped through his papers until he uttered the phrase: "Immediately, right away."
It felt as if "a signal had come from outer space and electrified the room," Brokaw recalled. Some wire journalists rushed out to file reports, but the questions kept coming, among them: "What will happen to the Berlin Wall now?"
Alarmed about what was unfolding, Schabowski concluded with more muddled responses: "The question of travel, of the permeability therefore of the wall from our side, does not yet answer, exclusively, the question of the meaning, of this, let me say it this way, fortified border." Furthermore, "the debate over these questions could be positively influenced if the Federal Republic [of West Germany] and if NATO would commit themselves to and carry out disarmament."
As NATO was unlikely to disarm itself by breakfast, Schabowski clearly did not expect much to happen that night. But it was too late -- by 7:03 p.m., the wires were reporting that the Berlin Wall was open.
Across the border, a West German television channel, ARD, reported the news cautiously in its 8 p.m. broadcast, first asserting only that the wall probably would become "permeable" soon. But for its next news program at 10:30 p.m. -- delayed to 10:42 by a soccer match -- the staff went big. Hanns Friedrichs, the moderator who enjoyed a Cronkite-like status in the country, proclaimed, "This ninth of November is a historic day." East Germany "has announced that, starting immediately, its borders are open to everyone."
YOU ARE WONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Review of Jack F. Matlock Jr.'s book, Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended.
Ronald Reagan was widely eulogized for having won the cold war, liberated Eastern Europe and pulled the plug on the Soviet Union. Margaret Thatcher, Joe Lieberman, John McCain, Charles Krauthammer and other notables offered variations of
The Economist
's cover headline: "The Man Who Beat Communism."
Actually, Jack F. Matlock Jr. writes in Reagan and Gorbachev, it was "not so simple." He should know. A veteran foreign service officer and respected expert on the Soviet Union, he reached the pinnacle of his career under Reagan, serving first as the White House's senior coordinator of policy toward the Soviet Union, then as ambassador to Moscow. In both the title of his memoir and the story it tells, he gives co-star billing to Mikhail Gorbachev.
Reagan himself went even farther. Asked at a press conference in Moscow in 1988, his last year in office, about the role he played in the great drama of the late 20th century, he described himself essentially as a supporting actor. "Mr. Gorbachev," he said, "deserves most of the credit, as the leader of this country."
This quotation was much cited at the time as an example of Reagan's graciousness, tact and self-deprecation. But Matlock's book bears out his former boss's judgment. The 40th president of the United States emerges here not as a geopolitical visionary who jettisoned the supposedly accommodationist policies of containment and detente, but as an archpragmatist and operational optimist who adjusted his own attitudes and conduct in order to encourage a new kind of Kremlin leader.
During his first term, Reagan denounced the pre-Gorbachev Soviet Union as an "evil empire." The name-calling riled many Soviets (and more than a few Sovietologists) but did little diplomatic harm, since relations between Washington and Moscow were already in a rut. The Kremlin had become a geriatric ward, with Red Square doubling as the world's largest funeral parlor.
Then, in 1985, soon after Reagan's second inauguration, the vigorous, 54-year-old Gorbachev ascended to the leadership. He wanted to demilitarize Soviet foreign policy so that he could divert resources to the Augean task of fixing a broken economy. Initially, he expected no help from Reagan, whom he regarded as "not simply a conservative, but a political 'dinosaur.'"
For his part, Reagan assumed the new general secretary of the Communist Party would be "totally dedicated to traditional Soviet goals." Nonetheless, he was prepared to test Prime Minister Thatcher's first impression: " like Mr. Gorbachev; we can do business together."
Getting back into the business of diplomacy with the principal adversary of the United States appealed to Reagan, just as it had to six previous occupants of the Oval Office. Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy had tried to make the most of Nikita S. Khrushchev's slogan of "peaceful coexistence"; Lyndon B. Johnson jump-started arms control talks with Aleksei N. Kosygin; Richard Nixon, Gerald R. Ford and Jimmy Carter signed strategic-arms limitation agreements with Leonid I. Brezhnev. But those Soviet leaders were committed, above all, to preserving the status quo. Sooner or later, each caused a setback or a showdown with the United States through some act of barbarity or recklessness: the crushing of the Hungarian uprising in 1956, the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, the invasions of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Afghanistan in 1979, the destruction of a South Korean airliner that had wandered off course in 1983. Breakthroughs in United States-Soviet relations were inherently subject to breakdowns.
Gorbachev altered that dynamic. He was determined to take the Soviet Union in a radically different direction—away from the Big Lie (through his policy of glasnost), away from a command economy (through perestroika) and away from zero-sum competition with the West.
Reagan came quickly to recognize that Gorbachev's goals, far from being traditional, were downright revolutionary. He also saw that the transformation Gorbachev had in mind for his country would, if it came about, serve American interests.
As a result, without much fuss and without many of his supporters noticing, Reagan underwent a transformation of his own. The fire-breathing cold warrior set about trying, through intense, sustained personal engagement, to convince Gorbachev that the United States would not make him sorry for the course he had chosen.
Matlock describes in telling detail how Reagan rehearsed for his first meeting with Gorbachev, which took place in Geneva in November 1985. Reagan assigned the role of the Soviet leader to Matlock who, for maximum authenticity, played his part in Russian, mimicking Gorbachev's confident, loquacious style. Matlock also sent Reagan a series of "spoof memos" that were "interlaced with jokes and anecdotes," based on an educated guess at what Gorbachev's own advisers were telling him in preparation for the encounter.
Shortly before setting off for Geneva, Reagan dictated a long memo of his own, laying out his assessment of the man he was about to meet. The Reagan game plan was to look for areas of common interest, be candid about points of contention and support Gorbachev's reforms while (in Matlock's paraphrase) "avoiding any demand for 'regime change.'" He cautioned the members of his administration not to rub Gorbachev's nose in any concessions he might make. Above all, Reagan wanted to establish a relationship with his Soviet counterpart that would make it easier to manage conflicts lest they escalate to thermonuclear war—an imperative for every American president since Eisenhower.
Matlock puts the best light he can on Reagan's dream of a Star Wars anti-missile system, but he stops short of perpetuating the claim, now an article of faith among many conservatives, that the prospect of an impregnable shield over the United States and an arms race in space caused the Soviets to throw in the towel. Instead, Matlock focuses on Reagan's attempt to convince Gorbachev that American defense policy posed no threat to legitimate Soviet interests and should therefore not prevent the two leaders from establishing a high degree of mutual trust.
That word figured in Reagan's mantra, "trust but verify." It set Gorbachev's teeth on edge. However, Reagan intended the motto not just as a caveat about dealing with the Soviets but also as a subtle admonition to his relentlessly hard-line and mistrustful secretary of defense, Caspar W. Weinberger. According to Matlock, Weinberger was "utterly convinced that there was no potential benefit in negotiating anything with the Soviet leaders and that most negotiations were dangerous traps." The rivalry that Matlock describes between Weinberger and Secretary of State George P. Shultz bears an eerie similarity to what we know of the one between Colin L. Powell and Donald H. Rumsfeld. Shultz grew so exasperated with Weinberger's militancy and obstructionism that he contemplated resigning. Reagan wrote in his diary, "I can't let this happen. Actually, George is carrying out my policy."
That policy, as Matlock summarizes it, "was consistent throughout." Reagan "wanted to reduce the threat of war, to convince the Soviet leaders that cooperation could serve the Soviet peoples better than confrontation and to encourage openness and democracy in the Soviet Union."
Presidential attachment to those precepts neither began nor ended with Ronald Reagan. It was Jimmy Carter who first put human rights prominently on the agenda of American-Soviet relations. George H. W. Bush skillfully served as a kind of air traffic controller in 1991, when the increasingly beleaguered Gorbachev brought the Soviet Union in for a relatively soft landing on the ash heap of history—a major contribution to the end of the cold war that Matlock dismisses in a footnote as "cleanup" diplomacy.
While Matlock could have been more charitable to Reagan's predecessors and to his immediate successor, his account of Reagan's achievement as the nation's diplomat in chief is a public service as well as a contribution to the historical record. It is simultaneously admiring, authoritative and conscientious. It is also corrective, since it debunks much of the hype and spin with which we were blitzed earlier this summer. The truth is a better tribute to Reagan than the myth.
"Reagan and Gorbachev": Shutting the Cold War Down
Much better than any myths quite frankly!!!
Greg
come on its theowl he's never got anything right ... when you call; him on it he loses it ... the best we can do is laugh at himAnd look at that post 64.
Fucker to stupid to remember who was president when we were sold the necessity of war in Iraq.
Hey asshole was that war free? Did the tax cuts have a cost? Are prescription drugs free?
You are not only an asshole. You a stupid asshole. Bad combo for you.
