The Reagan lie continues today...

[Stephanie]

I must have touched a nerve. You RW buffoons are drooling all over yourselves defending RR. FUNNY!

No one is drooling, you clown. Calling you on your bullshit because you idiots have nothing and simply cycle your hate from Bush to Reagan and back. No one takes you seriously, don't kid yourself.

the only ones drooling is those foaming at the mouth with hate for Reagan.

 

[easyt65]

I believe the debt could be solved by eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse...but that would mean firing a vast majority of politicians in Washington, starting with Obama.

For starters, Obama has refused to enforce the existing Immigration laws in this country, has engaged in human trafficking to bring illegals here, has been found to be in Contempt of Court for refusing to reveal the locations where he and his administration had dumped illegals without notifying local and state agencies, continues to protect federal-law violating Sanctuary Cities who provide safe haven for violent illegal criminals, releases violent illegal criminals, no longer even pretends to tell them to show back up for a court date he knows they will never attend, refuses to secure the border, and spends hundreds of billions of tax dollars on illegals that should not even be here, making them a higher priority than US citizens and a drain on our tax dollars.

He has funded the arming of illegal Mexican Drug Cartels, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeida, ISIS, and other militants in his own personal proxy war against Syria. He spent millions supplying, arming, and training 6 (SIX) Islamists to fight against Assad, only to have 5 join ISIS and 1 killed by Russian troops.

His 1st bill bas a failed 'jobs' bill, the DNC-Only liberal-benefitting nearly $1 trillion 'Stimulus' bill that contained over 7,000 pieces of pork that never addressed the crumbling infrastructure and cost tax payers over $742,000 PER job he CLAIMED to have created / saved. Businesses, however, confirmed he cooked the books to make his pending look THAT 'good' by claiming to have created to have, for example saved more jobs for companies than they actually had employees!

We haven't even gotten to the billions stolen from social programs like food stamps, welfare, etc...we're just talking about the fraud, waste, and abuse committed by our elected officials.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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 reality is Reagan was a great President because he was.

You don't get reelected by winning 49 States without people judging your last 4 years.

You get re-elected with 49 states because you're either running against someone nobody likes, or you've managed to act your way through the previous four years.

I mean, Walter WHO????

VP under an unpopular president.

He was appointed Attorney General in Minnesota, he was appointed to a Senate seat too.

He was narrowly elected as VP, but really people voted for Carter, and then he lost presidential elections to Reagan TWICE.

In elections he did well in his first as Attorney General 2 years after having the job. In his second for Senate he got 53% of the vote.

Stood in the primaries for President in 1972 and got 0.03% of the votes and again in 1980.

He got 38.32% in 1984 primaries, a few ahead of Gary Hart.

This is hardly a guy who set the political world alight.

Reagan was a populist, it's hard to run against them if you look like a drab man and you're simply not a populist.

Hillary is a pathological liar that is an obvious felon and has accomplished nothing in her life except marrying Bill, she makes Mondale look great.
Yet you'll vote for her.
So having a lousy candidate does not mean the other side will take 49 States.

 

[Stephanie]

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 reality is Reagan was a great President because he was.

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???

You don't get reelected with 49 States unless you're a Uniter and great President. Period.

And that's when the Democrat party started falling apart and were infiltrated by these Radical (Obama, Hillary, Bernie, Holder, Lynch, Sharpton, Jarrett, Pelosi and on) Progressive which is a pretty word for "commies/socialist/anarchist" American haters in control of it today. All the blue dog moderates have been thrown out by one way or another. paid off or threatened with Prosecution for something.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Basically a president can do two things. Keep the economy ticking along as it should, or he has the potential to destroy it. Bush's policies such as warring, helped to cause proble

So the record number of people on welfare and food stamps means.....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

and yet he had nothing to do with the down fall of the wall as i said ... just his ramblings in the press if you feel thats much better who am I to challenge your inaccuracies

Sure, Honey Boo Boo

Sure.

The Wall just fall from lack of repair after Reagan told them to "tear down this wall"

 

[Muhammed]

Why does the OP have more difficulty with spelling and grammar than a typical American kindergarten student?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Basically a president can do two things. Keep the economy ticking along as it should, or he has the potential to destroy it. Bush's policies such as warring, helped to cause proble

So the record number of people on welfare and food stamps means.....

food stamps are the new era breadline

today the breadline is the longest the nation has ever seen

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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 reality is Reagan was a great President because he was.

You don't get reelected by winning 49 States without people judging your last 4 years.

You get re-elected with 49 states because you're either running against someone nobody likes, or you've managed to act your way through the previous four years.

I mean, Walter WHO????

VP under an unpopular president.

He was appointed Attorney General in Minnesota, he was appointed to a Senate seat too.

He was narrowly elected as VP, but really people voted for Carter, and then he lost presidential elections to Reagan TWICE.

In elections he did well in his first as Attorney General 2 years after having the job. In his second for Senate he got 53% of the vote.

Stood in the primaries for President in 1972 and got 0.03% of the votes and again in 1980.

He got 38.32% in 1984 primaries, a few ahead of Gary Hart.

This is hardly a guy who set the political world alight.

Reagan was a populist, it's hard to run against them if you look like a drab man and you're simply not a populist.

Reagan was a uniter and negotiated with the Soviets to end the Cold War. He called evil evil and good good. He turned the economy around and saw one million jobs created in a month, and interest rates plummet so people didn't have to pay 19% for a home loan. He worked well with Democrats on the Hill and America became respected in the world again.

Exactly what is it that makes the left of today hate him?

Exactly what is it that makes the left of today hate him?

He defeated their home team, the USSR. He called them an Evil empire, vowed to defeat them and did just that.

 

[SeniorChief_Polock]

Reagan still butt-hurting Liberals to this day. He's looking down and smiling on your fucking fools. Congrats.

 

[JimH52]

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 reality is Reagan was a great President because he was.

You don't get reelected by winning 49 States without people judging your last 4 years.

You get re-elected with 49 states because you're either running against someone nobody likes, or you've managed to act your way through the previous four years.

I mean, Walter WHO????

VP under an unpopular president.

He was appointed Attorney General in Minnesota, he was appointed to a Senate seat too.

He was narrowly elected as VP, but really people voted for Carter, and then he lost presidential elections to Reagan TWICE.

In elections he did well in his first as Attorney General 2 years after having the job. In his second for Senate he got 53% of the vote.

Stood in the primaries for President in 1972 and got 0.03% of the votes and again in 1980.

He got 38.32% in 1984 primaries, a few ahead of Gary Hart.

This is hardly a guy who set the political world alight.

Reagan was a populist, it's hard to run against them if you look like a drab man and you're simply not a populist.

Reagan was a uniter and negotiated with the Soviets to end the Cold War. He called evil evil and good good. He turned the economy around and saw one million jobs created in a month, and interest rates plummet so people didn't have to pay 19% for a home loan. He worked well with Democrats on the Hill and America became respected in the world again.

Exactly what is it that makes the left of today hate him?

Of course he did. He turned the economy around with a 186% increase in the national debt. GOOD JOB!

 

[Moonglow]

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 reality is Reagan was a great President because he was.

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???

You don't get reelected with 49 States unless you're a Uniter and great President. Period.

And that's when the Democrat party started falling apart and were infiltrated by these Radical (Obama, Hillary, Bernie, Holder, Lynch, Sharpton, Jarrett, Pelosi and on) Progressive which is a pretty word for "commies/socialist/anarchist" American haters in control of it today. All the blue dog moderates have been thrown out by one way or another. paid off or threatened with Prosecution for something.

Democratic party..

 

[Moonglow]

Reagan still butt-hurting Liberals to this day. He's looking down and smiling on your fucking fools. Congrats.

Miss your progressive president?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Basically a president can do two things. Keep the economy ticking along as it should, or he has the potential to destroy it. Bush's policies such as warring, helped to cause proble

So the record number of people on welfare and food stamps means.....

food stamps are the new era breadline

today the breadline is the longest the nation has ever seen

That's actually a great point!

 

[Weatherman2020]

The OP is a lie anyway, Reagan never said the budget could be balanced by cutting waste and fraud. Their deranged hatred of Reagan requires them to lie about him.

 

[JimH52]

Reagan still butt-hurting Liberals to this day. He's looking down and smiling on your fucking fools. Congrats.

When the Dems take the WH again and name another justice to the Supreme Court, you are really should being taking meds to sleep. Maybe even for to a head doctor?

 

[Moonglow]

Basically a president can do two things. Keep the economy ticking along as it should, or he has the potential to destroy it. Bush's policies such as warring, helped to cause proble

So the record number of people on welfare and food stamps means.....

food stamps are the new era breadline

today the breadline is the longest the nation has ever seen

That's actually a great point!

The line would have been just as long had the administration allowed folks to have food stamps like they do today...

 

[Weatherman2020]

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 reality is Reagan was a great President because he was.

You don't get reelected by winning 49 States without people judging your last 4 years.

You get re-elected with 49 states because you're either running against someone nobody likes, or you've managed to act your way through the previous four years.

I mean, Walter WHO????

VP under an unpopular president.

He was appointed Attorney General in Minnesota, he was appointed to a Senate seat too.

He was narrowly elected as VP, but really people voted for Carter, and then he lost presidential elections to Reagan TWICE.

In elections he did well in his first as Attorney General 2 years after having the job. In his second for Senate he got 53% of the vote.

Stood in the primaries for President in 1972 and got 0.03% of the votes and again in 1980.

He got 38.32% in 1984 primaries, a few ahead of Gary Hart.

This is hardly a guy who set the political world alight.

Reagan was a populist, it's hard to run against them if you look like a drab man and you're simply not a populist.

Reagan was a uniter and negotiated with the Soviets to end the Cold War. He called evil evil and good good. He turned the economy around and saw one million jobs created in a month, and interest rates plummet so people didn't have to pay 19% for a home loan. He worked well with Democrats on the Hill and America became respected in the world again.

Exactly what is it that makes the left of today hate him?

Of course he did. He turned the economy around with a 186% increase in the national debt. GOOD JOB!

All approved by a Democrat Congress who created the budgets.

 

[JimH52]

The OP is a lie anyway, Reagan never said the budget could be balanced by cutting waste and fraud. Their deranged hatred of Reagan requires them to lie about him.

REAGAN NEVER SAID REMOVING WASTE AND FRAUD WOULD BALANCE THE BUDGET. The OP never said that. But Phrump is saying that now. he is taking the Reagan lie and putting it on steroids.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Basically a president can do two things. Keep the economy ticking along as it should, or he has the potential to destroy it. Bush's policies such as warring, helped to cause proble

So the record number of people on welfare and food stamps means.....

food stamps are the new era breadline

today the breadline is the longest the nation has ever seen

That's actually a great point!

thanks it is true

and should be pointed out more often