If you were President how would you

JimJimmyJames

Big Time Feeder Driver
Reagan is the one president of my lifetime that I actually liked and respected.

Did I agree with everything he did? Of course not.

But the one thing I could be assured of was that he was a true patriot. He was on America's side.

He would never sell us out to foreign interests.

And though he was a friend to the corporate world, he did his best to prevent them from selling out their country too.
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
Reagan is the one president of my lifetime that I actually liked and respected.

Did I agree with everything he did? Of course not.

But the one thing I could be assured of was that he was a true patriot. He was on America's side.

He would never sell us out to foreign interests.

And though he was a friend to the corporate world, he did his best to prevent them from selling out their country too.


JIMJAMES,

again, another "patriot" fan. How exactly was reagan a patriot?

He single handedly ruined the domestic auto industry of the time by signing agreements with the japanese to imports MILLIONS of cars putting several domestic auto makers out of business.

Do "patriots" harm the very middle class citizens it claims to be protecting?

Reagan and his administration were "illegally" selling weapons to foreign terror groups in order to overthrown goverments.

Ollie North, a convicted felon spearheaded the operation but was pardoned by G H BUSH. Reagan, your true patriot, had documents distroyed to protect himself and others from criminal prosecution.


The Iran–Contra affair (Persian: ماجرای مک*فارلین, Spanish: caso Irán-contras) was a political scandal in the United States which came to light in November 1986, during the Reagan administration, in which senior US figures agreed to facilitate the sale of arms to Iran, the subject of an arms embargo, to secure the release of hostages and to fund Nicaraguan contras.
It began as an operation to improve U.S.-Iranian relations, where Israel would ship weapons to a relatively moderate, politically influential group of Iranians; the U.S. would then resupply Israel and receive the Israeli payment. The Iranian recipients promised to do everything in their power to achieve the release of six U.S. hostages, who were being held by the Lebanese Shia Islamist group Hezbollah, who were unknowingly connected to the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. The plan eventually deteriorated into an arms-for-hostages scheme, in which members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of the American hostages.[1][2] Large modifications to the plan were devised by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council in late 1985, in which a portion of the proceeds from the weapon sales was diverted to fund anti-Sandinista and anti-communist rebels, or Contras, in Nicaragua.[3] While President Ronald Reagan was a supporter of the Contra cause,[4] no evidence has been found showing that he authorized this plan.[1][2][5]
After the weapon sales were revealed in November 1986, Reagan appeared on national television and stated that the weapons transfers had indeed occurred, but that the United States did not trade arms for hostages.[6] The investigation was compounded when large volumes of documents relating to the scandal were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan administration officials.[7] On March 4, 1987, Reagan returned to the airwaves in a nationally televised address, taking full responsibility for any actions that he was unaware of, and admitting that "what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages."[8])

Reagan was a liar to the american public. He participated in illegal activities but was spared prosecution.

Those who are unfamiliar with his actions as president would believe he somehow was a "friend" of the american middle class, but the record proves otherwise.

He raised taxes on the middle class 7 times using various methods for doing so. You can thank RONALD REAGAN for the highest FEDERAL GAS TAX in american history.

You stated that "he would never sell us out to foriegn interests"

Really? What do you call what he did with arms for hostages?

When Reagan was elected president in 1980, it took 2 years to get unemployment to 10.7%.

FACT:The policies were derided by some as "Trickle-down economics,"[16] due to the significant cuts in the upper tax brackets. There was a massive increase in Cold War related defense spending that caused large budget deficits,[17] the U.S. trade deficit expansion,[17] and contributed to the Savings and Loan crisis,[18] In order to cover new federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion,[19] and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.[20] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.[19]

If you call this record a patriot, then you must be in love with President Obama.

:peaceful:
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
The GOP Is a Lost Cause

Posted by Laurence Vance on November 15, 2009 04:00 PM
Re: Newt Changed His Mind and Fox Warns Henhouse Residents that They Are in Grave Danger (in which George Bush [of all people] talks about limited government and “the power of the free enterprise system”): This shows for the thousandth time that the GOP and the conservative movement are hopelessly mired in contradiction. The GOP is a lost cause. The Republican Revolution was a failure. Any attempt at reform is like trying to enter a dead horse in a race.
Mr. Rockwell’s words from a recent column should be reread very carefully:
Further, as Rothbard has forcefully argued, free-market capitalism serves no more than a symbolic purpose for the Republican Party and for conservatives. Economic liberty is the utopia that they keep promising to bring us, pending the higher priority of blowing up foreign peoples, jailing political dissidents, crushing the left wing on campus, and routing the Democrats. Once all of this is done, they say, then they will get to the instituting of a free-market economic system. Of course, that day never arrives, and it is not supposed to. Capitalism serves the Republicans the way Communism served Stalin: a symbolic distraction to keep you hoping, voting, and coughing up money.
 

klein

Für Meno :)
Otherside, may I add to that ? :


Op-Ed Columnist
Reagan Did It
Blame Ronald Reagan For Our Current Economic Crisis

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: May 31, 2009


Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Paul Krugmann

“This bill is the most important legislation for financial institutions in the last 50 years. It provides a long-term solution for troubled thrift institutions. ... All in all, I think we hit the jackpot.” So declared Ronald Reagan in 1982, as he signed the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act.

He was, as it happened, wrong about solving the problems of the thrifts. On the contrary, the bill turned the modest-sized troubles of savings-and-loan institutions into an utter catastrophe. But he was right about the legislation’s significance. And as for that jackpot — well, it finally came more than 25 years later, in the form of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

For the more one looks into the origins of the current disaster, the clearer it becomes that the key wrong turn — the turn that made crisis inevitable — took place in the early 1980s, during the Reagan years.
Attacks on Reaganomics usually focus on rising inequality and fiscal irresponsibility. Indeed, Reagan ushered in an era in which a small minority grew vastly rich, while working families saw only meager gains. He also broke with longstanding rules of fiscal prudence.

On the latter point: traditionally, the U.S. government ran significant budget deficits only in times of war or economic emergency. Federal debt as a percentage of G.D.P. fell steadily from the end of World War II until 1980. But indebtedness began rising under Reagan; it fell again in the Clinton years, but resumed its rise under the Bush administration, leaving us ill prepared for the emergency now upon us.

The increase in public debt was, however, dwarfed by the rise in private debt, made possible by financial deregulation. The change in America’s financial rules was Reagan’s biggest legacy. And it’s the gift that keeps on taking.
The immediate effect of Garn-St. Germain, as I said, was to turn the thrifts from a problem into a catastrophe. The S.& L. crisis has been written out of the Reagan hagiography, but the fact is that deregulation in effect gave the industry — whose deposits were federally insured — a license to gamble with taxpayers’ money, at best, or simply to loot it, at worst. By the time the government closed the books on the affair, taxpayers had lost $130 billion, back when that was a lot of money.
But there was also a longer-term effect. Reagan-era legislative changes essentially ended New Deal restrictions on mortgage lending — restrictions that, in particular, limited the ability of families to buy homes without putting a significant amount of money down.

These restrictions were put in place in the 1930s by political leaders who had just experienced a terrible financial crisis, and were trying to prevent another. But by 1980 the memory of the Depression had faded. Government, declared Reagan, is the problem, not the solution; the magic of the marketplace must be set free. And so the precautionary rules were scrapped.

Together with looser lending standards for other kinds of consumer credit, this led to a radical change in American behavior.
We weren’t always a nation of big debts and low savings: in the 1970s Americans saved almost 10 percent of their income, slightly more than in the 1960s. It was only after the Reagan deregulation that thrift gradually disappeared from the American way of life, culminating in the near-zero savings rate that prevailed on the eve of the great crisis. Household debt was only 60 percent of income when Reagan took office, about the same as it was during the Kennedy administration. By 2007 it was up to 119 percent.

All this, we were assured, was a good thing: sure, Americans were piling up debt, and they weren’t putting aside any of their income, but their finances looked fine once you took into account the rising values of their houses and their stock portfolios. Oops.

Now, the proximate causes of today’s economic crisis lie in events that took place long after Reagan left office — in the global savings glut created by surpluses in China and elsewhere, and in the giant housing bubble that savings glut helped inflate.
But it was the explosion of debt over the previous quarter-century that made the U.S. economy so vulnerable. Overstretched borrowers were bound to start defaulting in large numbers once the housing bubble burst and unemployment began to rise.
These defaults in turn wreaked havoc with a financial system that — also mainly thanks to Reagan-era deregulation — took on too much risk with too little capital.

There’s plenty of blame to go around these days. But the prime villains behind the mess we’re in were Reagan and his circle of advisers — men who forgot the lessons of America’s last great financial crisis, and condemned the rest of us to repeat it.
 
D

Dis-organized Labor

Guest
This thread should be renamed to something like: "Who will get the last word: Tieguy or Klein"
 

tieguy

Banned
TIEGUY,

overall, your argument seems right out of oblivion.

Reagan was a complete failure as a president. :peaceful:

I'll keep this one simple following AJ's original point. If your point is true then you're telling me that you wanted four more years of Carter and his 10 plus percent unemployment, 15 percent inflation rate, 20 plus percent mortgage rates and a foriegn policy that left us emasculated and embarrassed and worse yet pitied by other countries.

Its an argument you can't make. Reagan fixed all those issues and was a resounding success in every way.
 

JimJimmyJames

Big Time Feeder Driver
I'm sorry, but while I have no love for the current GOP, I have to side with Tie on Reagan.

Another example to add to Tie's list:

When the Japanese were dumping motorcycles here, helping to drive Harley-Davidson into oblivion, the Reagan administration took steps to prevent this from happening.

Over the last 25 years, H-D has been a thriving success.
 

diesel96

Well-Known Member
The soviet union ran out of money and resources needed to keep up. They then could not maintain control of their empire. world.

Damm, what country does this sound like in this day and age...?

Reagan is the one president of my lifetime that I actually liked and respected.

Did I agree with everything he did? Of course not.

But the one thing I could be assured of was that he was a true patriot. He was on America's side.

He would never sell us out to foreign interests.

And though he was a friend to the corporate world, he did his best to prevent them from selling out their country too.

I liked Pres Reagan persona also when I was a wet behind the ears HS grad. Then I grew up, witnessed and experienced the war he raged against the middle class and unions. And the deficit he ran up after preaching small Gov't and fiscal responsibility.
John (Marion) Wayne was a true patriot also, and was on America's side. To bad the closet chickenhawk chose "Hollywood" instead of the military during a time of war....



If I was Obama, I would quit while I was ahead and let someone who appreciates being an American do the job and take care of the American people....

Quit, you mean like Sarah "Barracuda".......
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
I'll keep this one simple following AJ's original point. If your point is true then you're telling me that you wanted four more years of Carter and his 10 plus percent unemployment, 15 percent inflation rate, 20 plus percent mortgage rates and a foriegn policy that left us emasculated and embarrassed and worse yet pitied by other countries.

Its an argument you can't make. Reagan fixed all those issues and was a resounding success in every way.


TIEGUY,

I guess Ill accept OBLIVION as your home planet.

If I recall, Reagan got over 200 marines killed in a massive bombing that he was ADVISED against getting involved in. I guess you would consider that a military success and not embarrassing to America.

Reagans unemployment record was the worst 8 year performer in recent history hitting 10.7% in his second year long after Carter was gone, just as you claim BUSH is gone and into his 11th month unemployment hits 10% for OBAMA.

Credit card % rates are skyrocketing due to the credit card bill the republicans passed early in BUSH's term leaving middle class america no choice but to file for bankruptcy.

Reagan contributed to the savings and loan scandals, while trying to protect his rich buddies from prosecution and BUSH 2 pardoned most of them before leaving office. These criminals ripped off middle class amercians of millions of dollars collapsing the lending industry and I guess you call that "FIXING THE PROBLEM".

Reagan did nothing more than spend this country into a recession, made his richest 1% friends richer, while wiping out the middle class. I guess you call that success for the american middle class.

Lets see? Reagan gets 200+marines killed in a terrorist act, BUSH2 gets 3000 killed in a terrorist act and 4500 killed in 2 wars , and they are the PATRIOTS?

Yeah, they didnt embarrass us to the world militarily.

Hey TIEGUY, the space shuttle is about to lift off, maybe you can hitch a ride back to planet Oblivion. I think they need their leader back.

:peaceful:
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Quit, you mean like Sarah "Barracuda".......

The Hill asked what Palin must do on her book tour and I liked Justin Raimondo's answer (not that I'm bias :happy-very:)

Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, said:

David Brooks said on George Stephanapoulos' Sunday program that he considers Sarah Palin "a joke." What he didn't say is that she was and is a joke played by the neoconservatives on the Republican party.

The Washington Post asks: "Is there something that could be called 'Palinism,' defining a political philosophy that could help her party win elections and turn her into a viable national candidate?"

Short answer: No.

Slightly longer answer: Where and when has Palin ever articulated a coherent alternative to the orthodox Republican doctrines of supply-side economics and endless war? She isn't about to do it in her "book," and she isn't capable of it. What is especially irksome, however, is that there is indeed a populist champion of the Tea Party grassroots, someone with the knowledge, the organization, the proven fundraising ability, and the principles to lead the GOP out of its ideological and political morass: Ron Paul.

"Palinism" is a hairstyle. Paulism is a bona fide movement. The first has no future -- no, she won't be a major contender, come the presidential sweepstakes, as George Will predicted on the Stephanopoulos program. The second IS the future, if the GOP is to have a future.

Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself.
John Locke

The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws
Tacitus
 

tieguy

Banned
Damm, what country does this sound like in this day and age...?

I would think you were alluding to the US if not for the fact that we have no empire. I would conceed the point you're trying to make. The united nations is no longer effective. without their full support this country can easily overextend its resources.

I liked Pres Reagan persona also when I was a wet behind the ears HS grad. Then I grew up, witnessed and experienced the war he raged against the middle class and unions. And the deficit he ran up after preaching small Gov't and fiscal responsibility.

I love reading this fairy tale of yours but as a member of this middle class I was grateful Ronnie fixed the economy so I could afford to buy a house back then. I was grateful Ronnie lowered my taxes so I had more money in my pocket to meet my needs. The rage against the middle class argument is the biggest and most outrageous argument you liberals try to make. if this is your truly your opinion then you need to go back to wet ears and think about paying your mortgage with twenty percent interest rates which was what your boy Carter wrought on this country. You liberals keep harping in philosophical terminology and you wont directly talk about what Carters twenty percent interest rates did to the middle class.

John (Marion) Wayne was a true patriot also, and was on America's side. To bad the closet chickenhawk chose "Hollywood" instead of the military during a time of war....

I see no reason to badmouth John Wayne. Perhaps you could have just badmouthed patriots in general and left John alone since he is not here to defend himself.
 

tieguy

Banned
TIEGUY,

I guess Ill accept OBLIVION as your home planet.

:peaceful:

You never addressed any of the terrific accomplishments I listed in the post you quoted. You then tried to make up something to rebut reagan but not his world class accomplishments.



I'll list you as another empty handed liberal.
 

tieguy

Banned
The Hill asked what Palin must do on her book tour and I liked Justin Raimondo's answer (not that I'm bias :happy-very:)

In my opinion Palin was not ready for the job. But she had more experience for the job then Obama had for his.

In the end I think Palin will go down as what is wrong with todays politics. The attacks initiated on palin and her family were downright shameful. It showed just how biased the media really is and brought many of the closet liberals in the media out of their closet.

Its funny now watching those some liberals try to go back to hiding in their old closets.

 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
You never addressed any of the terrific accomplishments I listed in the post you quoted. You then tried to make up something to rebut reagan but not his world class accomplishments.

TIEGUY,

I gather you missed the space shuttle this morning, so Ill give you something to read on your next flight back to Oblivion.

Ronald Reagan's Legacy

His destructive economic policies do not deserve the press's praise.

by John Miller

Dollars and Sense magazine, July / August 2004

On economic policy, as the journal tells the story, by tying the hands of meddlesome government bureaucrats and cutting taxes, Reaganomics ignited an episode of miraculous economic growth that restored prosperity to the U.S. economy. But like much of what Reagan had to say while he was president, what the journal offers is just so much happy talk that masks a mean-spirited, economically unsound, and socially destructive policy agenda.

First off, claims that Reagan's economic agenda restored prosperity are overblown. The so-called Reagan boom was in fact a rather middling episode of economic growth. Shorter than either the 1960s and 1990s expansions, the 1980s economic expansion was still the third longest on record. But it was hardly robust. The economy grew much more slowly in the 1980s than during the 1960s, more slowly than the postwar average of 3.6% annual growth, and no faster than in the 1970s or the 1990s. Nor did Reagan administration regulatory rollbacks unleash a productivity boom. Productivity gains in the 1980s failed to match those in the decades before and after, and couldn't hold a candle to the productivity gains of the 1960s boom.

The Reagan years showed mixed results on a number of other economic measures. The "great American jobs machine," missing in action since George W. Bush took office, was up and running during the Reagan administration. The rate of job growth was higher in the 1980s than in the 1990s-but lower than in either the 1960s or the 1970s.

In addition, unemployment rates remained quite high throughout the decade: 5.2% at the boom's end in 1989, well above the 3.5% and 4.1% rates achieved at the end of the 1960s and 1990s booms. The 1980s economy did more to improve the purchasing power of the median family than the 1990s boom. But again, those gains were extremely modest compared to what the 1960s boom did for that representative family.

None of this speaks to the lopsided distribution of the benefits of Reagan era economic growth. Investors made out during the 1980s, while workers lost out. After seeing their investments lose value during the 1970s, shareholders enjoyed real returns (i.e., adjusted for inflation) in the 1980s that rivaled those of the next decade's stock market bubble and far outdistanced the returns of the 1960s. Real weekly wages for nonsupervisory workers, on the other hand, took a beating, declining even more quickly than they had during the 1970s. Today, the average real earnings of nonsupervisory workers remain far below those of 30 years ago, despite healthy wage gains in the second half of the 1990s expansion, when unemployment rates dropped toward 4%.

Nor did Reagan era growth do much to alleviate poverty. The poverty rate in 1989 at the end of Reagan's two terms was still 12.8%. That was just one percentage point lower than at beginning of his administration. In contrast, the 1990s boom knocked three percentage points off the nation's poverty rate, while the 1960s boom nearly cut it in half.

Reagan administration economic policies did not result in a 1960s-style prosperity, when workers' real wages went up in tandem with the value of stock holdings-just the opposite. Since 1980, the gains from U.S. economic growth have gone overwhelmingly to the well-to-do, and economic inequality has steadily worsened. By 2000, the ratio of the family income of the top 5% to that of the bottom 20% stood at 19.1, a dramatic rise over the 1979 ratio of 11.4. Reagan's economic policies ushered in the return of levels of inequality unseen since the eve of the Great Depression.

In one area the 1980s boom did post genuinely outstanding numbers: reducing inflation. But Federal Reserve Board chair Paul Volcker, not the Reagan administration, administered the fight against inflation. Voicker's tight monetary policy induced the 1982 recession and helped keep a lid on wage growth. Thus the credit for breaking inflation goes more properly to the workers who endured a decade of declining purchasing power administered in the name of price stability.

But what about the particulars of Reaganomics (or supply-side economics), which in practice meant large tax cuts targeted at the rich, a military buildup, and slashing social spending? That too is a disturbing story.

The tax cuts came in 1981, Reagan's first year in office. The administration's plan slashed corporate and individual income tax rates, with the biggest cut in the top rate. The Reagan team promised that their tax cuts would jolt the economy back to life because, as the Wall Street Journal's editors put it, "high taxes interfere with natural human creativity and drive." And the true believers went so far as to suggest that the economy would grow fast enough that tax revenues would actually rise, making the tax cuts painless.

The results never came close to measuring up to the supply-side rhetoric. For starters, the tax cuts busted the federal budget. The federal deficit ballooned from 2.7% of GDP in 1980 to 6% of GDP in 1983, the largest peacetime deficit in history, and was still 5% of GDP in 1986. Tax revenues did pick up, especially after the 1983 payroll tax increase kicked in, reducing the deficit somewhat. Still, tax revenues grew far more slowly over than the 1980s business cycle (2.5% from 1979 to 1989) than they did in the 1990s business cycle (4.1% from 1989 to 2000).

Nor did the claim that tax cuts would encourage work effort, savings, and investment, the central premise of Reaganomics, hold up. When mainstream economists, such as Barry Bosworth and Gary Burtless of the Brookings Institution, checked out the effects of the 1981 tax cut, they found that something quite different had happened. After the tax cut, men didn't work much more at all; although women did work longer hours, their earnings failed to improve. And relative to the size of the economy, net investment declined and savings plummeted. The Economic Policy Institute, a labor-funded think tank, reports that the annual increase in real investment in the 1980s business cycle (2.5% per year) was less than half of that during the 1990s business cycle (5.9% per year).

Worse yet, most low-income taxpayers missed out on the Reagan tax cuts. The bottom 40% of households paid out more of their income in federal taxes in 1988 than they had in 1980. Increases in the payroll taxes that finance Social Security and Medicare, which made up a far higher portion of their federal tax bill than income taxes, swamped what little benefit these taxpayers received from lower income tax rates. For the richest 1%, on the other hand, the Reagan tax cuts were pure elixir. This group saw their effective federal tax rate drop from 34.6% to 29.7%, according to a recent study conducted by the Congressional Budget Office. As these numbers suggest, Reagan left a far less progressive federal tax code than he found.

While the Reagan military buildup kept overall government spending from shrinking, Reagan's budgets slashed social spending. Domestic discretionary spending, which includes just about all non-defense spending outside of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, was the special target of Reagan's budget cutting. Relative to the size of the economy, one-third of domestic discretionary spending disappeared: it fell from 4.7% of GDP in 1980 to 3.1% in 1988. Hardest hit were programs for low-income Americans, which in real terms suffered a withering 54% cut in federal spending from 1981 to 1988. After correcting for inflation, subsidized housing lost 80.7% of its support, training and employment services 68.3%, and housing assistance for the elderly 47.1%. These programs have never returned to their pre-Reagan spending levels. In fact, under the Clinton administration spending on domestic discretionary programs continued to decline relative to the size of the economy.

Reagan's economic legacy endures. Government continues to turn its back on social spending for the poor in favor of ineffectual tax giveaways for the rich, at same time that it finds unlimited monies for military adventures. Lopsided economic growth showers benefits on stock investors while doing precious little for workers or-not an entirely separate group-the poor. And today's Depression-level inequality is not mitigated as much as it once was by the tax code

Ronald Reagan did profoundly alter the economic policy agenda of our nation. But the Reagan legacy ought to be condemned, not celebrated. And we continue to do battle with its crippling effects.

:peaceful:
 

tieguy

Banned
TIEGUY,

I gather you missed the space shuttle this morning, so Ill give you something to read on your next flight back to Oblivion.

Ronald Reagan's Legacy

His destructive economic policies do not deserve the press's praise.

by John Miller

:peaceful:


I'm sorry it appears you are again running from directly answering to Reagans world class acomplishments.

To discount Reagans presidency you have to tell me that you think you would have been better off with a 15 percent inflation rate and better off paying 20 percent interest rates on your home purchase. Tell me you enjoyed worrying about mutually assured nuclear destruction. Tell me you were looking forward to the soviets expanding their empire in the middle east. Reagan cleaned up Carters mess and will eventually go down in history as the greatest president of this century. More articles from envious liberals distorting the truth can not wipe out Reagans world class accomplishments.

You're trying to hide from answering those points. If I want more flak I'll play an air combat game online.
 

klein

Für Meno :)
I'm sorry it appears you are again running from directly answering to Reagans world class acomplishments.

To discount Reagans presidency you have to tell me that you think you would have been better off with a 15 percent inflation rate and better off paying 20 percent interest rates on your home purchase. Tell me you enjoyed worrying about mutually assured nuclear destruction. Tell me you were looking forward to the soviets expanding their empire in the middle east. Reagan cleaned up Carters mess and will eventually go down in history as the greatest president of this century. More articles from envious liberals distorting the truth can not wipe out Reagans world class accomplishments.

You're trying to hide from answering those points. If I want more flak I'll play an air combat game online.

Just an update tie.
Reagens century ended in 2001.
We are now in a new century.
So, please post a link who was the greatest in the 20th century.

Can't blame you, all that out of space travelling to Oblivion , got you time warped ! ???? ;)
 

eJuste

Member
Tieguy,

Just because you say so, doesn't make it true. Volker deserves more credit than Reagan for the economic gains.

Deregulation, division of the classes, failed foreign and domestic policy all were the legacy of St Ronnie's terms.

Face the facts, he didn't run the country, he wasn't even lucid for most of his second term.

And to put your earlier concerns to rest, by 1978, when you were still in high school, I had finished my advanced degree in college, been in the work force for most of a decade, and started at UPS.
 

tieguy

Banned
Tieguy,

Just because you say so, doesn't make it true. Volker deserves more credit than Reagan for the economic gains.

So now you admit that there were economic gains that deserved credit?

Deregulation, division of the classes, failed foreign and domestic policy all were the legacy of St Ronnie's terms.

Dumbest argument I've ever heard. Failed foreign policy when all he did was bring the soviet empire to its knees. Your credibility is really getting shakey here.

Face the facts, he didn't run the country, he wasn't even lucid for most of his second term.

Reference to his occasional power naps after a long trip. It makes Ronnie even more of a president to think that Ronnie accomplished more with his eyes closed then any other president did with them wide open.

And to put your earlier concerns to rest, by 1978, when you were still in high school, I had finished my advanced degree in college, been in the work force for most of a decade, and started at UPS.

Dude I can't help you. I know you have a woodie for Reagan and probably a serious hate trip for any and all conservatives. I will agree with you that if you dig around in Ronnies dumpster you might find something he was not perfect at. I'm not nominating Ronnie for Gods job. I'm just telling you that he was second to none as a president.

At this point you have finally admitted that there were economic gains made. Kind of like calling in Iceburg an ice cube. But it works. Directly address his many accomplishments if you have any integrity or don't waste my time.
 
Top