1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Ronald Reagan - The Truth

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Zibblu, Jun 4, 2009.

  1. #1
    Today is the 5 year anniversary of Ronald Reagan's death. Of course that means that people will be saying lots of nice things about him. Understandable to some degree. But I think it's important for our future to understand the past. And it's very important that we do not see Reagan's presidency as a template to follow. He was one of the worst Presidents in history and many of today's problems stem directly from his policies.

    http://www.thepresidentialcandidates.us/the-truth-about-ronald-reagan/1077/
    SEMrush
     
    Zibblu, Jun 4, 2009 IP
    guerilla likes this.
    SEMrush
  2. Reseg

    Reseg Peon

    Messages:
    424
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2
    lol @ bandwagon politician fanboys and haters. Regardless of the side they're on they reference only a single side of an argument using a biased source.

    Let me guess, there's a president on the opposite side of the isle as the one you hate that you truly love and think is GREAT! But in reality:

    1) you only care to hear and repeat the negative reports of the one you hate. Anything else is dismissed
    2) you only care to hear and repeat the positive reports of the one you love. Anything else is dismissed

    amirite? ;) Politicians use you guys all day long to put themselves in good light preaching their word as do-gooders while counting on you to bash the other side of the isle. The ones that have the most of you under their belt wins elections and gets to chose how to spend everyone's money lol.

    Sorry, but it's just sad and comical somehow at the same time.
     
    Reseg, Jun 4, 2009 IP
    guerilla likes this.
  3. Firegirl

    Firegirl Peon

    Messages:
    1,257
    Likes Received:
    105
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #3
    Owned.

    That is what we call "hitting the nail on the head"..........
     
    Firegirl, Jun 4, 2009 IP
    guerilla likes this.
  4. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #4
    I would slice and dice your argument to shit but I know you'll leave when I do.

    Is this your site, why do you keep quoting it? And if so, why hasn't browntwn told you off for it, is it because he only goes after conservatives?
     
    ncz_nate, Jun 4, 2009 IP
  5. bogart

    bogart Notable Member

    Messages:
    10,911
    Likes Received:
    509
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    235
    #5
    President Ronald Reagan won the Cold War.

    In the 1950s, Khrushchev predicted: "We will bury you." But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind--too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.

    Delivered on 12 June 1987 Ronald Reagan

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    bogart, Jun 4, 2009 IP
  6. Zibblu

    Zibblu Guest

    Messages:
    3,770
    Likes Received:
    98
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #6
    Because it speaks the truth. For example the truth about Ronald Reagan - probably the worst President in America's history.
     
    Zibblu, Jun 5, 2009 IP
  7. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #7
    No answer on if it's yours or not. You have a tendency to dance around an issue and not say anything directly.
     
    ncz_nate, Jun 5, 2009 IP
  8. myp

    myp Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,281
    Likes Received:
    71
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    140
    #8
    I just read the first link in the article you linked to, but unless the other two articles are drastically different, I get the point and I also get that this is nothing more than drastically exaggerating the truth. A lot of what they try to tie to Reagan is simply a stretching of the truth and forgetting to look at the big picture. Not only that, but a lot of it uses arguments like "he was against welfare" and that's true, but who said that's a bad thing?
    Anyway, let me just comment on a few specific things:

    The current policies and feelings towards Iraq are not driven by Reagan as much as the author of that article would like his/her readers to believe. Clinton played a major role in that too, especially with the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Also, it is not like Reagan started the current war in Iraq or called for it- he was long gone. It can be argued that the first cold war was unjust, but you really can't stretch it so far as to say the current war is Reagan's fault as well.

    As for welfare- it is important to look at the economics side of it instead of just playing games of pathos. Welfare distorts markets and creates situations which are in the long run far worse than free market alternatives. What the left needs to realize is that they are not the only ones that care about people- in fact, the right, the center, and everyone else care about people just as much- they just think that their particular views are better to help these people. And if history means anything to you, free markets have been a lot more efficient than the government in matters such as these.

    About supply-side economics- Again, you can't blame the Bush administration on Reagan. If you actually look at the Bush/Greenspan record, a lot of their moves are not conducive to supply-side econ. Personally, I am not a believer in supply-side, although I will take it over Keynesianism anyday, so I will leave this to someone who wants to defend supply-side further.

    And finally, if you really want to take a look at long-term effects of presidents then let me enlighten you a bit and maybe you won't think Reagan was the worst anymore. I am not saying he was necessarily the best, but he was definitely not the worst. Comparatively, FDR was a lot worse than Reagan. He not only extended the Great Depression, but he also left us with programs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (big players in the housing bubble and collapse) and social security (which has/will create a lot more budgetary problems than Reagan's policies.) These welfare programs have clearly not worked and they have only made things worse in the long run. You want to talk about worst president ever? FDR is your man, although Obama might give him a run for his money- we'll see in a couple of years how things go.

    edit: I know I didn't provide support for some of my examples, I am currently a bit busy. But, if you do want proof, just ask and I will find it for you- I actually have backing for what I say unlike this article and what a lot of the left likes to spout.
     
    myp, Jun 5, 2009 IP
    guerilla likes this.
  9. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #9
    As usual Zibblu, you print nothing but the truth. I was around for Reagan and we all looked back longingly at Carter, wishing we could have him back!
     
    Obamanation, Jun 6, 2009 IP
  10. bogart

    bogart Notable Member

    Messages:
    10,911
    Likes Received:
    509
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    235
    #10
    Carter was the peanut president. Obama is the ACORN president.

    [​IMG]

    Glenn Beck, ACORN & Relation to Sanders of Golden West Financial 06/03/09

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra1JtF6W0Zs
     
    bogart, Jun 6, 2009 IP
  11. RovingCalypso

    RovingCalypso Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,467
    Likes Received:
    85
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    138
    #11
    Yup, he's directly responsible, along with Pres. Zia ul Haq and the whole of those Soviet, for whatever is happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    Militancy, Osama Bin Laden and so forth are his legacy.
     
    RovingCalypso, Jun 7, 2009 IP
  12. bogart

    bogart Notable Member

    Messages:
    10,911
    Likes Received:
    509
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    235
    #12
    Jimmy Carter started funding Afghanistan's mujahideen in 1979 ;) What flavor kool-aid have you been drinking :rolleyes:

    On July 3, 1979, U.S. President Carter signed a presidential finding authorizing funding for anticommunist guerrillas in Afghanistan. As a part of the Central Intelligence Agency program Operation Cyclone, the massive arming of Afghanistan's mujahideen was started.

    Carter advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski stated "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, Dec 24th 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise." Brzezinski himself played a fundamental role in crafting U.S. policy, which, unbeknown even to the Mujahideen, was part of a larger strategy "to induce a Soviet military intervention." In a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, Brzezinski recalled:

    We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would...That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap...The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    bogart, Jun 7, 2009 IP
  13. LogicFlux

    LogicFlux Peon

    Messages:
    2,925
    Likes Received:
    102
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #13
    Bogart, if all that is true, then your post is in effect giving the Carter administration a lot of credit for ending, or at least hastening the end of the cold war and the end of the USSR. I don't think you'd really want to do that, but I think it's too late to edit now.
     
    LogicFlux, Jun 8, 2009 IP
  14. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #14
    This thread qualifies as SPAM!!!
     
    Mia, Jun 8, 2009 IP
  15. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #15
    Browntwn doesn't have the nads to confront a liberal, but anyone else he's the second post reminding us about spam.

    This does appear to be spam though, I guess you can get away with a lot when you're a liberal. Just look at the tax cheats Obama appointed.
     
    ncz_nate, Jun 8, 2009 IP
  16. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #16
    It is SPAM... Its a link to his own MFA site.
     
    Mia, Jun 9, 2009 IP
  17. bogart

    bogart Notable Member

    Messages:
    10,911
    Likes Received:
    509
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    235
    #17
    I don't believe that Afganistain brought about the fall of the Soviet Union. The Russians had plenty of equipment, manpower and oil. The Soviets could have keep fighting but there is another factor that led to their demise.

    Ronald Reagan was able to trick Gorbachev that the Soviets were obsolete and need to open to the West. China never bought into this and look at how powerful they are today.

    The US introduced some good weapons systems back in the 1980s but we never produced them in quanity that would threaten the Soviets. The Soviets had large quanities of the T72 tank for instance that were complete garbage. The new US M1 really shook them up. The same is the case for the M2 Bradley.

    I was in Berlin when West German pilot Mathias Rust flew a cessna to Moscow's Red Square. The Soviets were flipping out. Gorbachev was attempting to up "Glasnost" with "Peristrokia" reforms.

    The demise of the Soviet Union started in Hungary. As the Soviets loosened up, the Hungarians were on the verge of Rebellion. In response the Soviets made a deal with the Hungarians in 1985 that they would withdraw Soviet troops from Hungary in five years. As soons as the Soviets started to withdraw combat troops from the Hungarian border East Germans started to pur across around September 12, 1989. Within two months East Germany collapsed which was the nail in the coffin. East Germany was an exporter of heavy machinery to the Soviets in exchange for raw materials. The East Germans also supplied approx 500,000 front line troops to the Warsaw Pact.
     
    bogart, Jun 10, 2009 IP
  18. myp

    myp Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,281
    Likes Received:
    71
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    140
    #18
    myp, Jun 10, 2009 IP
  19. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #19
    myp you won't get an answer from him man. He stops responding when he realizes his next post will take actual effort and brainpower. I don't think he wanted any discussion, just some hits for his site apparently.
     
    ncz_nate, Jun 11, 2009 IP
  20. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #20
    He's just here to promote his MFA sites.
     
    Mia, Jun 11, 2009 IP