10 things I hate about Ronald Reagan

BTW I do remember all the pain and suffering he caused, I was in El Salvador when those things happened. For Reagan, the Contras were in the same package as the support of the repressive regimes in Honduras (were the contras had their bases) Guatemala, and El Salvador. And that package included the death squads.

Still, I hope he did find peace, I do know his former cabinet members, working for Bush do not (they find war on purpose), so we have to guide our bile and contempt to the living, were it counts.

Sorry. I just got caught up in the moment and grabbed the first pair I saw.

?

He may not have been a capital president, but he’s been one hell of an ex-president…

On topic, RIP Mr. Reagan. Wish I could remember your presidency.

Hmmm … even if it was Alzheimers that finally got him, if living until you’re 93 years old is an example of karma, then count me in!

What were you smoking when you posted that utter rubbish above? SDI was a silly idea that never would have worked, and was never even close to be attempted to deploy. And the Soviets couldn’t defeat the US militarily without SDI. Any attempt would have resulted in the US launching its nukes at them, and nuclear armageddon.

Hey, I can’t think of a GOOD Attorney General. He did no worse than Janet Reno with her Waco debacle and the mishandling of the Elian Gonzalez situation. As far as pornography goes, that “war” still continues with feminists who continue to insist that it debases women, and I would hardly consider feminists to be conservative. So for #10 you get zero points.

Cite? I did not know that, and if true is very not cool. I’ll provisionally give you a point for that one.

Elaborate, if you will. I’ll award a point later if you can convince me that that was a bad thing.

I support drug testing for jobs if there is a noted degradation in performance. I also support an absolute ban if you’re doing something that can injure or kill someone else. I’d also like to note that marijuana was banned in the 1930s when FDR was President, so I think it’s very unfair to blame this one on Ronnie. Drugs, when abused, are a social cancer. I see no problem with drug enforcement as it is today except for the mandatory jail sentences, which I think are overkill.

No points for this one.

It certainly wasn’t a waste of money. First of all, it cashiered the Soviet Union when they realized that to “keep up” they were going to have to spend up to 25% of their GDP on technologies that they never really did get a grip on. Second, it never violated the ABM Treaty because it was never actually deployed. Third, considering the enormous volume of Soviet nuclear missiles and our history of animosity with them, it was a great idea, a program to defend ourselves from nuclear attack that was deemed likely as recently as the 1990s.

No points on that one, either. You’re not doing too well here, fella.

This is a question of political ideology. I disagree, but since it’s an opinion I’ll split it with you and give you a half a point.

About as dumb as the assassination of Allende, supporting the Shah of Iran, and hooking up Bin Laden with money to fight the Russians. We are totally agreed with this. Although, he was trying to free some hostages, so it had a certain noble ideal, but it was still a fuckup of the highest magnitude.

One point.

They were doing an essential job, they were forbidden to strike, and they did anyway, basically daring him to fire them. All he did was oblige them. No points for you there.

Unprecedented deficits, yes, high military spending, yes, but he brought the military out of their post-Vietnam funk, gave a metric assload of people jobs (admittedly working for the military-industrial complex), and brought inflation and interest rates back down to Earth from the stratospheric levels that they were at under Carter. His economic policies and development are rather reminiscent of FDR’s, which is unsurprising because he claimed to idolize FDR early in his political career. Isn’t that scary, Reagan resembling a liberal? Whodathunkit?I give you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Repeat, so we’ll go with Grenada and Panama. He did Grenada because he was protecting US citizens, much like Carter did at Desert One. The difference? Reagan was successful. Panama? Well, he protected US (and world) interests by getting rid of Noriega, who was a drug runner, despot, and was in control of the country with that most vital sealane, the Panama Canal. However, the US DID support Noriega early on, so for that mistake I’ll be charitable and give you a half a point for that one.

So, out of a possible 10 points, you get…

  1. 3 measly points. You may want to try harder next time. I’m willing to call a spade a spade, but most of your criticisms are weak at best, and in some cases pathetic.

Sam - I was working at the correction center through the Reagan years - I remember it well. We used to comment that when some guy on the upper floors of the Y pissed out the window, it was more of that ‘trickle down effect’. Does that indicate to you my recollections of the economy, how life was for the average guy during his tenure?

RE: his death - I am glad that his family were able to be there, death of a loved one is never easy, even when, as in this case, it means the end of the loved one’s suffering. Other than that, I felt his presidency did harm to this country, that his near deification by some members of the Party makes me ill. I’m not willing to give him the pass you are, on the Iran/Contra gig, but fear that we may never be able to know what really happened.

Personally, I don’t think Reagan was the worst president ever and I think he did some good things… and some bad things, just like everyone else. Although I am considered a liberal, I voted for him twice and am not sorry I did. Every president has his weaknesses and until someone perfect shows up, they always will.

Can anyone here think of a president in the last 50 years that made no mistakes? I use 50 years because that’s about how long television has been around. I don’t remember Eisenhower, but I know every president since then have had their warts. I won’t celebrate Reagan’s passing, but he was just a man…

I’d trade him for the present administration in a heartbeat…

Damn, there are some cold hearted, sick fucking people posting in this thread.

Seriously: it’s hella crude.

I guess CNN is going to have to retract their front page story of today “Reagan aides deny that Reagan’s health has declined” Denial until death.

I didn’t realize that the man was 93, holy craporama. That’s a nice long life, too bad the end of it was clouded by disease. Whether you hate or love a guy, it’s always nice to have people around to talk about things with. Even people I really despise who have died I often wish were still around so I could chat with them after things have cooled off. RIP

True, but that particular mess wasn’t really of any political leader’s doing, and the resolution of the mess wasn’t either. The tax drop wasn’t what saved the economy, and the tremendous rates of growth were due to the fact that excess capacity was being put back online, not a tremendous rise in new growth in capacity. The tax cuts were the right thing to do. Supply side economics was total bullshit, but so are 70% marginal tax rates.

Agreed.

I have a hard time understanding why hatred of Reagan is so over the top. Compared to the current Republicans, I’d take Reagan any day of the week. Hate or love his policies, he was ten times the leader that GW is, and the man was sincere in a way I just have never been able to believe that GW is.

You know, this I don’t get either. The man left office more than a decade ago. He’s had no effect on any policy that affects anyone’s life in years. So why is his death an event worth celebrating? His death means nothing but sadness for his family and for many people in the nation. It doesn’t magically raise taxes, bring welfare back, or re-regulate the airlines.

By the way: Reagan disliked both Bushes, and Nancy Reagan clearly dislikes Bush for his decision to basically nix any hope of stem cell research helping people like Reagan anytime in the near future. Current Republicans may lionize Reagan, but Reagan and his people never lionized them: to them Reagan has been a symbol to exploit.

I’m one of the many who was not surprised when Ron Sr was diagnosed, but how long do the symptoms of the early stages of Alzheimers last? Because it looked to me like he was manifesting symptoms a lot earlier than '94.

But Wife pointed out back then that a particular way he moved his hands when he spoke was common in stroke patients so that might have explained his actions. She even found a period before 1980 when he had been out of the public eye for a few months and had even been hospitalized for part of it. The official story was prostate treatment or something but she figures that’s when he was being treated for the stroke. I haven’t found it yet but haven’t been looking.

I think Otto is celebrating because he has proven to me at least, that he is out of his fucking mind.

It’s a very poorly kept secret that Reagan was in ill health the last two years of his office, often getting spells of fogginess or falling asleep in the middle of talking to people. It’s too bad, but I can’t see that it necessarily affected his administration in any noticeable way. His ability to deliver speeches and meet with the press was hampered, but he was still able to make decisions with the aid of his staff.

Sorry, Apos, I didn’t mean to be insensitive to the man’s death. I’m not trying to opine on the death of Reagan personally, but I despise the way the major networks have been hanging on his every breath like vultures at the Gobi Desert Royal Fork Buffet. I don’t object to hearing the news that he has died, but I don’t think I need to hear every expert discuss all morning the possibility that he might soon die. Leave that kind of leechcraft to the Enquirer or the Star.

This is tame in comparison to the ones which started when Strom Thurmond died.

You misunderstand, I was agreeing with you. The “too close to call” bit was priceless. Reagan was 93. He was dying, and in many ways, was already long gone. Anyone who’s lost someone to this disease knows this. For the press to stand over his bedside with bated breath was indeed kind of creepy.

But the reality is, the press has been preparing graphics, composing music, and pre-writing editorials for this moment for months if not years. Now THAT’S creepy.

As a proud Guest on these Boards going all the way back to May of two-thousand-aught-four, I think you should do the only honorable thing possible - resign in protest.

Actually, milroyj, I went and looked up the word a few weeks ago when I heard it used to refer to Clinton, and the connotations of the word “regime” bothered me, as obviously it does you per Reagan. I decided “regime” was a perfectly good word to use for someone’s presidency.

I shan’t bother to link to a dictionary for you.

The humorous part is he complained about posts being a disgrace to the BBQ Pit. Wouldn’t a disgraceful post here being one that was a truly pathetic attempt at flaming? :wink: