Unless, of course, you happen to have Bill Clinton as President. 
Well, spread way too freakin’ thin. But that’s an argument that’s been made any number of times.
Or do you believe that the US could up and start kickin’ ass in Europe if a threat existed?
I don’t mean to demean his death, I really don’t want to do that for any living thing, but I will not remember reagan’s policies in a “good light”
Thousands overseas died thanks to his actions in South America and the middle east.
And millions back home starved(Not to death but you get what I mean… massive poverty increase) thanks to his now Bush-used “trickle down effect,” even prompting much of America to protest, such as the Dead Kennedys song “Kill the Poor”
The only reasons americans ever fought the cold war is because they wanted to be the supreme superpower, not because they cared about those under soviet or socialist rule. Plus, if america ever went socialist the rich white people would no longer rule our country and oppress everyone else’s views and opinions by not allowing them their say and representation in government. Socialism is a very direct threat to the supercorporations and rich men who have had a stranglehold in our government since its creation.
I recall the late 70’s as a bad time. 18% interest on a secured business loan. The cold war fears of the previous 30 years continued. Can you say “stagflation”? In spite of the above, I liked Jimmy Carter as a person and voted for him over Reagan in 1980.
But Reagan won in 1980, and again when I did vote for him in 1984. National morale made a 180 degree turn around, interest rates dropped and the Soviet Union imploded during Reagan’s two terms in office. After his allotted time was over nearly everything was better.
Reagan was a difference maker, changing the course of America and the world for the better.
It seems that some of you live in an alternate universe where things did not happen in the ways I described above. You have my condolences.
I bet you’re thinking of Central America.
The man made a point of ignoring AIDS until it became clear enough to convince a retarded ape that AIDS was killing more than just gay people, drug abusers, and Haitians.
When driven to at least address the issue, he remarked, “When it comes to AIDS, don’t medicine and morality teach the same lesson?” (Cite: A Time Of AIDS, documentary, Discovery Channel.)
In short, if you live outside my morality, I’m justified in doing nothing while “you people” die in droves. Uh-huh. Too busy tripling the deficit while trying to prove that “voodoo economics” really does benefit the poor as much as it does the rich. Yup.
Mostly what I’ve noticed since the Reagan Administration is how bad the GOP wishes they could find another one just like him… because only the Gipper could screw America sideways and make us LIKE it, somehow. Vote for more of it. Defend his right to keep doing it.
Voodoo Presidency.
I’m just guessing… but perhaps he was implying that the massive debt and structural deficits that the Reagan years left America with made national health care financially impossible?
Didn’t like him then, didn’t like him 2 days ago. The fact that he is now dead changes those feelings not at all.
The worst part is the part where some conservatives leave out the bits they complained about: like his giving into tax increases, making nice with the Russians, basically saving Social Security, etc. (to his credit, you should note that Sam is not one of these: he’s already acknowledged some of these things in other threads) The scandals I would imagine not to see in a time where criticism is verboten. But the rush to go beyond that, to be-saint Reagan is not entirely out of any sort of respect, it’s also out of craven desire to enlist and exploit him as a banner for the current causes: some of which Reagan may not have even supported for all we know. The way people are talking now, you’d think that he never played nasty partisan politics, was always an optimist, etc. Certainly you can draw comparisons with this or that political figure and have Reagan come out ahead. But he had his share dark-doom threatening moments and political sideswipes. It’s silly to want to remember a myth and not a man.
It seems to be an interesting question amongst the Bushiviks: just exactly how to exploit St. Ronald of Bakersfield without creating more problems that you solve (picked this up from cmason over in the Pit)
"…Mr. Bush’s advisers said Sunday that the intense focus on Mr. Reagan’s career that began upon the news of his death on Saturday would remind Americans of what Mr. Bush’s supporters have long described as the similarities between the two men as straight-talking, ideologically driven leaders with swagger and a fixed idea of what they wanted to do with their office.
“Americans are going to be focused on President Reagan for the next week,” said Ed Gillespie, the Republican national chairman. “The parallels are there. I don’t know how you miss them…”
"…Advisers to Mr. Bush said they had not determined how prominently Mr. Bush should identify his presidency with Mr. Reagan, whether Mr. Reagan’s image should be incorporated in Mr. Bush’s advertisements and whether Nancy Reagan might appear on Mr. Bush’s behalf in the fall.
Some Republicans said the images of a forceful Mr. Reagan giving dramatic speeches on television provided a less-than-welcome contrast with Mr. Bush’s own appearances these days, and that it was not in Mr. Bush’s interest to encourage such comparisons…"
“…“Reagan showed what high stature that a president can have — and my fear is that Bush will look diminished by comparison,” said one Republican sympathetic to Mr. Bush, who did not want to be quoted by name criticizing the president…”
I remember that he was first and foremost , an actor… not a very good one, but capable of playing the president as long as he was completely scripted. We might as well have had Howdy Doody in the oval office. Attributing anything at all to him personally is ludicrous. I remember the times when his handlers would slack the leash for a moment and he would spout complete nonsense till hustled offstage. I’ll have to leave it to the quote-meisters to document those instances, as I was so disgusted at the time I stopped keeping track.
I expect Mr. Rove argued forcefully that the body should be hidden until, say October.
Bush would do well NOT to try and capitalize on this, lest someone point out that the Reagans treated his parents like dirt. (From what I heard, Nancy especially was viscious to the Bushes).
Sam:
Actually, on the contrary: I’m more than willing to listen to reasoned argument, especially if it supported with strong evidence. I already conceded in the first paragraph of my first post that Reagan probably played an important role in hastening the decline of the Soviet Union – by pressuring them to keep up with his military expansion when their economy was tottering on its last legs. Although I submit its hard to judge exactly how large that effect was in reality.
Apology accepted. Sorry I got a bit hot under the collar as well.
But to be clear, it wasn’t the accusation of lying that got to me; it was the way in which I felt you demean the opinions of those who do not share your adulation of Ronald Reagan or whole-heartedly support his policies vis-a-vis the USSR. No doubt in many cases this opposition to Reagan was motivated by baser instincts among a certain group of the anti-American left; but it’s just wrong for you to lump everyone who disagreed with him in that category, and rather insulting as well. One can disagree with you, and with Reagan’s policies, without being a “Soviet cheerleader,” or holding the views you seem to accuse us of.
Finally, for the sake of clearing the air, one last time: do you, or do you not, deny that Reagan once said, in 1981, “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do,” as quoted above? To my knowledge, you never once conceded that point in our previous debate, and you seem not to have done so in this one yet, either.
Yes, I can. I recall the same thing. I was a pricing clerk at the time for a wholesale distributor. My job was simple: keep the price books updated and bill out invoices at current prices. Then, bam! Suddenly, price increases were flooding in faster than I could keep up with them. One industrial abrasives manufacturer issued four new pricing schedules in one month. They raised their list prices for the first time in 40 years. (Wholesale pricing was derived by applying a multiplier against list.) We were letting people go by the bus loads as interest rates soared to the 20% range. Our company lost its line of credit despite many years of good relations with the bank. We simply did not qualify anymore. We had to change accounting systems from FIFO to LIFO in a desparate attempt to maintain some sort of value for our inventoty. This sort of triple whammy — high inflation, high interest rates, and high unemployment — weren’t supposed to be able to happen all at the same time. It was a frightening time.
Or if you have a Republican Congress. Remember how Congress actually passes spending bills and budgets? Since you forgot that, I’ll remind you that Reagan had to deal with a Democrat Congress. :smack: :wally
If it was that fucking obvious, why would one man make the difference? Maybe those putting themselves at risk should take a little responsibility? I mean, it was so damn obvious, the high-risk groups should’ve been more careful. Right?
Had Reagan’s proposed budgets been passed, there would have been a surplus by the end of his term.
Not 100% sure of the years, but didn’t the Republicans control the Senate from 1983-1987?
A little federal money for research and education would have been helpful, along with a drug policy that emphasized treatment over punishment as well as needle exchange programs. Not to mention a generally lower level of government shittiness toward gays from a president who knew damn well from his own experience that the radical right was spouting lies.
As for one man making a difference, I suggest you Google the phrase “bully pulpit” for an idea of how one man can make a difference when that man is the bloody President of the United States.
Seeing how Sam Stone listed Reagan’s support for the Mujahadeen as a positive, I’m surpised that he neglected to mention another of Reagan’s achievements: putting Saddam on his list of “good buddies”, and then supplying him with arms and intelligence (I mean of the CIA kind - Ronnie didn’t have enough of the other kind to spare). I mean, was that far-sighted, or what? Without those two critical acts, Bush 2.0 would have nixed out in the first year of his presidency.