Ronald Reagan: The Greatest President Ever

I agree with much of what you say, but the bolded part is absurd. Gorbachev's role in bringing about the downfall of the Soviet Union is exponentially greater than Reagan's role!! Reagan had almost no role at all, while Gorbachev was a central figure.

The whole rational behind all that narrative is nonsense. The idea is that Reagan spent so much on the military, that the Soviets bankrupted themselves trying to compete Except of course, that the Soviets didn't try to compete, and they actually cut military spending some years during the 1980s. The reality is the Soviet Union fell because of internal economic inefficiencies, and because of Gorbachev. The Soviet Union had uprisings on the periphery twice before 1988-1989. Those uprisings(in Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Hungary in 1956), were met with extreme force by the Soviets. The Soviet system was one held together almost entirely by force and the threat of force. Gorbachev decided to remove that threat, and the Soviet Union fell quite quickly. When Poland and other Warsaw Pact countries started to rise up, the Soviet Union could have been once again preserved by the Soviets sending the tanks into those countries. Gorbachev didn't, the rest as they say, was history. After that point the fall of the Soviet Union was likely, and Yeltsin's coup put the final nail in the coffin. There is no place for Ronald Reagan in the story anywhere, where as the role played by Gorbachev was monumental(he was the person most responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union).

 

Except of course that he wasn't. George H W Bush was. It is all part of the "liberal media" lies. Reagan was a terrible president, who had very little to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union(not nothing certainly, just very little).

 

I can tell who has and hasn't listened to the videos in the OP. I can see who has studied and who has not. I can tell who has read a book written by Reagan, and who has not. It was indeed one of his lifes goals to see an end to communism, whether or not you believe it. For those of you that try to say that he didn't know what he was doing because of alzheimers you need to read his book of letters that are hand written by him. I have it on my shelf. He was a great thinker and very cogent and aware of what he was saying and doing. Those of you who do not understand this are uneducated, ignorant, and many of you by choice. I feel sorry for people who choose to be ignorant.

 

Actually, that is simply one of a great number of legends that sprang up about him during the first part of the 19th century. And just like chopping down the cherry tree and throwing a silver dollar across the Potomic, it is simply a fable.

Washington was never offered a Kingship, so he he obviously never had a change to refuse it. And while he was the first "President of the United States of America, this was actually not the first "President".

Prior to the Constitution, the office was known as the "President of the Continental Congress". First established in 1744, there were a total of 16 appointments of individuals who held that office. The last 8 actually had the title "President of Congress", and served under the Articles of Confederation. And this continued until it was abolished in 1788.

So while President Washington was the first President under our current Constitution, there was already established an office of "President", and the only body that would have authorized Washington to become a King would have been the Continental Congress.

And that was never even proposed.

 

Reagan was terrible.He simply carried on the policies started under Harry S. Truman.

Of course Republican presidents are usually terrible, so it is understandable that they would try and call Reagan great. There has only been ONE great Republican president and that was Lincoln. The rest have been various shades of bad to mediocre politically.

 

Reagan ended the cold war in what alternate universe does anyone believe that piece of delusion history

 

Clinton was the best President. He's the first one I can remember. I just liked the way he talked, and despite his affair with 'that woman' I think he was rather good.

 

So you are a Psuedo-Conservative from the Reagan era, and I am A REAL CONSERVATIVE from the Eisenhower era. SO you believe that National Security including a strong military, ICE and CBP agents, immigration courts and jails, federal and state prisons, infrastructure repairs, defense against Islamist terrorists and the Muslim Brotherhood, and 1000 other things should all be minimized (if not scratched) just to keep super rich greed freaks in their pathological pampered lifestyles.

To contrast the difference between Reagan's small government psuedo-conservatism, and Ike's REAL Conservatism, is as easy as just comparing the 2 presidents themselves. After Ike chased a million illegal alien invaders back to Mexico in Operation Wetback in 1954, Reagan gave them amnesty 12 years later. And his buddy Gingrich wants to do it again now.

And when Ike was trudging his way through Germany in 1944/1945 as supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe, your great hero, Rich Ronnie boy, was in Hollywood making movies about it.

 

There is no such thing as a fake conservative and a real one. You are insulting PN's political beliefs by implying otherwise.

 

I give him some credit for raising taxes on the rich, but why only to 39.6% ? He should have raised it to 80%, and then the surplus he attained would have been much greater, and the deficit and debt we now have wouldn't be as bad as it is (probably). Also, many of our current problems (infrastructure, immigration, crime, unemployment, etc) would be much less severe.
Thirdly, with an 80% top tax, our job growth and GDP would be very high, instead of the low levels of them we have now, with this very low taxation we have now.

 

Sure there is, and I just defined the differences in my last 2 posts, right here.

 

Your 'differences' have everything to do with hating Islam and nothing to do with the Presidency.

 

The differences I stated have little or nothing to do with Islam. They have to do with being an Eisenhower REAL Conservative, or a Reagan psuedo-Conservative.

Conservativism is not this ludicrous idea of protecting the rich from taxation as YOUNG people today (and most Republicans) see it as. Conservatism still is what it has always been going back to when I was a boy back in the 1950s.
That was BIG, STRONG Government, fully effective National Security, bolstered by HIGH TAXATION ON THE RICH (91-92% 1950-1963) with a large, powerful military, plenty of federal cops for immigration, FBI, etc., and today would mean building the Mexican border fence, building enough courts, jails, and prisons, repairing dangerous infrastructure, and the emphasis on PROTECTION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, not protecting the rich from taxation, as Reagan singlehandedly changed the definition to that worthless and harmful idea.

And I say it's harmful not just because this ludicrous UNDERtaxation we have (and have has for the last 30 years) deprives us of the things I just noted, but at these low rates of taxation (on the rich), our job growth and GDP suffer immensely. The statistics prove it.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...27746-i-want-you-pay-80-tax-bill-oreilly.html

 

PN doesn't seem to agree with you. He just gave me a reputation compliment for post # 63. Thanks PN.

 

By "greatest President" do you mean my favourite President or do you mean the most effective President?

 

Reagan did a lot of bad.

He started the the 'supply side economic' failure in the USA which resulted in the foundation of the republican't GW Bush depression.

Republican'ts seem to forget Truman's policy of containment which is what Reagan followed. He did nothing new.

Also the creation of the EC/EEC and NATO played a huge part in the demise of the USSR. The USSR was effectively cut off from the world.

Nixon did more for the demise of the Soviet Union than Reagan. Reagan, like all republican leaders lacked any substance or credibility.

 

Epic fail - I see no conection between "supply side economics" and the Obama Depression.
Reagan - Truman comparison not in evidence.
Nixon?
You really have to pick up a book.

 

I picked Thomas Jefferson. Without him the nation would have faced a federal nightmare from day one. The Louisiana purchase was huge. George Washington was more general the president. They pretty much forced him to be the 1st one. Jefferson's logic, for the most part, rings more true than the other founders. Especially the federalists. I would have picked Jackson if he would have been on the list. Simply because that was the only time in America a non-elite was president outside of Grant, with the difference being Jackson actually took on the bankers, where as Grant was just another tool for them. Lincoln was the bench mark president as for the highest office being for sale, him and all after good being out weighed by the shadow government they allowed to form. To the point now days we vote on who would be the prettiest yes man.

 

The current depression is a GW Bush depression (from Supply Side economics- low taxes) and so was the earlier George H. Bush depression in 1991.
The stats are clear and consistent. When we've had low taxes, we've had recessions. When they were high, so was GDP/job growth. I can't argue with history.

 

Patriot:
I keep asking this question of Reagan idolizers, and never yet have gotten a straight answer:

Under what circumstances would it be OK, in your opinion, for the Obama administration to sell arms to Iran?

Simple question.

I'm beginning to think that the relationship between your image of Reagan and the real Reagan is much like the relationship between your avatar and the way you really look.

But, I'm giving you a chance to prove me wrong.

 

Why would Obama want to sell arms to Iran?

As far as Reagan goes, he never sold arms to Iran.

The problem with liberals is the love to live in a fantasy world of disinformation and flat out lies. Why would you wish to be a part of spreading lies except to forward your cause of misguided socialist ideology?

How is that for a straight answer?

 

I changed my avitar to one that more closely resembles me. Your avitar is a dead fish...does that bare any resemblance to you?

 

oh now I understand,after seeing who the thread starter is no wonder he would vote for one of the most evil and corrupt presidents of all time.

 

yeah your just in denial.

 

What do you know? You think 9/11 was an inside job.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEVOUinXpfs"]South Park "9/11 Conspiracy" - YouTube[/ame]

​