"Read the ******* manual?" :smug: :shifty:

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/a...hite_flag2.gif

President Reagan was the best leader in my lifetime IMO (1971-???). He did what he said he would and knew when to be tough. I didn't agree with everything he did while in office, but he was the last President i honestly believed in.

Some say he was just a great actor, but i think that he was just smart enough to know when to act. In those days our Allies respected us and our enemies feared us, No one knew what he would do next but IMO he didn't bring shame upon the office he held.

Sure there were some issues, but nothing like the petty crap we see these days. He was a Great American who loved his Country and will always be a personal hero of mine.

Well said and he is a personal hero of mine as well.

Ah yes, good ol' Ronnie. The modern day purity test for conservatives and proof that time heals all wounds - or at least obscures all rational thought.

How hypocritical that the new Conservative vogue is to be a budget hawk, but yet venerates Saint Ronnie who tripled the national deficit. This is why people view you hardcore righties as such hypocrites. There's a reason "Reaganomics" is the punchline to a joke.

The Laughter curve

I think that's the thing that has made history so kind to Reagan, and that's how he knew the 'gift of the gab'. Be whatever you think of his economic plans, he produced memorable speeches, he had a little punchline to cut the tension at a conference, he was good to his allies and stern with his enemies.
I think presidency is 8/10s presentation, and if you can present something good to the public, or dress something that's not so good up in a manner that makes it look good...then history will remember you a bit more fondly.

If the Republicans want a chance, I think they might want to look at Scott Brown...I dunno, it's just a hunch...I'm not really that knowledgeable about state politics in the US, but he seems like he might have the panache to pull off a victory for the Republicans in 2012.
If Palin gets the vote though, then Obama will win...that's a given. The last Republican campaign is completely mismatched against the Democratic one. Obama's message was 'HOPE' and 'CHANGE' whereas McCain seemed only intent on telling everyone that the sky would fall in if they voted for Obama...which no-one believed because they wanted 'HOPE' and 'CHANGE' (some powerful words those) and it was that...plus perhaps the novelty of having the first non-white US president, that got Obama in.

I hope you weren't one of the ones who lambasted Clinton on that account then. He's another one I didn't like for political reasons, but the whole impeachment thing was nothing more than a witch hunt, no better than the attempts to get Reagan through Ollie North.

Some folks hold their morals high. The only thing I have against conservatives caught in the act is that they are the ones who point the finger when liberals do it. Mistakes I can tolerate, hypocrisy never.

Yep', good ol' X. The [timeframe] purity test for Y and proof that time heals all wounds, or at least all rational thought.

What they mean is that they will spend your money on things they (I mean, you) want money to be spent on at the expense of the money those other guys waste.

It's not hypocritical, it's just the mechanics of politics. Calm yourself, I'm not going on another libertarian text-version equivalent of the Bataan death march, just making a brief point.:DL

Politics is the natural result of the political system. Parties shift platforms and declare allegiances to this or that not by the merit of the cause but by the number of voted it will garner. That goes for both parties. I trust there are enough examples that the point stands on its own.

Yup, and it's the same reason the term Reaganomics was coined- politics.

Aaahahahahahaha :rotfl2: :har:

Eh I know it's only politics. I had a few drinks last night and felt like some good natured mud slingin'. :03: I don't talk politics in real life (partly because, as I like to say, being as left as I am in Texas is like admitting you're a Jew in Berlin circa 1941), so this is my only real outlet for it.

And today we're seeing the exact opposite. Lefties who have always accused the right of the biggest deficits are now defending their doing the same.

Yes but Steve, the hypocrisy is that the right has always portrayed themselves as the antithesis of the "tax and spend liberals."

A lot of Republicans now see Reagan's presidency through rose colored glasses, but it was not like that in 76 and 80. Many moderate republicans saw him as an extreme right winger out of touch with the country. Bush sr. ran his 1980 primary campaign on that basis. I remember many moderate republicans in 76 saying nominating Reagan would be as suicidal as picking Goldwater was in 64.

The supply side economics Reagan pushed in the early 80s, i.e. cut taxes and the resulting boom will produce more tax revenues was widely derided as Voodoo economics. He presided over one of the worst recessions in 1982-83 when interest rates topped 20%.

His firing of all the air traffic controllers on strike (81 or 82?), lowered the safety of air travel in the USA for many years afterwards. This was confirmed to me by civilian pilots who flew commercial flights back then.

His defence policies in the early 80s, especially the decision to deploy cruise missiles in europe in 83 increased tensions with the USSR. Recent articles have come out over the past few years that the premiers in 82-85, Andropov and Tchernenko were almost certain Reagan was planning a nuclear war and seriously discussed whether they should launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

The one good thing Reagan did was his handling of Perestroika and the negotiations with Gorbachev in 85-88 which brought about the end of the Cold War.

I am no fan of Obama, but his performance in 2009-2010 is already way better than Reagan's in 1981-82.

I think you're 4 years off. Jimmah Carter was President between 1976 and 1980. Bush senior didn't run for the presidency until 1984.

English language.
Two different campaigns with Reagan getting the same description in both for his economic policies
A Primary in one of those two campaigns where Bush running against Reagan lambasted Reagans economic policy.

That English is so complicated