LoneStarMadam wrote:Ronald Reagan was smart enough to keep his "friends close & his enemies closer", This country was in darkness with RRs predecessor stumbling around in the dark, lusting in his heart, then there was morning in America when RR came to power. He was one of the most reviled presidents we've had....by neanderthals that had only democrat/liberal power on their minds.
So please challange any of my stated quotes/comments re R Reagan. Goldwater was honest, was Reagan?
dyslexia wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:Ronald Reagan was smart enough to keep his "friends close & his enemies closer", This country was in darkness with RRs predecessor stumbling around in the dark, lusting in his heart, then there was morning in America when RR came to power. He was one of the most reviled presidents we've had....by neanderthals that had only democrat/liberal power on their minds.
So please challange any of my stated quotes/comments re R Reagan. Goldwater was honest, was Reagan?
I made a comment, I answered the original question. You now want to know what I think of his honesty? I have no idea whether he was honest or not
all of the time, however, I doubt that he was, but I KNOW that he was more honest than many before him & defenitely much more honest than some after him.
LoneStar, dyslexia claims to be a Goldwater admirer, and also claims to be a liberal, now is bashing Ronald Reagan, and he claims to be a gun rights lover, and now backs Kucinich, so figure that out? I thought only Libertarians life style would live in Wolf Hole. I gave up trying to figure him out.
okie wrote:LoneStar, dyslexia claims to be a Goldwater admirer, and also claims to be a liberal, now is bashing Ronald Reagan, and he claims to be a gun rights lover, and now backs Kucinich, so figure that out? I thought only Libertarians life style would live in Wolf Hole. I gave up trying to figure him out.
I claim to be a gun owner (not lover) I do back Kucinich (as i did in the last presidential election) Where I live is not any more relevent than pointing out you live in OklaDamnHoma. It's pretty easy to figure you out, you're an idiot.
Okie, I assume that georgeob is far better educated/knowledgeable than I, an actual rebutal to my reagan rant; I, of course, refute his rebuttal but acknowledge his reasoning he does not refute by mentioning Marx but rather offers alternative views of Reagan; you, on the other hand.....are ignorant. should you like to rebut any of my comments re Reagan please feel free.
Using evidence and actually arguing points would be a new turn for you dyslexia. In the past, I've seen very little of that, but only accusations of being ignorant, as you just did again, which is no surprise. That is actually a very mild accusation compared to your past performance on this forum.
I see no need to go back and dig up Ronald Reagan's legacy, which is well documented in peoples minds, of the people that knew him, and lived during his presidency. Of course, the liberal left would like to revise that legacy in terms of indoctrinating the people that were born afterward, and then write it in the history books. And during Reagan's presidency, there were a large minority of people that did not like him, especially academia, intelligentsia, and the main stream media, but a large majority of the people loved him. He was a true American that loved his country, freedom, and he understood simple principles that the liberal left still does not grasp.
Reagan was imperfect, as any person is, but stands head and shoulders above many presidents, including Jimmy Carter, who is still betraying this country by running around the world and badmouthing all kinds of things in an effort to salvage his legacy, which is hopeless.
okie wrote:LoneStar, dyslexia claims to be a Goldwater admirer, and also claims to be a liberal, now is bashing Ronald Reagan, and he claims to be a gun rights lover, and now backs Kucinich, so figure that out? I thought only Libertarians life style would live in Wolf Hole. I gave up trying to figure him out.
Of course you can't figure him out because he is the antithesis of what you are: a free thinker.
I have always been mistified by the fervor of anti Reagan politicians over the so called "Iran-Contra" matter.
Our president was confronted with a truly stupid and partisan amendment in an appropriation Act that forbade the use of funds appropriated by Congress in this act to be used to support the Contras, who, with our help, were fighting the Sandanists regime in Nicaragua and also doing a prettuy good job disrupting the flow of Soviet weapons to the insurgent groups in El salvador along the Cuba, Nicaragua, El salvador route.
The Administration found a way to continue aid to the Contras by selling then obsolete Phoenix air-to-air missiles to the revolutionary (but unsophisticated) regime in Iran through an Israeli intermediarey - and doing so at a grossly exhorbitant price, and using the profits for the Contras. These missiles could be used only on F-14 fighters (40 of which had been sold to the Shah). In fact the missiles could never have been used effectively against us - they had been bugged and we had the ability to disable or detonate the fuses remotely and at will.
While the intent to thwart the will of the Congress in the Bolton amendment) was clear enough, the notion that this constituted a violation of any standing law, or constituted an historically significant overreach of executive power is absurd in the extreme.
This was instead a brilliant move in which the clear and present danger of Soviet supported revolution in Central America was successfully thwarted, and the effort was financed by our fanatic enemies in Iran. It doesn't get much better than that!
georgeob1 wrote:I have always been mistified by the fervor of anti Reagan politicians over the so called "Iran-Contra" matter.
Our president was confronted with a truly stupid and partisan amendment in an appropriation Act that forbade the use of funds appropriated by Congress in this act to be used to support the Contras, who, with our help, were fighting the Sandanists regime in Nicaragua and also doing a prettuy good job disrupting the flow of Soviet weapons to the insurgent groups in El salvador along the Cuba, Nicaragua, El salvador route.
The Administration found a way to continue aid to the Contras by selling then obsolete Phoenix air-to-air missiles to the revolutionary (but unsophisticated) regime in Iran through an Israeli intermediarey - and doing so at a grossly exhorbitant price, and using the profits for the Contras. These missiles could be used only on F-14 fighters (40 of which had been sold to the Shah). In fact the missiles could never have been used effectively against us - they had been bugged and we had the ability to disable or detonate the fuses remotely and at will.
While the intent to thwart the will of the Congress in the Bolton amendment) was clear enough, the notion that this constituted a violation of any standing law, or constituted an historically significant overreach of executive power is absurd in the extreme.
This was instead a brilliant move in which the clear and present danger of Soviet supported revolution in Central America was successfully thwarted, and the effort was financed by our fanatic enemies in Iran. It doesn't get much better than that!
It's baffeled me too, especially since the
god of dems, FDR, did basically the same thing. The difference was that FDR
loaned the arms rather than sell them.
Dyslexia wrote:Ronald Reagan, a moron or a genius?
Definitely not a moron. I wouldn't go as far as calling him a genius, but he's definitely a president I underestimated at the time. For example, his Berlin speech ("Mr. Gorbachev, turn down this wall!") has stood the test of time well. My opposition to that speech, which I found naive and potentially dangerous, has not stood it at all. Reagan and Bush I were presidents I learned to respect when the Iron Curtain came down. I wish I could say the same about Bush II, but I can't. No way.
Thomas wrote:Dyslexia wrote:Ronald Reagan, a moron or a genius?
Definitely not a moron. I wouldn't go as far as calling him a genius, but he's definitely a president I underestimated at the time. For example, his Berlin speech ("Mr. Gorbachev, turn down this wall!") has stood the test of time well. My opposition to that speech, which I found naive and potentially dangerous, has not stood it at all. Reagan and Bush I were presidents I learned to respect when the Iron Curtain came down. I wish I could say the same about Bush II, but I can't. No way.
Some have tried to take away the credit given to RR for the Berlin Wall speech & subsequent success of that speech, even his speech writers did not want him to say
those words to Gorbachev.
I, like you, was very skeptical of his presidency at first, I was happily, very wrong. I wasn't a big fan of Bush I, even though I do believe that he was & is a very decent man. Bush II has disappointed me more than I ever thought he could. I have no idea what he'll do, but apparently not what I thought he'd do. He is not the same man that he was as Tx governor.
BTW-Bush II is still better IMO, than the alternative we had, both times.
LoneStarMadam wrote:BTW-Bush II is still better IMO, than the alternative we had, both times.
Well, this is the point where it's best if we agree to disagree. In my experience online, debating this issue tends to generate more heat than light.
Thomas wrote:Dyslexia wrote:Ronald Reagan, a moron or a genius?
Definitely not a moron. I wouldn't go as far as calling him a genius, but he's definitely a president I underestimated at the time. For example, his Berlin speech ("Mr. Gorbachev, turn down this wall!") has stood the test of time well. My opposition to that speech, which I found naive and potentially dangerous, has not stood it at all. Reagan and Bush I were presidents I learned to respect when the Iron Curtain came down. I wish I could say the same about Bush II, but I can't. No way.
Have you considered the possibility that history might show Bush II more correct than you wish to consider at this stage? Your answer with all honesty, Thomas.
Thomas wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:BTW-Bush II is still better IMO, than the alternative we had, both times.
Well, this is the point where it's best if we agree to disagree. In my experience online, debating this issue tends to generate more heat than light.
Debating is good, name calling & nastiness, vulgarity, are something else. I have had my mind changed by some thoughtful posters comments.
okie wrote:Have you considered the possibility that history might show Bush II more correct than you wish to consider at this stage? Your answer with all honesty, Thomas.
Of course I've considered it, having underestimated Reagan and Bush 1. But as a result of considering it, I would bet 10:1 that if you ask me again in 10 years, I will not have changed my mind about Bush II.
Thomas wrote:Dyslexia wrote:Ronald Reagan, a moron or a genius?
Definitely not a moron. I wouldn't go as far as calling him a genius, but he's definitely a president I underestimated at the time. For example, his Berlin speech ("Mr. Gorbachev, turn down this wall!") has stood the test of time well. My opposition to that speech, which I found naive and potentially dangerous, has not stood it at all. Reagan and Bush I were presidents I learned to respect when the Iron Curtain came down. I wish I could say the same about Bush II, but I can't. No way.
The credit the supporters of those two clowns claim for "winning" the cold war ignore so many factors, that it is hardly worth beginning the discussion. I've tried here before, and it just shoots right over the heads of those to whom one speaks.
Gorbachev himself is more responsible than anyone else for the fall of the Berlin Wall--and the steps he took which lead inevitably to that event were taken well before Reagan took that extended photo-op.
I'd say, in the immediate timing, the decision of the Hungarians to open their border with Austria had the most significant effect in causing the collapse of the DDR.
I suspect history will judge Bush as certainly deficient in meeting his leadership challenges, even if it turns out his positions with respect to the islamist challenge and Saddam are found to be partly or mostly right.
He polarized, rather than persuaded or led. That he would face the passivity of a Europe that stood safely in our shadow during most of the Cold war, was already known. His challenge was to persuade, inspire or at least work around that passivity. Instead he confronted it, burt to no good effect - for anyone. I'll admit that the duplicity and corruption of the French government presented a particular challenge, but even that was already known.
In a leadership position it is not enough to have the right view on some issues - one must make them clear, persuade, motivate, and lead. Bush merely recited cant phrases, confronted those with whom he disagreed and polarized all involved.
Damn right George.
I make the point often that there was a real failure by the Bush crew not only to convince foreigners, but to convince citizens of our own country, that he had chosen the correct course.
Cycloptichorn
