NationStates Jolt Archive

A recent Gallup Poll gives us the following information:

71% of Americans approve of the job that Ronald Reagan did as President
27% disapprove

61% of Americans approve of the job that Bill Clinton did as President
38% disapprove

In a recent Presidential ranking poll in which an ideologically balanced group of 130 prominent professors of history, law, political science and economics to rated the presidents Ronald Reagan came in 6th and Bill Clinton came in 22nd.
Why is it that in the light of history Ronald Reagan is more popular than Bill Clinton?

Haha I have the same book as you dude. "Presidential Leadership" right?

A recent Gallup Poll gives us the following information:

71% of Americans approve of the job that Ronald Reagan did as President
27% disapprove

61% of Americans approve of the job that Bill Clinton did as President
38% disapprove

In a recent Presidential ranking poll in which an ideologically balanced group of 130 prominent professors of history, law, political science and economics to rated the presidents Ronald Reagan came in 6th and Bill Clinton came in 22nd.
Why is it that in the light of history Ronald Reagan is more popular than Bill Clinton?
Beats me, there's nothing treasonous about fellatio. But that just goes to show you how backwards the majority of our opinions are ...

No, I don't own it. Am I on a similar theme as the book?

Well, when someone dies, people tend to gloss over the bad. The death also means mass advertisements of their achivements.

Beats me, there's nothing treasonous about fellatio. But that just goes to show you how backwards the majority of our opinions are ...

Well , I don't think the problem was that Bill Clinton had relations with Lewinski, it was that he lied under oath about it. The cover up is always worse than the crime, it seems, in politics. Do you have any actual point or argument as to how liking Reagan makes us backwards? Or do you just like to name call?

Well, when someone dies, people tend to gloss over the bad. The death also means mass advertisements of their achivements.

But.....http://www.pollingreport.com/wh-hstry.htm


the same poll was conducted in 2002 ( 2 years before Reagan died)

his approval then was 73% ( even higher)

your point is not valid.

Why is it that in the light of history Ronald Reagan is more popular than Bill Clinton?
It ain't the light of history though. For one, President Reagan just died (Yes, I know, it was a year or so ago, but it's still in public memory). This makes it hard to speak ill of the dead and paints a rosy picture of what he did, or didn't do.

President Clinton hasn't been out of office for 8 years yet, far too short a time to let both his groupies (and Reagan's) lose steam and allow for an honest look at both their presidentcies.

What was it that I read once? It takes about 30 years to be able to fully look at an event dispassionately to record and judge it for history rather than the present.

an ideologically balanced group of 130 prominent professors of history, law, political science and economics

Boy I'd like to see that.

When is recent?

Who publishes the book? Who're the major shareholders in the publishing company?

Aaaahhahahaha, your username. AuH2O~!

Do you have any actual point or argument as to how liking Reagan makes us backwards? Or do you just like to name call?Did you have any other point in starting this thread other than "Clinton is a poopyhead"?

Clinton's only been out of office for 6 years. It really is a little early for "history" to decide where he fits.

It ain't the light of history though. For one, President Reagan just died (Yes, I know, it was a year or so ago, but it's still in public memory). This makes it hard to speak ill of the dead and paints a rosy picture of what he did, or didn't do.

.
Reagan's approval in 2002: 73%
Reagan's approval in 2006: 71%

Why is it that in the light of history Ronald Reagan is more popular than Bill Clinton?

Well I think it's obvious, Reagan was just a much better president than Clinton.

Well , I don't think the problem was that Bill Clinton had relations with Lewinski
Bet you it was for enough of the US public.


"In spite of the wildly speculative and false stories of arms for hostages and alleged ransom payments, we did not -- repeat did not -- trade weapons or anything else for hostages; nor will we."

Boy I'd like to see that.

When is recent?

Who publishes the book? Who're the major shareholders in the publishing company?

I was a 2005 poll by the Wall Street Journal.

Reagan's approval in 2002: 73%
Reagan's approval in 2006: 71%
You missed the whole point of my post. It is far too soon to look and compaire both. Hell, I'd say it's far too soon to do a definative look at the effects and events of the Reagan years, let along compare him to Clinton.

Bet you it was for enough of the US public.


"In spite of the wildly speculative and false stories of arms for hostages and alleged ransom payments, we did not -- repeat did not -- trade weapons or anything else for hostages; nor will we."

Do you have anything to back up your claim that most people wanted Clinton impeached even if he did not lie under oath? That seems absurd.

Nothing has ever proved that Reagan knew of the details of Iran Contra when he made that statement (which was not under oath).

I will also note here...

Bill Clinton never recieved 50% of the vote and never won more than 32 states.

Ronald Reagan recieved more than 50% of the vote twice and never won less than 40 states.

Well I think it's obvious, Reagan was just a much better president than Clinton.

Give the man a cigar! :)

Edit: no pun intended. Seriously.

I was a 2005 poll by the Wall Street Journal.

Is that the sequal to I Was A Teenage Frankenstein?

You missed the whole point of my post. It is far too soon to look and compaire both. Hell, I'd say it's far too soon to do a definative look at the effects and events of the Reagan years, let along compare him to Clinton.

As a person who plans on making a living off of the teaching of history I agree with your statement. It is to early to make a full judgement. But it is fascinating, in our current political environment ( Republicans boooo! Bush = evil maniac) that Reagan is outperforming Clinton in the reference of national memory. One would think that with all of the recent conservative blunders, that Clinton would be far more popular than the icon of the ultra-right Republican-Ronald Reagan.

Reagan wins hands down in my opinion versus Clinton. Clinton I consider a master politician too. Reagan although was not perfect in many regards was head and shoulders over most presidents. The guy initiated the collapse of the Soviet Union for god sakes. That achievment alone should put him in the Presidential Hall of Fame. I also think that Reagans economic policies helped usher in a period of great economic growth. To those that were not either old enough to remember prior to Reagan or were not born yet. The growth period under his administration and for years after was unreal and most likely unmatched in history. We still to this day reap the benefits of Reagan in my opinion.

Reagan nearly drove us into bankruptcy.

Do you have anything to back up your claim that most people wanted Clinton impeached even if he did not lie under oath? That seems absurd.

Nothing has ever proved that Reagan knew of the details of Iran Contra when he made that statement (which was not under oath).

I will also note here...

Bill Clinton never recieved 50% of the vote and never won more than 32 states.

Ronald Reagan recieved more than 50% of the vote twice and never won less than 40 states.
Who said anything about impeachment? I didn't.

You're right, nothing was proven; nothing was proven with OJ Simpson either.

And the margins by which a president gets elected have absolutely nothing to do with how well he is remembered in history. Take Herbert Hoover, for example.

Reagan nearly drove us into bankruptcy.

how can you claim that?

Who said anything about impeachment? I didn't.

You're right, nothing was proven; nothing was proven with OJ Simpson either.

And the margins by which a president gets elected have absolutely nothing to do with how well he is remembered in history. Take Herbert Hoover, for example.


well lets see....after 4 years of hoover....a Democrat was elected overwhelmingly

After 4 years of Reagan a Republican landslide occured
After 8 years of Reagan another Republican landslide occured.

Reagan nearly drove us into bankruptcy.

Not at all from my stand point. The growth rate far outstripped spending. Even if he ran up record national debt. The after effects of the spending resulted in the freedom of many peoples from the reigns of Communism. Also would have to credit the modernization of the American Military.
Clinton did well with the deficit too until the dot com bubble. Although Clinton also let go military spending that had to be made up after his presidency. So I think history will prove that the defecit drawdown during Clintons years were on paper only. Balance is the key and Clinton adminstration did not balance that aspect. In my opinion it cost us more in the long run if he would have sustained the defecit and upgrade military hardware/supplies with a nice boost to the civilian infastructure of the nation.

Well, you have to remember that Reagan entered office at a tougher time than Clinton. The 1970's inflation was raging, Iran was in the throes of Islamic revolution, Americans were demoralized by Vietnam and Watergate, the military was in poor shape and the economy was still in the tank and had been for much of the past decade. Therefore, Reagan's accomplishments were viewed in a more positive light, because the time before him was so poor compared to the time after his Administration.

Clinton came in to office at a time of general peace and decent economic conditions; there had been a recession in 1991 but the economy was back on track and inflation was mild. Therefore, people had less to worry about and less to credit the president for reversing; even though the economy did as well or better and the stock markets boomed, people were not as influenced because the preceding decade had also been very healthy economically.

Also, Clinton is probably getting some flak for the dot-com bubble and the 2001 recession; neither were his fault, but they occured at the end of his Administration so he gets some blame. Plus, gas prices only started to rise in 1999 and 2000 so it's likely he might be drug down by that.

well lets see....after 4 years of hoover....a Democrat was elected overwhelmingly

After 4 years of Reagan a Republican landslide occured
After 8 years of Reagan another Republican landslide occured.
What I meant was, Herbert Hoover was elected by a landslide. And he's hardly the most popular president in history.

Reagan nearly drove us into bankruptcy.

No, his policies actually put the economy back on the right track. The economy needed two things; high interest rates to tame inflation and high deficit spending/tax cuts to weaken the dollar and put much needed money in to the economy. It's certain the economy would not be as strong as it is today without his and Paul Volcker's policies to break the stagflation cycle in 1980-1983.

What I meant was, Herbert Hoover was elected by a landslide. And he's hardly the most popular president in history.

What I meant was look at the elections after the Presidents were in office.

I was a 2005 poll by the Wall Street Journal.


So a Wall Street Journal version of a balanced panel of economics professors, lawyers, and other people working for the Wall Street Journal said Ronnie was better than Bill.

Wouldn't you say that the management and readership of that particular journal are to say the least somewhat right wing? That their idea of unbiased would tend more towards the Bill O'Reilly and less to Stephen Colbert?

Reagan did not almost bankrupt the United States.

He left us with a national debt that was 53% of our GDP.

FDR left us with a national debt that was 122% of our GDP
Harry Truman left us with a national debt that was 75% of our GDP
Bill Clinton left us with a national debt that was 56% of our GDP

yet its the Republican...Reagan ..who you claim almost ran America into the ground. Do I detect a political bias that ignores the facts?

What I meant was look at the elections after the Presidents were in office.
Richard Nixon won by a tidy vote, and I doubt he's that far up on the presidential ratings.

So a Wall Street Journal version of a balanced panel of economics professors, lawyers, and other people working for the Wall Street Journal said Ronnie was better than Bill.

Wouldn't you say that the management and readership of that particular journal are to say the least somewhat right wing? That their idea of unbiased would tend more towards the Bill O'Reilly and less to Stephen Colbert?

The poll was conducted in a scientific way. All of the historians were vetted so that an equal number of conservatives and liberals were called on. I have been involved in polling for years and this one checks out. So, instead of making your points you attack the data. Try to stay on topic.

Reagan did not almost bankrupt the United States.

He left us with a national debt that was 53% of our GDP.

FDR left us with a national debt that was 122% of our GDP
Harry Truman left us with a national debt that was 75% of our GDP
Bill Clinton left us with a national debt that was 56% of our GDP

yet its the Republican...Reagan ..who you claim almost ran America into the ground. Do I detect a political bias that ignores the facts?
Like the national debt is that big of a deal. And, those statistics fail to take into account the initial national debt of their presidencies, the rate of GDP growth over their administration, the deficits or surplusses, etc.

Richard Nixon won by a tidy vote, and I doubt he's that far up on the presidential ratings.

Well, to be fair, Nixon's first term was a resounding success. That is why he was reelected by such a huge margin. His second term is an obvious failure ( as he did resign).

Well, to be fair, Nixon's first term was a resounding success. That is why he was reelected by such a huge margin. His second term is an obvious failure ( as he did resign).
Precisely ... casting doubt on your assumption that popular vote is an indication of historic popularity.

I think Jimmy Carter was a good president (for a democrat), and you never hear a thing about him...

my opinion on Reagan is pretty neutral. I think he did some stupid things, but I think he did some good things too. I suppose that could be said of anyone, but he had a pretty even balance in my eyes. Clinton, ah, I liked Clinton. So what if he had an affair? It only mattered because nosey Republicans drug it all out. Other politicians have had them too, even Thomas Jefferson with a bunch of his slaves, and no one bitches about that. And as far as Clinton lying about it under oath, he shouldnta had to. It was none a their damn business.

I think Jimmy Carter was a good president, and you never hear a thing about him...
Good? As in, effective? Or moralistic?

Clinton is fucking awesome.

Like the national debt is that big of a deal. And, those statistics fail to take into account the initial national debt of their presidencies, the rate of GDP growth over their administration, the deficits or surplusses, etc.


Indeed. I have all of that data, I just thought it would be tedious to go through it all. The stuff I posted pretty much makes the point that I wanted to. An interesting fact is that government tax revenue doubled during Reagan's tenure even though he cut taxes across the board by 30%. This was called "voodoo economics" by many at the time but it seems to have worked. Unemployment dropped, Inflation went down, jobs at every income level expanded, and tax revenue increased. Also, I put the blame on the dot com bubble on Clinton. Bush's first budget did not take effect until october of 2001. This means that the entire recession occured under Clinton created budgets.

Reagan marked the downfall of the Republican party and federal policy.

He used the idea of limited government to justify negligence of the poor and education standards whilst using economic stagnation to endorse war mongering and environmental exploitation. He didn't stop trends of political figures using religion to promote bigotry and attack abortion/euthanasia rights whilst supporting libertarianism to ignore laws demanding fair treatment of minorities and women.

While he helped pull America out of an economic slump, he also jacked up the deficit and popularized the falsely successful trickle-down "theory" that does nothing in the long run beyond increasing the rich/poor divide. While he ended the Cold War, he also prolonged it for a number of years in the name of weaponry development despite Gorbachev requesting early on that the two nations make peace.

Oh, and he was a shitty actor, too.

As a person who plans on making a living off of the teaching of history I agree with your statement. It is to early to make a full judgement. But it is fascinating, in our current political environment ( Republicans boooo! Bush = evil maniac) that Reagan is outperforming Clinton in the reference of national memory. One would think that with all of the recent conservative blunders, that Clinton would be far more popular than the icon of the ultra-right Republican-Ronald Reagan.
Not really, Clinton, for being very popular, was also a very divisive figure, almost as much as the current President Bush is. I would supect that a lot of that is conservatives longing for the Reagan revolution instead of the faux conservatism seen with President Bush. His poll numbers reflect an enroding of his base after all.

And, of course, President Reagan may or may not have been a good president (I give him mixed numbers), but he WAS an excellent communicator and I think that's what most people remember.

Indeed. I have all of that data, I just thought it would be tedious to go through it all. The stuff I posted pretty much makes the point that I wanted to. An interesting fact is that government tax revenue doubled during Reagan's tenure even though he cut taxes across the board by 30%. This was called "voodoo economics" by many at the time but it seems to have worked. Unemployment dropped, Inflation went down, jobs at every income level expanded, and tax revenue increased. Also, I put the blame on the dot com bubble on Clinton. Bush's first budget did not take effect until october of 2001. This means that the entire recession occured under Clinton created budgets.
The president himself doesn't really have a significant effect on the economy. The business cycle, as they say, is a beast of its own.

Precisely ... casting doubt on your assumption that popular vote is an indication of historic popularity.

But it is an indicator of popularity while in office. When Reagan won reelection with 49 states, and than George Bush won in 1988 with 40 states, we can see that Reagan had broad popularity and success in office.

Nixon won 49 states in 1972 but his successor won only 26 in 1976. Obviously, the American people losta massive amount of support for the Republicans during 1972-1976.

I think Jimmy Carter was a good president (for a democrat), and you never hear a thing about him...

my opinion on Reagan is pretty neutral. I think he did some stupid things, but I think he did some good things too. I suppose that could be said of anyone, but he had a pretty even balance in my eyes. Clinton, ah, I liked Clinton. So what if he had an affair? It only mattered because nosey Republicans drug it all out. Other politicians have had them too, even Thomas Jefferson with a bunch of his slaves, and no one bitches about that. And as far as Clinton lying about it under oath, he shouldnta had to. It was none a their damn business.

First of all the Republican party was founded in 1856. Jefferson died in 1826.

Carter was a miserable failure as a President ( gas crunch, hostage crises, recession, inflation, Soviet expansion, etc).

For the love of God, Clinton was not impeached because he had an affair. Clinton was impeached and had his law licence taken away because he lied under oath to a grand Jury.

He could have had 30 open affairs and an orgy on the White House lawn without being impeached. He lied under oath and got caught. That is what did him in. Lying.

Do you have anything to back up your claim that most people wanted Clinton impeached even if he did not lie under oath? That seems absurd.

Nothing has ever proved that Reagan knew of the details of Iran Contra when he made that statement (which was not under oath).

I will also note here...

Bill Clinton never recieved 50% of the vote and never won more than 32 states.

Ronald Reagan recieved more than 50% of the vote twice and never won less than 40 states.
Ronald Reagan never ran with a substantial (as it was) 3rd party candidate, either.

But it is an indicator of popularity while in office. When Reagan won reelection with 49 states, and than George Bush won in 1988 with 40 states, we can see that Reagan had broad popularity and success in office.

Nixon won 49 states in 1972 but his successor won only 26 in 1976. Obviously, the American people losta massive amount of support for the Republicans during 1972-1976.
Well, I'm not disputing that, although the success (or failure) of one president doesn't necessarily predetermine his party's fate in the next election. But in your OP, you mentioned how popular they are today. Times and opinions can change over time, especially when people can critically examine the results of a president's policies or other information that never came to light during his administration.

The poll was conducted in a scientific way. All of the historians were vetted so that an equal number of conservatives and liberals were called on. I have been involved in polling for years and this one checks out. So, instead of making your points you attack the data. Try to stay on topic.

"I have been involved in polling for years and this one checks out."
Well gosh, if I were as thorough as you I'd just accept that statement.

I don't work in polling or any form of psephology but I can tell you this, garbage in garbage out. The "data" is the entire point. I expect you as a creationist wouldn't understand that.

The sponsor of the survey is biased, the survey is biased, this thread is pointless. That is all.

Reagan marked the downfall of the Republican party and federal policy.

he also popularized the falsely successful trickle-down "theory" that does nothing in the long run beyond increasing the rich/poor divide.

Oh, and he was a shitty actor, too.


The Republican party has won more Senate elections since Reagan ran in 1980 than it did in the 60 years before him.

The Republican party has won more House elections since Reagan ran in 1980 than it did in the 55 years before him.

The Republicans have won 5 of the last 7 Presidential elections.

Downfall????

Also, I do not buy the rich poor divide theory. You know why? Because the American people do not. 1% of us are millionaires. 10% live in poverty. 89% are in the middle. That 89% is the reason why the class jealousy campaigns always fail.

Reagan was a shitty actor the same way that Clinton was a shitty liar.

Ronald Reagan never ran with a substantial (as it was) 3rd party candidate, either.


John Anderson? Ever hear of him? He got 5.7 million votes in 1980......and was in one of the Presidential debates......

[QUOTE=NilbuDcom] the survey is biased QUOTE]

Do you have proof that is somthing more than speculation on your part?

I think i like Reagan better beacuse clintion signed NAFTA north american free trade agrement witch i would like if they couldnt tarrif us but they tarrif us and we cant do it back wtf.

Also, I do not buy the rich poor divide theory. You know why? Because the American people do not. 1% of us are millionaires. 10% live in poverty. 89% are in the middle. That 89% is the reason why the class jealousy campaigns always fail.

Reagan was a shitty actor the same way that Clinton was a shitty liar.
Public opinion doesn't make a whit of difference as to the effectiveness of economic policy. Supply side economics don't work, simple as that. Although to be fair, Reagan's experiments are what gave us that knowledge.

I personally find it difficult to compare a Cold-War president to a post Cold-War president, simply because of differing issues. But we all know they both made some mistake foreign policy wise. Movies were made about both.

Ecomony wise, Reagan and Bush Sr. set up some very promisiming moves, and Clinton capitalized on them. As we all know, it takes one kind of leader to set them up, and a whole different kind to bring them to fruition.

So quite frankly, I would say that Reagan and Clinton were an ideal succession (Bush left out), that history will recognize as an ideological odd-couple that just work in tandem.

I still like Clinton's policy's on the bedroom, even I don't agree with his opinions on the boardroom (if you will accept my analogy). But overall I think that Clinton was the man for the job when he was elected, and continued to be that man, while Reagan more grew into his role.

The president himself doesn't really have a significant effect on the economy. The business cycle, as they say, is a beast of its own.

That's true. The main problem with Clinton's fiscal policies in the late 1990's was, ironically enough, the surpluses themselves. They occured at the worst possible time in the business cycle and drained money from the economy at precisely the time it was most needed, namely following the collapse of the dot com bubble.

It wasn't his fault at all, but some blame does lie on people like the GAO and Congress who foolishly assumed that the boom would go on forever and stocks would keep rising by 20-30% per year for the next decade. To put it in perspective, the NASDAQ would have to be at 20,393 for the economic and budget predictions made in 1999 to come true...there was no way in hell that would have happened.

Public opinion doesn't make a whit of difference as to the effectiveness of economic policy. Supply side economics don't work, simple as that. Although to be fair, Reagan's experiments are what gave us that knowledge.
yes or no.


Did unemployment rise or fall over Reagan's 8 years in office?
Did Inflation rise or fall in Reagan's 8 years?
Did tax revenue increase or decrease?
Did per capita income go up or down?
Did his high approval rating occur in spite of the economy?

yes or no.


Did unemployment rise or fall over Reagan's 8 years in office?
Did Inflation rise or fall in Reagan's 8 years?
Did tax revenue increase or decrease?
Did per capita income go up or down?
Did his high approval rating occur in spite of the economy?

Refer to my previous post, he was a maker that allowed Clinton to capitalize and be the mover and the shaker economically.

It wasn't his fault at all, but some blame does lie on people like the GAO and Congress who foolishly assumed that the boom would go on forever and stocks would keep rising by 20-30% per year for the next decade. To put it in perspective, the NASDAQ would have to be at 20,393 for the economic and budget predictions made in 1999 to come true...there was no way in hell that would have happened.


Very True, but surely if you give him credit for the surplus that was experienced in 2000 you must also give him credit for the drain that occured. I love to hear people talk about how the Clinton surpluses "paid down" part of the national debt. The only budgetary surplus was the year 2000 and the interest on the debt for that year ( only) was paid for by the surplus. I do not look on that as a great accomplishment.

yes or no.


Did unemployment rise or fall over Reagan's 8 years in office?
Did Inflation rise or fall in Reagan's 8 years?
Did tax revenue increase or decrease?
Did per capita income go up or down?
Did his high approval rating occur in spite of the economy?
Did you read my posts? The president doesn't have that kind of an effect on the economy.

Very True, but surely if you give him credit for the surplus that was experienced in 2000 you must also give him credit for the drain that occured. I love to hear people talk about how the Clinton surpluses "paid down" part of the national debt. The only budgetary surplus was the year 2000 and the interest on the debt for that year ( only) was paid for by the surplus. I do not look on that as a great accomplishment.

The only credit I give him for the surplus was his restraint when it came to actually signing bills and the 1993 Tax Act. However, the surpluses were created by the economy, not by the president or Congress; they all deserve credit for restraining spending but they did not actually balance the budget.

Too many people see Clinton as either a monster or a miracle; by and large, he was a solid but not outstanding president.

Did you read my posts? The president doesn't have that kind of an effect on the economy.


But that is just false. Are you telling me that F.D.R had no more effect on the economy than Hoover did?

Are you telling me that the exposive economic growth that occured from 1983 to 1990 was a mere part of the economic cycle and had nothing to do with the 81' 82' and 83' tax cuts? Inflation just happened to plummet right then?

Are you telling me that the recent drop in unemployment would continue if a new bill was passed that doubled income tax rates?

Did you read my posts? The president doesn't have that kind of an effect on the economy.

Well quite frankly, when a president is in office for two terms, their influence over cogress, and the potential appointment of a Fed Chairman has some serious effect on the ecomony.

Reagan did not almost bankrupt the United States.

He left us with a national debt that was 53% of our GDP.

FDR left us with a national debt that was 122% of our GDP
Harry Truman left us with a national debt that was 75% of our GDP
Bill Clinton left us with a national debt that was 56% of our GDP

yet its the Republican...Reagan ..who you claim almost ran America into the ground. Do I detect a political bias that ignores the facts?
If anyone is showing bias, it would be you. :D

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8d/National_debt_as_a_%25_of_gdp.jpg/800px-National_debt_as_a_%25_of_gdp.jpg

Note that the debt ratio rose during Reagans & Bush the Elders years and fell during Clinton's years.

Nice try.

Refer to my previous post, he was a maker that allowed Clinton to capitalize and be the mover and the shaker economically.

Well, to a degree they were both lucky. Reagan and Clinton had stock market booms and the emergence of major new industries during their terms that boosted economic growth considerably regardless of policies; had the PC or the Internet emerged as major industries even five years later than they did, the situation might be massively different.

In that case, it would have been entirely possible that the George H.W. Bush would recieve credit for the strong economy in 1988-1996, Clinton blame for the 1997 recession, and George W. Bush for the Internet bubble of 2000-2003 and the bust of 2004.

The Republican party has won more Senate elections since Reagan ran in 1980 than it did in the 60 years before him.

The Republican party has won more House elections since Reagan ran in 1980 than it did in the 55 years before him.

The Republicans have won 5 of the last 7 Presidential elections.

Downfall????

Downfall as in the vast majority of Republicans are now either selfish capitalists and Social Darwinists who don't believe in leveling the playing field or ignorant and far-from-libertarian bigots who want to destroy civil liberties in the name of religion. Not to mention they're the main reason why actual first world countries are disgusted with us.
And he destroyed federal policy by turning it into a government that is hypocritically "small" when it comes to issues of social justice, environmental protection, economic equity, etc. yet tremendously large in terms of the military-industrial complex and infringing on the aforesaid liberties.[/QUOTE]

Also, I do not buy the rich poor divide theory. You know why? Because the American people do not. 1% of us are millionaires. 10% live in poverty. 89% are in the middle. That 89% is the reason why the class jealousy campaigns always fail.

United States is 92nd in the world for rich/poor divide. After most of Africa and Eastern Europe. Go us!

Reagan was a shitty actor the same way that Clinton was a shitty liar.
“Welfare’s purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.”
"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself.”
“A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that’s true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not.”
“Trees cause more pollution than automobiles.”
“My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes.”

No, really. He was a terrible actor.

If anyone is showing bias, it would be you. :D
Note that the debt ratio rose during Reagans & Bush the Elders years and fell during Clinton's years.

Nice try.

This one's a bit clearer:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/69/National-Debt-GDP.gif

Clinton's approval rating upon leaving office was higher than any other US president. Reagan was 2nd highest.

But that is just false. Are you telling me that F.D.R had no more effect on the economy than Hoover did?

Are you telling me that the exposive economic growth that occured from 1983 to 1990 was a mere part of the economic cycle and had nothing to do with the 81' 82' and 83' tax cuts? Inflation just happened to plummet right then?

Are you telling me that the recent drop in unemployment would continue if a new bill was passed that doubled income tax rates?
To blame (or praise) a president for economic minutiae is silly. Here's a good article on the effectiveness of Reagan's supply-side policies: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/SUPPLY.HTM

The problem with economic policy is that by the time anything gets through the legislative branch and into law, the economic situation usually changes. Reduced spending might be a good idea during an expansion, but it won't stimulate anything if it goes into effect during a contraction.

FDR's New Deal was hardly an instant miracle cure, by the way. It took much more for the economy to really recover.

Did you read my posts? The president doesn't have that kind of an effect on the economy.

Perhaps not, but when you look at approval ratings, it usually factors in.. maybe I'm getting lazy in my reading, but the thread topic was approval ratings, yes?

Well, to a degree they were both lucky. Reagan and Clinton had stock market booms and the emergence of major new industries during their terms that boosted economic growth considerably regardless of policies; had the PC or the Internet emerged as major industries even five years later than they did, the situation might be massively different.

In that case, it would have been entirely possible that the George H.W. Bush would recieve credit for the strong economy in 1988-1996, Clinton blame for the 1997 recession, and George W. Bush for the Internet bubble of 2000-2003 and the bust of 2004.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda, eh? The past happens and we deal with it, all I'm saying is that Reagan made some strong decisions that affected the economy while he was in office and Clinton was smart enough to capitalize upon them.

One mind to start the idea and one to bring it to fruition....often of different ideology. This is the way business works.

“Welfare’s purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.”
"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself.”
“A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that’s true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not.”
“Trees cause more pollution than automobiles.”
“My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes.”

No, really. He was a terrible actor.
Bonzo goes to the White House! :D

A recent Gallup Poll gives us the following information:

71% of Americans approve of the job that Ronald Reagan did as President
27% disapprove

61% of Americans approve of the job that Bill Clinton did as President
38% disapprove

In a recent Presidential ranking poll in which an ideologically balanced group of 130 prominent professors of history, law, political science and economics to rated the presidents Ronald Reagan came in 6th and Bill Clinton came in 22nd.
Why is it that in the light of history Ronald Reagan is more popular than Bill Clinton?
Cuz he's dead, and everyone idolizes dead people. Take Lincoln. He was a very bright, very crafty bullshitter, but now we think he's all great and set out with the intention to free the slaves.

Oh, and Reagan was one of the worst-- Can you say Iran-Contra? Anyone who gets involved with genocidal maniacs in Central America should have their grave spat upon.

Cuz he's dead, and everyone idolizes dead people. Take Lincoln. He was a very bright, very crafty bullshitter, but now we think he's all great and set out with the intention to free the slaves.

Oh, and Reagan was one of the worst-- Can you say Iran-Contra? Anyone who gets involved with genocidal maniacs in Central America should have their grave spat upon.

Uninformed pragmatism has been a problem of this coutry for decades. Most Presidents seem to have done it. Lets not go down solely on Reagan.

Can you say Iran-Contra?

No, he himself admits he was too stupid of a human to know about it. (Hence why no credit for any actual "improvements" in the economy should go to him.)

Uninformed pragmatism has been a problem of this coutry for decades. Most Presidents seem to have done it. Lets not go down solely on Reagan.

Also a good counter-argument. Although... I don't think Clinton did anything like that with Serbia.

Damn "welfare queens" driving their "welfare cadillacs".

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/onion_news1500.article.jpg

I'd really like to say something nice about Clinton, but then we'd have to kill him first. And then the only thing I'd probably be able to come up with (pardon the unintentional pun) is.... oh crap. I guess this will require more thought.

Also a good counter-argument. Although... I don't think Clinton did any like that with Serbia.

I think its pretty obvious that I liked Clinton, but I never pass up an opportunity to critisize a politician...and really I'm not so sure I have that many critisisms of the Serbia situation. That was a sticky situation dealt with with some serious subtlety, grace and LUCK.

Reagan was a hero of mine.

He was the president during the time I was born in.

Miss you dutch :(

I think its pretty obvious that I liked Clinton, but I never pass up an opportunity to critisize a politician...and really I'm not so sure I have that many critisisms of the Serbia situation. That was a sticky situation dealt with with some serious subtlety, grace and LUCK.

All politicians, nay, people, and their ideas should be criticized. The moment you refuse to hear facts that put a person in a negative light is the moment you deify them, and as a result, make their positive actions as a human meaningless.

Incidentally, I used to hold Clinton in the highest of esteems, given his contrast to the Bushes and Reagan. In reality, however, he was still quite a duplicitous and waffling politician, who went with political support and not with his true ideas. Then again, that's probably why he was such a great politician. :D

A recent Gallup Poll gives us the following information:

71% of Americans approve of the job that Ronald Reagan did as President
27% disapprove

61% of Americans approve of the job that Bill Clinton did as President
38% disapprove

In a recent Presidential ranking poll in which an ideologically balanced group of 130 prominent professors of history, law, political science and economics to rated the presidents Ronald Reagan came in 6th and Bill Clinton came in 22nd.
Why is it that in the light of history Ronald Reagan is more popular than Bill Clinton?

The don't call Reagan 'The Great Communicator' for nohting. He was a master of using the media for his own and his country's gain. It was probably his most impressive feature. He did some very good things as President. He also did a few things I don't approve of. He was far from perfect. But his detractors will always cite the negatives. They'll always remember first his mistakes. Much like Clinton's detractors will always remember his. But they were decent presidents. The best in quite some time. The way things are looking, they might be the best we'll have for a while. *sigh*

I'd really like to say something nice about Clinton, but then we'd have to kill him first. And then the only thing I'd probably be able to come up with (pardon the unintentional pun) is.... oh crap. I guess this will require more thought.

How about his strengthening of environmental policy, the Oslo accords, and his attitude toward social welfare and civil liberties?

All politicians, nay, people, and their ideas should be criticized. The moment you refuse to hear facts that put a person in a negative light is the moment you deify them, and as a result, make their positive actions as a human meaningless.

Incidentally, I used to hold Clinton in the highest of esteems, given his contrast to the Bushes and Reagan. In reality, however, he was still quite a duplicitous and waffling politician, who went with political support and not with his true ideas. Then again, that's probably why he was such a great politician. :D

I know you're always supposed to flame everybody and rip apart every one that speaks on a forum, but I'll forego that this time just to raise my glass of vodka to you for those last statements.

Or do you just like to name call?:rolleyes:
You're the kind of guy that belongs on the front, really. Your talents of ... er, misunderestimation ... are being wasted with us here.
Also ... if you were a NOC, persay, you're cover'd be blown. Good thing you still show up at church with Rove.

I know you're always supposed to flame everybody and rip apart every one that speaks on a forum, but I'll forego that this time just to raise my glass of vodka to you for those last statements.

Do as I say, not as do. :D
And I'll go make myself a vodka mixer too, just for the buzz of it.

A recent Gallup Poll gives us the following information:

71% of Americans approve of the job that Ronald Reagan did as President
27% disapprove

61% of Americans approve of the job that Bill Clinton did as President
38% disapprove

In a recent Presidential ranking poll in which an ideologically balanced group of 130 prominent professors of history, law, political science and economics to rated the presidents Ronald Reagan came in 6th and Bill Clinton came in 22nd.
Why is it that in the light of history Ronald Reagan is more popular than Bill Clinton?

Because Reagan died...plus reagan "defeated communism" and Clinton got head in office...bad bill:rolleyes:

How about his strengthening of environmental policy, the Oslo accords, and his attitude toward social welfare and civil liberties?
Psst ... Myo, representing the rightwing, is pretty entrenched in the voluminous misunderstanding of the nature of "achievement". He thinks everything is a personal assault on his conformative pseudo-morality, just like the rest of the right-wingers. That's why they go on so about bj's, and why they keep having such a strong constituency of religious fanatics and psychopaths with blithering intent to annihiliate the earth!
~SJS

Do as I say, not as do. :D
And I'll go make myself a vodka mixer too, just for the buzz of it.

I'll just go ahead and turn this into a doubter's lovefest and say that I'm pouring myself another glass...but with saying this: we'll never see the end of the easy apostles until we start a policy of intense logic education from k-12....or we start euthanising people....just a radical idea (that i never expect to happen).

The problem is that conservatives have been blaming EVERYTHING on Clinton for years. And of course the morons in America(51% or so) belive every word of it

All midwest states Iam looking at you ...

how can you claim that?

In reference to someone claiming he bankrupted the nation

How can you claim that he caused the Soviet Union to crumble, and it wasn't just a corrupt and inefficient beauracracy being usurped by it's own economic problems, it's growing black market, and the nationalism that eventually tears imperialistic empires apart?

The problem is that conservatives have been blaming EVERYTHING on Clinton for years. And of course the morons in America(51% or so) belive every word of it

All midwest states Iam looking at you ...

I am in the midwest, and I resent that.

Better to resent it rather than resemble it.

Americans are probably too stupid to realize that Bill Clinton offered them so many programs and benefits. Only flat-earthers would think that Reagan was better than Clinton. It seems that the government has to start making sure that public school teachers are teaching children that the country was established where everyone would be equal and not have to worry about healthcare or whether they had a house, because the constitution makes sure that you can have those no matter if you can afford it or now.

Americans are probably too stupid to realize that Bill Clinton offered them so many programs and benefits. Only flat-earthers would think that Reagan was better than Clinton. It seems that the government has to start making sure that public school teachers are teaching children that the country was established where everyone would be equal and not have to worry about healthcare or whether they had a house, because the constitution makes sure that you can have those no matter if you can afford it or now.
Looks like a little dribble squirted out with that pacifier, bub.
*nudges Peechland and Muravyets*

In reference to someone claiming he bankrupted the nation

How can you claim that he caused the Soviet Union to crumble, and it wasn't just a corrupt and inefficient beauracracy being usurped by it's own economic problems, it's growing black market, and the nationalism that eventually tears imperialistic empires apart?

Look at the simple facts:

1) The soviet Union gained influence in every decade until the 1980's
2) Reagan's defense buildup directly caused mass budget problems for the Soviets
3) SDI was a crucial bargaining chip in ending the second arms race
4) the end of detente
5) in 1981 several academic papers predicted the soviet union would never collapse ( the year Reagan took office)
6) IN 1989 the Soviet Union collapsed ( the year Reagan left office)
7) today, Reagan's foreign policy is viewed as so successful that in the last presidential election both candidates cited it as good in the presidential debates

Looks like a little dribble squirted out with that pacifier, bub.
*nudges Peechland and Muravyets*

Don't be mean to me, I finally realized that what they taught me was true.

Don't forget Straughn, I share your values... workers of the world, you have nothing to lose but your chains! Progress! Equality!

Americans are probably too stupid to realize that Bill Clinton offered them so many programs and benefits. Only flat-earthers would think that Reagan was better than Clinton. It seems that the government has to start making sure that public school teachers are teaching children that the country was established where everyone would be equal and not have to worry about healthcare or whether they had a house, because the constitution makes sure that you can have those no matter if you can afford it or now.

Classic snobbish liberalism. We are too dumb to know how great Clinton was for us? Classic. Now, your claim that only flat-earthers would think that Reagan is better is undermined by the very poll that I used to start this thread. The country was not established where everyone would be equal. It was created under the principal that all men were created equaly. What you do with your life is another thing.

ALSO, CAN YOU SHOW ME WHERE IT IS IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT EVERY AMERICAN HAS A RIGHT TO A HOUSE AND HEALTHCARE??????

Don't be mean to me, I finally realized that what they taught me was true.

Don't forget Straughn, I share your values... workers of the world, you have nothing to lose but your chains! Progress! Equality!

Just ask the kids from tienamin square.

Classic snobbish liberalism. We are too dumb to know how great Clinton was for us? Classic. Now, your claim that only flat-earthers would think that Reagan is better is undermined by the very poll that I used to start this thread. The country was not established where everyone would be equal. It was created under the principal that all men were created equaly. What you do with your life is another thing.

ALSO, CAN YOU SHOW ME WHERE IT IS IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT EVERY AMERICAN HAS A RIGHT TO A HOUSE AND HEALTHCARE??????

Barry Goldwater, my parents and even I used to agree with you, but after taking a few elective courses in my high school, my teacher showed me how progress is so important to advance society. Also, the 14th amendment protects the right to housing and healthcare, also the interstate commerce clause also protects it, also the preamble says "to provide for general welfare," so it clearly states the government should provide those things.

Because Reagan died...plus reagan "defeated communism" and Clinton got head in office...bad bill:rolleyes:

Wrong! Reagan's popularity was actualy higher before he died ( 73%) than it is now (71%).

Clinton could have had all the "head" he wanted and not got impeached. he lied to a grand Jury. That's another story. I love how people pretend that he got impeached for his relationship instead of his crime. Priceless.

Classic snobbish liberalism. We are too dumb to know how great Clinton was for us? Classic. Now, your claim that only flat-earthers would think that Reagan is better is undermined by the very poll that I used to start this thread. The country was not established where everyone would be equal. It was created under the principal that all men were created equaly. What you do with your life is another thing.

ALSO, CAN YOU SHOW ME WHERE IT IS IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT EVERY AMERICAN HAS A RIGHT TO A HOUSE AND HEALTHCARE??????
Probably somewhere in between where the Constitution grants abortion the right to operate as a legal practice and where the President has the "right" to have an agency wiretap without a permit.

Just ask the kids from tienamin square.

At least everyone in China (and Cuba) have healthcare and childcare.

Literacy Rate:
USA 99%
Cuba 100%

Uninsured:
USA 59,000,000
Cuba 0

Greatest president, thats up to interpretation, but he was a model conservative for sure.

"Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal." Ronald Reagan, 1976

"You can't help those who simply will not be helped. One problem that we've had, even in the best of times, is people who are sleeping on the grates, the homeless who are homeless, you might say, by choice." -- President Reagan, 1/31/84, on Good Morning America, defending his administration against charges of callousness.

"The American Petroleum Institute filed suit against the EPA [and] charged that the agency was suppressing a scientific study for fear it might be misinterpreted... The suppressed study reveals that 80 percent of air pollution comes not from chimneys and auto exhaust pipes, but from plants and trees." Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, in 1979. (There is no scientific data to support this assertion.) hehe trees

"This fellow they've nominated claims he's the new Thomas Jefferson. Well let me tell you something; I knew Thomas Jefferson. He was a friend of mine and Governor... You're no Thomas Jefferson!" -- Ronald Reagan, 1992

"A tree is a tree. How many more do you have to look at?" -- Ronald Reagan, 1966, opposing expansion of Redwood National Park as governor of California

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." -- Ronald Reagan, 1981

"Facts are stupid things." -- Ronald Reagan, 1988, a misquote of John Adams, "Facts are stubborn things."

"We think there is a parallel between federal involvement in education and the decline in profit over recent years." -- Ronald Reagan, 1983. (It's always good to run the Department of Education to make money.)

Entertaining to remember Reagans comments about welfare queens who drove Cadillacs while living at the Waldorf-Astoria, that the Russian language has no word for freedom, that trees cause more pollution than automobiles and that ketchup is a suitable vegetable for school lunches.


The winning of the Cold War, of course, was because of the policy of containment implemented by President Truman and formulated in George Kennan's famous "Long Telegram" of 1946 from Moscow.

Also Ronald Wilson Reagan had the address of 666 St. Cloud Road when he lived in bel air, clear proof that he is infact the anti-christ.

Probably somewhere in between where the Constitution grants abortion the right to operate as a legal practice and where the President has the "right" to have an agency wiretap without a permit.

Nural, you're the first person to be both pro-life and anti-terrorist surveillance. It's an interesting unique view you have.

Barry Goldwater, my parents and even I used to agree with you, but after taking a few elective courses in my high school, my teacher showed me how progress is so important to advance society. Also, the 14th amendment protects the right to housing and healthcare, also the interstate commerce clause also protects it, also the preamble says "to provide for general welfare," so it clearly states the government should provide those things.

" All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

"Congress has the power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

" to provide for the general welfare"

I see no guarentee to a house or healthcare in the text. Can you cite a Supreme Court ruling?

Greatest president, thats up to interpretation, but he was a model conservative for sure.

Jeffrey, you are so right! republicans and reagan are so stupid and don't understand that government has a role to help people. If you look at all of our history, have private people or government provided the things to improve our life. Government studies show.....it's the government!

At least everyone in China (and Cuba) have healthcare and childcare.

Literacy Rate:
USA 99%
Cuba 100%

Uninsured:
USA 59,000,000
Cuba 0

I just got back from China a week ago and I have been to Cuba. Have you ever been there? You think you have seen poverty? Think again. I could describe things that would make anyone cry. These phony numbers about insurance and healthcare are bogus. There are people living on less than a dollar a day. You better think twice before begging to have a system like Cuba or China.

Jeffrey, you are so right! republicans and reagan are so stupid and don't understand that government has a role to help people. If you look at all of our history, have private people or government provided the things to improve our life. Government studies show.....it's the government!

Once again the insults abound. If Reagan did not think the government had a role to help people why was he signing trillion dollar budgets? Your argument is laughable. Hey yeah, look how much better the government did in responding to Katrina than the local churches!

" All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

"Congress has the power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

" to provide for the general welfare"

I see no guarentee to a house or healthcare in the text. Can you cite a Supreme Court ruling?

Yes, Plyler v. Doe

Don't be mean to me, I finally realized that what they taught me was true.

Don't forget Straughn, I share your values... workers of the world, you have nothing to lose but your chains! Progress! Equality!
It's SPAM Local, not "work" local :p

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a state statute denying funding for education to children who were (illegal) immigrants.

All that ruling said was that the state of texas could not choose to educate some children and not others. This is not relavent in any way to your previous claims or this thread so my advice is for you to quit while you are behind.

Just ask the kids from tienamin square.
Ask them what? They're too busy making your clothes for you!
BTW - punch up your spelling online. Tell us what you come up with, mastah.

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a state statute denying funding for education to children who were (illegal) immigrants.

All that ruling said was that the state of texas could not choose to educate some children and not others. This is not relavent in any way to your previous claims or this thread so my advice is for you to quit while you are behind.

14th amendment gives everyone the right to education, healthcare, childcare, pensions, housing and food if they need it, both legal and illegal.

[QUOTE=Straughn]Ask them what? They're too busy making your clothes for you!
QUOTE]

Ask them how great living under Communism is. The greatness of Reagan was that he directly challanged communism for what it is...evil. The idea that private ownership and the free market are bad is distinctly un-American. If you seriously believe that those people living in China on a 90cent a day income are happy because they have "free healthcare" ( at a hospital with dirt floors) you are mistaken. And Cuba......you ever heard of the boat refugees....I wonder if you would pilot a boat through shark infested waters to get to Cuba with their 100% literacy rate.

14th amendment gives everyone the right to education, healthcare, childcare, pensions, housing and food if they need it, both legal and illegal.
Which is why some states are spending millions of dollars on the illegal immigrants located in their jurisdiction. Wrong or right, I'm not sure, but you are correct in saying that the Constitution grants these services to those in need.

14th amendment gives everyone the right to education, healthcare, childcare, pensions, housing and food if they need it, both legal and illegal.


First of all this is completely irrelevant to our topic.

Second......." All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. (so if you are a citizen you are a citizen) No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States (no state shall deny the rights that you have elsewhere in the Constitution; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;(no state can kill you, jail you, or take things from you without a hearing nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."you have to treat people equal in Court

end of discussion. If you keep posting on this I will ignore it because this has nothing to do with Reagan and Clinton's merits.

Which is why some states are spending millions of dollars on the illegal immigrants located in their jurisdiction. Wrong or right, I'm not sure, but you are correct in saying that the Constitution grants these services to those in need.

Thank you Nural, now Barry go home and take your Bible with you. We want Progress and Equality here, not Witch Burnings.

I don't mean for it to sound personal, you probably weren't listening back in school when the teacher showed us how conservativism is so mean and hurts people.

If you keep posting on this I will ignore it because this has nothing to do with Reagan and Clinton's merits.

The whole point is that Clinton followed the 14th amendment and provided more benefits for both citizens and undocumenteds, thats why he deserves a higher approval. And Reagan, cut things because he was mean, so he deserves a lower rating. Why americans favor Reagan, I don't know, but I wonder if that poll was taken inside a church or not?

Ask them how great living under Communism is. The greatness of Reagan was that he directly challanged communism for what it is...evil. The idea that private ownership and the free market are bad is distinctly un-American. If you seriously believe that those people living in China on a 90cent a day income are happy because they have "free healthcare" ( at a hospital with dirt floors) you are mistaken. And Cuba......you ever heard of the boat refugees....I wonder if you would pilot a boat through shark infested waters to get to Cuba with their 100% literacy rate.
Seems like you have more wondering than life experience, bub. Keep up the inquisitiveness. It suits you.
Evil? :rolleyes:
Also ... slash/backslash.

Thank you Nural, now Barry go home and take your Bible with you. We want Progress and Equality here, not Witch Burnings.

I don't mean for it to sound personal, you probably weren't listening back in school when the teacher showed us how conservativism is so mean and hurts people.

I am studying for my masters write now in History. Whatever biased teachers that indoctrinated you in High School or College did a good job. The concepts of progress and equality are just that....concepts, which people can debate and discuss in a rational way. Throwing around insults and talking about burning people are nonsensical and wastes of time. Any teacher that told you that Conservatism is mean and hurts people or that liberalism is stupid and hurts people is not qualified to teach. That is putting opinion and indoctrination on a captive and impressionable audience. I just never realized how bad some kids fall for it...

Seems like you have more wondering than life experience, bub. Keep up the inquisitiveness. It suits you.
Evil? :rolleyes:
Also ... slash/backslash.


Seems like you have more "witty" comments than actual factual posts that discuss the issue at hand, bub. Keep up the reading. It will help.

I am studying for my masters write now in History. Whatever biased teachers that indoctrinated you in High School or College did a good job. The concepts of progress and equality are just that....concepts, which people can debate and discuss in a rational way. Throwing around insults and talking about burning people are nonsensical and wastes of time. Any teacher that told you that Conservatism is mean and hurts people or that liberalism is stupid and hurts people is not qualified to teach. That is putting opinion and indoctrination on a captive and impressionable audience. I just never realized how bad some kids fall for it...

Most all of my teachers agree, Barry. English, history, science. In math they don't bring up Bush that much, but they have made it clear to me that religion is obsolete and capitalism is obsolete. Have you ever studied the progressive movement? We will vote in progress, hopefully one day soon.

I am studying for my masters write now in History. Whatever biased teachers that indoctrinated you in High School or College did a good job. The concepts of progress and equality are just that....concepts, which people can debate and discuss in a rational way. Throwing around insults and talking about burning people are nonsensical and wastes of time. Any teacher that told you that Conservatism is mean and hurts people or that liberalism is stupid and hurts people is not qualified to teach. That is putting opinion and indoctrination on a captive and impressionable audience. I just never realized how bad some kids fall for it...

You do realize that the vast majority of this forum is under 25 years old?

cuz he helped put an end to communism in Europe.

Ask them what? They're too busy making your clothes for you!


Ask them how great living under Communism is. The greatness of Reagan was that he directly challanged communism for what it is...evil. The idea that private ownership and the free market are bad is distinctly un-American. If you seriously believe that those people living in China on a 90cent a day income are happy because they have "free healthcare" ( at a hospital with dirt floors) you are mistaken. And Cuba......you ever heard of the boat refugees....I wonder if you would pilot a boat through shark infested waters to get to Cuba with their 100% literacy rate.
How does a persons happiness factor into this. It is just as great of a fallacy to assume that people living on 90 cents a day are unhappy as it is to assume that just because someone makes $10,000 dollars a day that they are happy. I think the best arguments against "free healthcare" can be found in the European nations that have adopted it. Cuba's low prices have attracted many people from Eastern Europe and Latin America, and even some from North America. Ever heard of the Pilgrims... they left a nation that was "better" than Cuba is now; traveling by boat to come to a land with a promise of a better life. People will risk a lot if they feel that the reward is worth it.

One question to ask is: If a totalitarian government that restricts freedom of speech and information flow causes the myth of a perfect life in the US to grow larger in the people's eyes? This being because they don't know what the realities of what life is like in the US.

14th amendment gives everyone the right to education, healthcare, childcare, pensions, housing and food if they need it, both legal and illegal.

I would take more than some high school elective courses before I claimed dominance on the foggy battlefield of constitutional law. The 14th amendment has done alot of good but I fear you implying powers that dont exist and may even be in violation of other constitutional provisions. No one has yet used any of these claims your making with the exception of education, which already existed as an institution.

Secondly, its not like the 14th amendment has done only good. One of the most dangerous aspects is the arising difference in law between "Sovereign Citizens" and "14 Amendment citizens". Of course, most of these distinctions only come up in debates regarding either Income tax or Gun rights.

Back on topic:

Anyway, I think Clinton and Reagan were both good presidents in their own rights, but more than that, they both fit the niche of exactly what the people of the time wanted.

Most all of my teachers agree, Barry. English, history, science. In math they don't bring up Bush that much, but they have made it clear to me that religion is obsolete and capitalism is obsolete. Have you ever studied the progressive movement? We will vote in progress, hopefully one day soon.

And you just blindly trust whatever your "teachers" throw at you. Has it ever dawned on you that they might not have the wisdom that you ascribe to them? Once again, you ignore Reagan, you ignore Clinton, you ignore foreign policy debate, you ignore domestic policy debate, and you ignore the point of the thread. Luckily your talking points is shared by a tiny fraction of Americans that are not very relavent in politics. I have studied the "progressive movement" in a very detailed way, and the ideas that you are throwing up at us having nothing to do with the goals of that movement.

PLEASE TRY TO STAY ON TOPIC.

You do realize that the vast majority of this forum is under 25 years old?


yes...as am I....

Lets Get Back On Topic.

Most all of my teachers agree, Barry. English, history, science. In math they don't bring up Bush that much, but they have made it clear to me that religion is obsolete and capitalism is obsolete. Have you ever studied the progressive movement? We will vote in progress, hopefully one day soon.

Capitalism was supposed to be obsolete in 1917 and 1957...it's not dead, it's at its zenith. Simply put, nothing in the entire world works better than capitalism; anyone who suggests otherwise is free to try their method, but every single one has failed. Communism was supposed to be progress, and all it left was hundreds of millions dead or enslaved, billions repressed and impoverished, and widespread brutality unrivaled by any capitalist society of the time.

Look at the simple facts:

1) The Soviet Union gained influence in every decade until the 1980's
2) Reagan's defense buildup directly caused mass budget problems for the Soviets
3) SDI was a crucial bargaining chip in ending the second arms race
4) The end of detente
5) In 1981 several academic papers predicted the Soviet Union would never collapse (the year Reagan took office)
6) IN 1989 the Soviet Union collapsed (the year Reagan left office)
7) Today, Reagan's foreign policy is viewed as so successful that in the last presidential election both candidates cited it as good in the presidential debates

The winning of the Cold War, of course, was because of the policy of containment implemented by President Truman and formulated in George Kennan's famous "Long Telegram" of 1946 from Moscow.

1) that is the equivalent of Mitterrand and Margaret Thatcher claiming that they defeated the Soviet Union, because it declined in their era in France and Britain. Purely existing doesn't mean you were the causal ingredient in a nation's collapse.

2) A horrid economy, a black market system undermining the fragile soviet economy, Gorbachev's relaxing of the Soviet grip on her satellite nations, and Gorbachevs allowing of free speech and demonstrations is what really collapsed the Soviet Union. I give credit to Gorbachev. Citing spending money on the military just like every presiding president did as an explanation to how Reagan cause the Soviet Union to collapse is an equivocal interpretation of history. That would be like saying if hypothetically the Soviet Union collapsed in 1939 after Stalin decides to play Mr. Nice guy, stops stamping down on dissent and political opposition, and everyone says it was the military build up of Hitler who destroyed the Soviet Union.

3) SDI was an expensive waste of money and never actually ended up working. I personally think it would have been money well spent on vegetables over than 'ketchup', or on those money hungry 'welfare queens'.

4) Detente was never ended since Reagan made concessions, "Both Reagan and Gorbachev proposed total elimination of all nuclear-armed missiles, but SDI and intermediate-range missiles were sticking points. While SDI was a disagreement, the Reykjavik Summit led to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty."

5) In 1981 several academic papers predicted the Soviet Union would never collapse? Well first of all actually cite these 'academic papers', second of all I would never trust an 'academic' who claims that a nation will "never" collapse, since as most people know all nation through the course of history have and will in someway come to an eventual end.

6) I’m pretty confident the Soviet Union was dissolved on December 25 1991, the same day Gorbachev resigned as the leader. But if you insist the Soviet Union ended in 1989 that was the same year president Bush announced he didn't like Broccoli, the student massacre in Tiananmen Square, and the Exxon Valdez spill. All interesting erroneous facts that have nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

7) Both presidential candidates cited Reagan’s foreign policy decisions as incredibly successful, because Bush models his ideals and life around Reagan, and Reagan’s former advisors, and Kerry wouldn't of looked very good on Hannity Colmes when they qoute him saying that he, " disagreed with the foreign policies of dead former president Reagan.

And by helping to end Communism's global network Ronald Reagan provided a huge service to the World.

And by helping to end Communism's global network Ronald Reagan provided a huge service to the World.
On the other hand, by funding the Taliban and giving Saddam chemical weapons, as well as installing him, and giving the world Pinochet, and stopping the Australian elections from taking place properly, he's done the world no good at all.

In fact, I hate him nearly as much as Thatcher.

Seems like you have more "witty" comments than actual factual posts that discuss the issue at hand, bub. Keep up the reading. It will help.
Funny how there was only 6 posts inbetween your reply and when you admitted this:

yes...as am I....
:)
I don't come to you for "facts" (good thing that's not your forte here), i come to you for trivial amusement while more important threads get updated. You do your job nominally. Not the "facts" part, that's obviously lacking ... ah, you'll get it.
The issue "at hand" is quite flaccid as it is, obviously - it's been done and gone by better, more organized posters than you.

Lets Get Back On Topic.
Ritlina puppet.

Well , I don't think the problem was that Bill Clinton had relations with Lewinski, it was that he lied under oath about it. The cover up is always worse than the crime, it seems, in politics. Do you have any actual point or argument as to how liking Reagan makes us backwards? Or do you just like to name call?

Clinton lied about a blowjob.

Reagan lied about selling out American hostages, smuggling drugs into American inner cities, and funding foreign terrorists.

Yeah. I can see how people would come down so hard on Clinton. :rolleyes:

The winning of the Cold War, of course, was because of the policy of containment implemented by President Truman and formulated in George Kennan's famous "Long Telegram" of 1946 from Moscow.

Well if that was so great why did the Cold war last for 40 more years?

1) That is the equivalent of Mitterand and Margaret Thatcher claiming that they defeated the Soviet Union, because it declined in their era in France and Britain. Purely existing doesn't mean you were the causal ingredient in a nation's collapse.

Reagan's Presidency created a major policy shift in dealing with the Soviet Union. It changed detente into direct economic, military, and political action. As the leader of the free world and the creator of these new policies, the praise goes to Reagan instead of Thatcher or the french guy.
2) A horrid economy, a black market system undermining the fragile soviet economy, Gorbachev's relaxing of the Soviet grip on her satellite nations, and Gorbachevs allowing of free speech and demonstrations is what really collapsed the soviet union. I give credit to Gorbachev. Citing spending money on the military just like every preciding president did as an explanation to how Reagan cause the Soviet Union to collapse is an e·uivocalat interpretation of history. That would be like saying if hypothetically the Soviet Union collapsed in 1939 after Stalin decides to play Mr. Nice guy, stops stamping down on dissent and political opposition, and everyone says it was the military build up of Hitler who destroyed the Soviet Union.

The soviet economy was horrible for years but they were brought to there knees by trying to match our defense spending during a particularly bad period. Why do you think Gorbachev instituted reforms? For fun?

3) SDI was a expensive waste of money and never actually ended up working. I personally think it would of been money well spent on vegtables over than 'ketchup', or on those money hungry 'welfare queens'.

SDI was used as a bargaining chip with the Soviets. it ended the concept of MAD ( mutualy assured destruction) and caused a paradigm shift in negotiation tactics for reduction of nukes. It never had to be built.

4) Detente was never ended since Reagan made concessions, "Both Reagan and Gorbachev proposed total elimination of all nuclear-armed missiles, but SDI and intermediate-range missiles were sticking points. While SDI was a disagreement, the Reykjavik Summit led to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty."
ah, now you are catching on. Reagan proposed the end of all nuclear armed missiles along side SDI. This simple action put Gorbachev in a corner that no previous soviet leader had been placed in. I bet he shat himself.
5) In 1981 several academic papers predicted the Soviet Union would never collapse? Well first of all actually cite these 'academic papers', second of all I would never trust an 'academic' who claims that a nation will "never" collapse, since as msot people know all nation through the course of history have and will in someway come to an eventual end.

Don't make me go to my garage.

6) Im pretty confident the Soviet Union was dissolved on December 25 1991, the same day Gorbachev resigned as the leader. But if you insist the Soviet Union ended in 1989, that was the same year president Bush announced he didn't like Broccoli, the student massacre in Tianemen Square, and the Exxon Valdez spill. All interesting erroneous facts that have nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
In Hungary, the Communist government initiated reforms in 1989 that led to the sanctioning of a multiparty system and competitive elections. In Poland, the Communists entered into round-table talks with a reinvigorated Solidarity. As a result, Poland held its first competitive elections since before World War II, and in 1989, Solidarity formed the first non-Communist government within the Soviet bloc since 1948. Inspired by their neighbors’ reforms, East Germans took to the streets in the summer and fall of 1989 to call for reforms, including freedom to visit West Berlin and West Germany. Moscow’s refusal to use military force to buoy the regime of East German leader Erich Honecker led to his replacement and the initiation of political reforms, leading up to the fateful decision to open the border crossings on the night of November 9, 1989.

In the wake of the collapse of the Berlin Wall, Czechs and Slovaks took to the streets to demand political reforms in Czechoslovakia. Leading the demonstrations in Prague was dissident playwright Vaclav Havel, co-founder of the reform group Charter 77. The Communist Party of Czechoslovakia quietly and peacefully transferred rule to Havel and the Czechoslovak reformers in what was later dubbed the “Velvet Revolution.” In Romania, the Communist regime of hardliner Nicolae Ceausescu was overthrown by popular protest and force of arms in December 1989. Soon, the Communist parties of Bulgaria and Albania also ceded power.

The revolutions of 1989 marked the death knell of communism in Europe.

7) Both presidential candidates cited Reagans foreign policy decisions as incredibly successful, because Bush models his ideals and life around Reagan, and Reagans former advisors, and Kerry wouldn't of looked very good on Hannity Colmes when they qoute him saying that he, " disagreed with the foreign policies of dead former president Reagan.

So Kerry has no principals. I think I knew that. Touche.

How does a persons happiness factor into this. It is just as great of a fallacy to assume that people living on 90 cents a day are unhappy as it is to assume that just because someone makes $10,000 dollars a day that they are happy. I think the best arguments against "free healthcare" can be found in the European nations that have adopted it. Cuba's low prices have attracted many people from Eastern Europe and Latin America, and even some from North America. Ever heard of the Pilgrims... they left a nation that was "better" than Cuba is now; traveling by boat to come to a land with a promise of a better life. People will risk a lot if they feel that the reward is worth it.

One question to ask is: If a totalitarian government that restricts freedom of speech and information flow causes the myth of a perfect life in the US to grow larger in the people's eyes? This being because they don't know what the realities of what life is like in the US.

The studies indicate that as a person's income brings them from poverty to upper middle class they become happier. After they move into the wealthy class greater and greater wealth has very little effect on happiness. There are only so many mansions you can live in and caviar you can eat, but if you can't pay your rent or aren't sure if you'll have the money to pay for dinner next week, you're probably going to be unhappy.

he's done the world no good at all.

a strong statement which you can no doubt give me proof of....

Funny how there was only 6 posts inbetween your reply and when you admitted this:

:)
I don't come to you for "facts" (good thing that's not your forte here), i come to you for trivial amusement while more important threads get updated. You do your job nominally. Not the "facts" part, that's obviously lacking ... ah, you'll get it.
The issue "at hand" is quite flaccid as it is, obviously - it's been done and gone by better, more organized posters than you.

You come to be a jerk. Well done.

So Kerry has no principals. I think I knew that. Touche.

I concur Kerry has no principles. At least we can agree on something :D

You should also probably remember that communism hasn't actually died yet.

You've got Cuba, Laos, Vietnam and some of China (some parts have stuck to communism, a lot of parts are much more capitalist, I'll admit).

The USSR might have died a death, but there's nothing to say that the communist party won't get re-elected.

Citing spending money on the military just like every preciding president did as an explanation to how Reagan cause the Soviet Union to collapse is an e·uivocalat interpretation of history.

Well, he didn't just spend money; from 1981-1986 defense spending rose 46% in real terms; that's a 7.9% per year growth rate. At a time when the Soviet Union was already spending 30% of its budget on the military and GDP was only growing in the 1-2% range it was impossible to keep up without economic collapse. Reagan didn't just keep spending constant, he increased it to bankrupt the USSR and it helped.

From 1955-1979, the defense budget was unchanged in real terms, save from 1966-1970 due to Vietnam. That meant the overall burden of defense spending was falling for the USSR because their spending didn't need to rise as much to keep up with the West. However, at the same time they were still running at 15-20% of GDP even with falling defense demands; that level was unsustainable in the long term because the consumption and investment side would not be able to function properly with such a large share of outpout going to defense.

The USSR would have collapsed either way, but Reagan made it occur a lot faster.

Clinton lied about a blowjob.

Reagan lied about selling out American hostages, smuggling drugs into American inner cities, and funding foreign terrorists.

Yeah. I can see how people would come down so hard on Clinton. :rolleyes:

Clinton lied under oath to a grand jury, was impeached, and had his licence to practice law taken away by authorities.

It was never shown that Reagan lied.

a strong statement which you can no doubt give me proof of....
Yes, in the post I made, you silly fool.

Capitalism was supposed to be obsolete in 1917 and 1957...it's not dead, it's at its zenith. Simply put, nothing in the entire world works better than capitalism; anyone who suggests otherwise is free to try their method, but every single one has failed. Communism was supposed to be progress, and all it left was hundreds of millions dead or enslaved, billions repressed and impoverished, and widespread brutality unrivaled by any capitalist society of the time.

That's because if you take a look at the natural forces that impact economics, capitalism describes it.

It's like saying that if you want to build an irrigation system, nothing works better than gravity. It doesn't matter what contraption you build, gravity will always be a force that impacts water.

The same is true of capitalism and money.

However, we're not really using capitalism anymore. Right now America is becoming increasingly Mercantilistic.

It was never shown that Reagan lied.
In the USSR, it was never shown that Stalin lied. What's your point?

I concur Kerry has no principles. At least we can agree on something :D

I believe that ice cream is a delicious treat. Your salvo!!

You come to be a jerk. Well done.
Praise from Caesar.

Well, he didn't just spend money; from 1981-1986 defense spending rose 46% in real terms; that's a 7.9% per year growth rate. At a time when the Soviet Union was already spending 30% of its budget on the military and GDP was only growing in the 1-2% range it was impossible to keep up without economic collapse. Reagan didn't just keep spending constant, he increased it to bankrupt the USSR and it helped.

From 1955-1979, the defense budget was unchanged in real terms, save from 1966-1970 due to Vietnam. That meant the overall burden of defense spending was falling for the USSR because their spending didn't need to rise as much to keep up with the West. However, at the same time they were still running at 15-20% of GDP even with falling defense demands; that level was unsustainable in the long term because the consumption and investment side would not be able to function properly with such a large share of outpout going to defense.

The USSR would have collapsed either way, but Reagan made it occur a lot faster.

God bless.

In the USSR, it was never shown that Stalin lied. What's your point?
Ka-f*cking-POW!!!!! :sniper:

I believe that ice cream is a delicious treat. Your salvo!!
Please address how you don't think that him funding the Taliban, installing Pinochet, ruining the Australian elections and installing Saddam, as well as giving him chemical weapons were not bad things.

Yes, in the post I made, you silly fool.


You gave no proof that Reagan "never did anything good" for the world. You just made 3 psuedo points about 3 bad things Reagan "did". Surely you can increase the size of the box you think in.

That's because if you take a look at the natural forces that impact economics, capitalism describes it.It's like saying that if you want to build an irrigation system, nothing works better than gravity. It doesn't matter what contraption you build, gravity will always be a force that impacts water.
The same is true of capitalism and money.

Correct.

However, we're not really using capitalism anymore. Right now America is becoming increasingly Mercantilistic.

That's true; we're turning away from the free market and free trade in order to protect our influence, and that will ultimately end badly for us. Mercantilsm destroyed the Spanish empire and the Portugeuse, and it can do the same to us if we try and follow it. People don't take kindly to their lands being plundered for raw materials, and consumers at home don't like the inflation and stagnation such policies bring.

You gave no proof that Reagan "never did anything good" for the world. You just made 3 psuedo points about 3 bad things Reagan "did". Surely you can increase the size of the box you think in.
Alright, what good things did he do?

In the USSR, it was never shown that Stalin lied. What's your point?


My point is that the USA is not the USSR and Reagan is no Stalin. To make that claim would be to say that Reagan's policies led to 20 million deaths and that Walter Mondale was sent to Siberia. I mean, for goodness sake, if anything, Reagan gets credit for liberating people and enhancing the level of poltical discourse in America.

Surely you can increase the size of the box you think in.
For the perusal for which you credit your integrity so much:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11255056&postcount=150
And for consideration of said integrity:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11255031&postcount=141

Chew thoroughly, lest you be another Bush acolyte.

In the USSR, it was never shown that Stalin lied. What's your point?

He didn't have to lie...it's easy to tell the truth when you can just have the judges and politicians shot at a word.

Please address how you don't think that him funding the Taliban, installing Pinochet, ruining the Australian elections and installing Saddam, as well as giving him chemical weapons were not bad things.

They were bad things. They might have seemed a good idea at the time but...they were not. You see? I did not drink the cool-aid like the person who claimed that Reagan "never did anything" good......ever......

The studies indicate that as a person's income brings them from poverty to upper middle class they become happier. After they move into the wealthy class greater and greater wealth has very little effect on happiness. There are only so many mansions you can live in and caviar you can eat, but if you can't pay your rent or aren't sure if you'll have the money to pay for dinner next week, you're probably going to be unhappy.
Ooooh, good reply. No sarcasm seriously. My thinking in my first post was likely assume that people have their basic needs taken care of. So as far as that goes, money; up till a certain point, can bring about increased happiness.

I enjoyed that long paragraph of things occuring in 1989 that helped lead to the downfall of the Soviet Union in 1991, but the case is it still collapsed in 1991. So if we are to go on your theory that things happening in one part of the world are due to whoever is president of the United States, you would have to give George Bush Senior credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union.

You still didn't undertand my concept that someone merely a world leader doesn't mean they caused something to happen. It is the equivalent of the Bush supporters crediting him with democratic elections in palestine, when it was really the death of Yasser Arafat, or Libyan reforms. Which actually have been occuring over many years, without any rise or fall in the expediacy of such reforms despite what America tells them to do.

Ooooh, good reply. No sarcasm seriously. My thinking in my first post was likely assume that people have their basic needs taken care of. So as far as that goes, money; up till a certain point, can bring about increased happiness.

The law of diminishing returns holds true in happiness as well as economics...

enhancing the level of poltical discourse in America.
Ahahahahahahahahahahaha!!
This is pretty much the summation of your integrity right here.
Every bit of blather going on here on this thread, in contradiction to your posts, could be ACCURATELY CONSTRUED as "enhancing the level of POLITICAL *note spelling* discourse in America". As well as the other countries involved here.

Okay - for yuks, you're definitely up from "nominal".
Thanks. :)

I am going to bed now but let me leave you with this........http://www.ronaldreagan.com/sp_21.html

one last thing......I love how the same liberals who claim to love freedom of speech and the discussion of ideas in a rational way always resort to petty name calling, rock chucking, open ended statement making, flaming posts on this forum site. my advice to all of you, before I leave, is to clean up your act. It is not a civil debate when you type AHAHAHAHAH and so forth. It is called being rude. I can only hope that once you mature you will mend this.

Please address how you don't think that him funding the Taliban, installing Pinochet, ruining the Australian elections and installing Saddam, as well as giving him chemical weapons were not bad things.
But Saddam became leader of Iraq more than a year before Reagan was elected. Now, Reagan didn't do anything to remove him, but isn't that one of the bad things that Bush has done? Or would Reagan have gone about such a war in a better way? He was "the Great Communicator" after all. The Taliban didn't even exist until the 1990's. The US handling of Afghanistan in the 1980's is a long discussion that would be full of errors that one could point out, but one of them is not Reagan funding or even giving power to the Taliban.

My point is that the USA is not the USSR and Reagan is no Stalin. To make that claim would be to say that Reagan's policies led to 20 million deaths and that Walter Mondale was sent to Siberia. I mean, for goodness sake, if anything, Reagan gets credit for liberating people and enhancing the level of poltical discourse in America.
Raegan was in power for, what, about a quarter of Stalin's time?

He funded the Taliban, which have killed many and they certainly haven't liberated anyone.

He installed Pinochet, one of the worse dictators of South America. Please explain how anyone was liberated there.

He gave Saddam chemical weapons, which did kill millions, actually, and also didn't liberate the country from anything.

Having US soldiers ready to launch a coup in Australia if the Labour party won isn't going to have helped liberty much, is it?

That helps liberty about as much as Robert Mughabe's (sorry if that's spelt wrong) own policies on "democracy". You can vote for whoever you like, as long as it's him.

Oh and one previously unmentioned thing - the inexplicable aiding of the Kmher Rough. That certainly did kill millions, and you can't tell me that killing every intellectual, anyone who could read, and anyone who wore glasses, as well as dissenters, as well as covering the whole country in landmines which are a threat even now are "aiding liberty".

Raegan's policies likely killed about five million people, which is about a quarter of Stalin's death toll, in about a quarter of the time.

But Saddam became leader of Iraq more than a year before Reagan was elected. Now, Reagan didn't do anything to remove him, but isn't that one of the bad things that Bush has done?
He didn't have many chemical weapons until Reagan got into power, though, did he?

And I don't agree with Bush's decision either.

Possibly trying to end the war faster, rather than dragging it on with Saddam who was, at the time, a puppet, would have been better. That way he wouldn't have killed even more people, the war's quicker ending could have led to less anti-Iran feeling in Iraq and anti-Iraq feeling in Iran.

As I see it, when the US and chums leave, either Saddam is going to walk out of the courthouse and get back into power, or Iran will simply invade. Either way, it's not looking good.
Or would Reagan have gone about such a war in a better way? He was "the Great Communicator" after all.
Great communicator my arse. "Stop buying weapons from the USSR, we'll give you these ones for free - and they're better!"
The Taliban didn't even exist until the 1990's.
They existed, but they didn't use that name. They were called the Muhad'jahadeen at the time (or something like that, anyway).
The US handling of Afghanistan in the 1980's is a long discussion that would be full of errors that one could point out, but one of them is not Reagan funding or even giving power to the Taliban.
Yes it is, they were just called something else. Osama bin Laden was still an extremely powerful warlord, but of a group called something else.

He funded the Taliban, which have killed many and they certainly haven't liberated anyone.


That's quite feat considering the Taliban didn't come to power until 1996. Reagen supplied the mujahideen, which is a completely different matter altogether.

That's quite feat considering the Taliban didn't come to power until 1996. Reagen supplied the mujahideen, which is a completely different matter altogether.
About as different as freedom fries and french fries. Same thing, different name.

one last thing......I love how the same liberals who claim to love freedom of speech and the discussion of ideas in a rational way always resort to petty name calling, rock chucking, open ended statement making, flaming posts on this forum site. my advice to all of you, before I leave, is to clean up your act. It is not a civil debate when you type AHAHAHAHAH and so forth. It is called being rude. I can only hope that once you mature you will mend this.
No laughter? Are you trying to oppress me? :p
See, if i didn't spell it out for you, you'd probably throw one of your "misunderestimations" out.
Perhaps AOL text is better for you?
As for "being rude" - you don't seem to understand when you're the same hue as the kettle now, do you?

Now go ahead and explain to me how exactly i'm a "liberal" (not how much you love it) - and how exactly i'm being less rational than yourself by giving you the mirror? Are you denying those posts? I may be willing to extract every one of your own infantile statements here if you like, except i'm more likely to do more interesting things with my time.
And ... keep your advice. See how that works out for you.
You *ARE* not mature enough in your demeanor to be criticizing everyone else for what you espouse.

But i'll give you this - you are indeed, with the lot of us - enhancing the level of political discourse in America (and other places). :)


before I leave
How do you spell that in AOL?
Oh yeah ... pwned.

Bon voyage.

The person who truely ended the cold war was Gorbachev with his political reforms, and concessions. Americans have a tendency in looking at the world through their own binoculars like many nationalistic countries do, and in result relate international occurances to things that the U.S. or our leaders have done. Ask any european from any european nation who put up the most resistance to the Nazi advance in WW2 and they will claim it was I England/France/Belgium/Poland/Denmark, ect... The truth is telling another nations leader to disarm his nukes, calling that nation evil, or building up the military are not really citeable as reasons a man ended the cold war. If that is all it took to cause a nation collapse, Iran, North Korea, and China would of collapsed long ago.

The real victors in the collapse of the cold war were Soviet dissenters in her nation, relaxing of restrictions on rights, the growth in trade of ideas that were able to become more mainstream because of the relaxinf of restrictions, and the underming of the Soviet market, by the Russian black market.

It's the equivalent of when Americans say we won WW2 (excluding all other nations fighting for the same goal) when it was many nations and occurances that brought about victory. You can't accredit all the events, all the interior occurances, the thoughts of the Soviet people, Gorbachevs bukling will to his own people to Reagan. Isn't that a little farfetched to imagine that Democracy purporters in Russia hanged up american flags and pictures of Reagan and sung the American anthem to defeat commies? You can't say Reagan ended the Cold War, because not on thing can end something so large.

I mean explain to me how one nations Military build up causes a nations economy and country to collapse, when both had shown signs of weakenining years before.

You can "give it" to Reagan all you want, I give it to the oppresed peoples of the former Soviet Union who fought for their rights.

A recent Gallup Poll gives us the following information:

71% of Americans approve of the job that Ronald Reagan did as President
27% disapprove

61% of Americans approve of the job that Bill Clinton did as President
38% disapprove

In a recent Presidential ranking poll in which an ideologically balanced group of 130 prominent professors of history, law, political science and economics to rated the presidents Ronald Reagan came in 6th and Bill Clinton came in 22nd.
Why is it that in the light of history Ronald Reagan is more popular than Bill Clinton?
Polls are polls and it can depend on which day you take the poll as to whether one president would do better than another. For example, this poll was taken from the same link that you provided:

http://www.pollingreport.com/images/pres1.GIF

http://www.pollingreport.com/images/pres2.GIF

Those polls are all over the place.

About as different as freedom fries and french fries. Same thing, different name.

In that they were Afghan militants and Muslim, but plenty of former Mujahideen fighters joined the Northen Alliance after the rise of the Taliban. Afghanistan has been in a state of constant civil war for decades and the Taliban was only one in a long line of factions to gain a temporary advantage and then get toppled.

He didn't have many chemical weapons until Reagan got into power, though, did he?

And I don't agree with Bush's decision either.

Possibly trying to end the war faster, rather than dragging it on with Saddam who was, at the time, a puppet, would have been better. That way he wouldn't have killed even more people, the war's quicker ending could have led to less anti-Iran feeling in Iraq and anti-Iraq feeling in Iran.

As I see it, when the US and chums leave, either Saddam is going to walk out of the courthouse and get back into power, or Iran will simply invade. Either way, it's not looking good.I think that letting the Iran-Iraq war drag on for eight years was ridiculous. I suppose if there were Soviet troops supporting one country, we might have made a more concerted effort to end that conflict. An interesting thought is that if we sided with Iran and ousted Saddam in the 1980's would we have these current tensions with Iran.


They existed, but they didn't use that name. They were called the Muhad'jahadeen at the time (or something like that, anyway).
I've been reading this journal report (http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue1/jv6n1a1.html) about "Who is Responsible for the Taliban" for the last few minutes. It's a fairly interesting, albeit long read. The Mujahadeen, or however you spell it, have existed for many years. I think that is what you are referering to. It isn't a group, so much as it is a descriptor for a person. Those who fight in Jihad, or Islamic holy war, are said to belong to the Mujahadeen. The term is often applied to the groups that fought in Afghanistan in the 1980's against the Soviets, using US funding.


Yes it is, they were just called something else. Osama bin Laden was still an extremely powerful warlord, but of a group called something else.
Yes, Osama bin Laden was a big organizer and funder of the Mujahadeen resistence in Afghanistan. It has been shown that the CIA armed his groups during that war and even provided training to those he would later recruit into Al-Qaeda.

Polls are polls and it can depend on which day you take the poll as to whether one president would do better than another. For example, this poll was taken from the same link that you provided:

http://www.pollingreport.com/images/pres1.GIF

http://www.pollingreport.com/images/pres2.GIF

Those polls are all over the place.

Those polls go to show how uninformed so many people are. To generalize, cause I think that these results are worthy of being generalized :p, the Republicans though Reagan was the best and Clinton the worst and Democrats vice versa. The notable exception being the "evil" president, Nixon, of course, came in first as Worst President. And the unknown modern president, Ford, got very low numbers in each poll. Funny how when people only talk bad about a former president he gets first in the Worst poll, and when people don't talk about another he gets low numbers in each. And JFK is the opposite of Nixon, JFK has been almost deified to the point that you very rarely read anything critical of him in the press. One final point, though, I don't think Ford's presidency was anywhere near him being the Best nor the Worst, so that could, at least in part, explain the results.

Those polls go to show how uninformed so many people are. To generalize, cause I think that these results are worthy of being generalized :p, the Republicans though Reagan was the best and Clinton the worst and Democrats vice versa. The notable exception being the "evil" president, Nixon, of course, came in first as Worst President. And the unknown modern president, Ford, got very low numbers in each poll. Funny how when people only talk bad about a former president he gets first in the Worst poll, and when people don't talk about another he gets low numbers in each. And JFK is the opposite of Nixon, JFK has been almost deified to the point that you very rarely read anything critical of him in the press. One final point, though, I don't think Ford's presidency was anywhere near him being the Best nor the Worst, so that could, at least in part, explain the results.

In the book discussed earlier JFK is rated as merely average. Had he not been assasinated I strongly doubt he would enjoy anywhere near the popularity he does today. We also wouldn't be saddled with his asshat brother as a senator either.

Ronald Reagan never ran with a substantial (as it was) 3rd party candidate, either.
Marion Morrison was enough for the hotair express.
("John Wayne" :rolleyes: )
Yeah - you know, the guy who talked sh*t castles about morals and family integrity and all that other republican bullsh*t while simultaneously deferring out of the war for "familial" reasons - and then of course, right AFTER cessation of hostilities, divorced conveniently.

And then the only thing I'd probably be able to come up with (pardon the unintentional pun) is.... oh crap. I guess this will require more thought.
Even the INTERNET doesn't have that kind of time.


Yours in enmity ... :D

Reagan and Clinton both sucked. Both favored Big Government.

In the book discussed earlier JFK is rated as merely average. Had he not been assasinated I strongly doubt he would enjoy anywhere near the popularity he does today. We also wouldn't be saddled with his asshat brother as a senator either.I agree with you completely. Now if we could get more people to look at what he actually did, other than getting shot that is. Just about any president could be assassinated, it doesn't mean that they were great. It just means that there was someone out there who hated them, was inclined to commit murder, and who was lucky/skilled enough to actual succeed in killing the president. I can't think of the last time I heard anyone from a major newspaper or news network call JFK an "average" president though.