Seaworth'sShipmate Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I come from a fairly conservative part of town. So many adults I know, whenever politics comes up talk about how great Reagan was, and how much he loved this great country of ours. My question is, was he so great? I have read about him and seems fantastic. He stopped government from intruding in peoples lives, helped bring down the Soviet Union and was all about honesty and good values. Strangely enough he seems to be the only US president Republican presidential candidates like or talk about (with a bit of JFK or Truman thrown in occasionally.) What, are Gerald Ford and Calvin Coolidge not worth any mention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 This will go well. Better than Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Lincoln? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I find the suggestion that "Ronald Reagen [sic]" is merely the best President and not the best human being to ever walk the Earth offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 barf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Reagan was great for the top 1%. Sucked for the middle and lower classes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lany Freelove Cassandra Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I think you need to define what criteria makes a great successful president first. Then see how many of those things he accomplished, and what was the long term (if any) results of his presidency. Until about 10 years ago (imagine that :P ) I had some serious Reagan blinders, but I came of age during his presidency, served in the military, whose pay he had greatly increased and well, I was rather limited in my political understanding, and the majority of the people I was around on a regular basis that thought like I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 My question is, was he so great? No. I have read about him and seems fantastic. Try reading non-fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littlefingers In The Air Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Reagan was garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 There is a pervasive myth of St Ronnie in conservative circles. They love him so much it's laughable how often they call back to him. In hindsight I and many others believe he was not only not the best, but a wackadoo know-nothing style-over-substance fruitcake who was absolutely horrendous for the country from a policy perspective. See also: his weird consultation of psychics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 So many adults I know, whenever politics comes up talk about how great Reagan was, Just wondering from the above if that means you yourself are not an adult --- There are multiple ways to evaluate whether or not Presidents were "good" or "bad". People like myself who disagree with many of his policies aren't going to see him as "great." However, one really does have to give credit to the man for being able to articulate his ideas so well and be so convincing about it. He was better at the "bully pulpit" aspect of the Presidency than anyone else who's been President since I was old enough to be interested at all in politics (that's in the early 1960s.) That's shown by the statistics (that I mentioned recently in the US Politics thread) that show that people who came of "political age" during Reagan's administration, especially during his first term (that's people born between about 1960 and 1964, the tail end of the Baby Boom) are more likely to identify as Republican than other age cohorts are. The only age cohort where a Republican president had a bigger impact is the so-called Silent Generation, people now in their 70s, who came of political age during Eisenhower's term. So although personally I don't think Reagan was a great president in terms of his policies or impact on the government, he as certainly one of the most successful Presidents politically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greywolf2375 Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I find the suggestion that "Ronald Reagen [sic]" is merely the best President and not the best human being to ever walk the Earth offensive. barf. No. Try reading non-fiction. Reagan was garbage. So, while it is always fun to add replies like this, none of you are actually making a case as to why Reagan may not have walked on water. Why was he garbage? what non-fiction should the young master read? Solo - maybe try some Pepto? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Going back he is the worst thing that could have happened to our country. Exploded the deficit, created ridiculous war programs (Star Wars anyone?), and had basically nothing to do with the fall of the Soviet Union. You'd have to thank Garbochev (sp) for that one, it was his call which resulted in the most peaceful dissemination of a large country into smaller ones in human history. Zero lives lost. His policies have caused the wealth gap, he pandered to racists, and ruined the middle class. What a guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I think if we were to rank presidents from most to least treasonous, Reagan certainly has a chance to come out on top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaworth'sShipmate Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 Going back he is the worst thing that could have happened to our country. Exploded the deficit, created ridiculous war programs (Star Wars anyone?), and had basically nothing to do with the fall of the Soviet Union. You'd have to thank Garbochev (sp) for that one, it was his call which resulted in the most peaceful dissemination of a large country into smaller ones in human history. Zero lives lost. His policies have caused the wealth gap, he pandered to racists, and ruined the middle class. What a guy. I suppose I see some merits to your claim. I have been reading his wikipedia page lately, and it makes me thing that liberals really would despise him if he were alive and president today. For all the hate GWB bush gets and receives from the left, I think by comparison they would find him slightly less offensive and more palatable than Reagen. While Reagen never let us into an Iraq style quagmire, he seemed a charicature of the worst kind of Republican. I think he was openly and unapologetically uncaring and unsympathetic with the poor (saying that people who went hungry in the year 1980 were just on a diet. He said trees caused pollution, backed the Apartheid South Africa Government, and while he cared about democracy and human rights for those in Bolshevik countries, seemed to care about it for nobody else. I find it hard to believe that a president could get away with backing fascist guerrilla groups in Latin America or backing someone like Saddam Hussein and vetoing an anti Kuridsh genocide bill ( he did both.) Wow... I cannot believe this... he was already a national figure during the civil rights movement, and while not an open bigot, was either mildly disapproving or indifferent to MLK's struggle... geez.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I think if we were to rank presidents from most to least treasonous, Reagan certainly has a chance to come out on top. Nah. James Buchanan and John Tyler win there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Ace,Going back he is the worst thing that could have happened to our country. Exploded the deficit, created ridiculous war programs (Star Wars anyone?), and had basically nothing to do with the fall of the Soviet Union. You'd have to thank Garbochev (sp) for that one, it was his call which resulted in the most peaceful dissemination of a large country into smaller ones in human history. Zero lives lost. His policies have caused the wealth gap, he pandered to racists, and ruined the middle class. What a guy. The fall of the Soviet Union was more peaceful than the division of Czechoslovkia into the Czech Repiblic and Slovakia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I suppose I see some merits to your claim. I have been reading his wikipedia page lately, and it makes me thing that liberals really would despise him if he were alive and president today. For all the hate GWB bush gets and receives from the left, I think by comparison they would find him slightly less offensive and more palatable than Reagen. While Reagen never let us into an Iraq style quagmire, he seemed a charicature of the worst kind of Republican. I think he was openly and unapologetically uncaring and unsympathetic with the poor (saying that people who went hungry in the year 1980 were just on a diet. He said trees caused pollution, backed the Apartheid South Africa Government, and while he cared about democracy and human rights for those in Bolshevik countries, seemed to care about it for nobody else. I find it hard to believe that a president could get away with backing fascist guerrilla groups in Latin America or backing someone like Saddam Hussein and vetoing an anti Kuridsh genocide bill ( he did both.) Wow... I cannot believe this... he was already a national figure during the civil rights movement, and while not an open bigot, was either mildly disapproving or indifferent to MLK's struggle... geez.. Reagan could no way win in today's GOP. He supported amnesty, gun control, and eventually had to raise taxes because his cuts were so awful. Those are non-starters from the get-go. His policies, by and large, were failure after failure with many of today's problems going back to policies he's pushed. Our debt, huge deficit spending, decline of the middle class, the blaming of the poor, exploding the wealth of the rich, doing nothing about climate change.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I find that it is impossible to have a honest, public discourse about Ronald Reagan because many conservatives simply do not accept historical facts about him. For example, they refuse to accept that he signed the Tax Reform Act in 1986, which overall raised revenue. You can link to half the Internet to prove this is true, but they still won't accept it. Given this disconnection with reality, real evaluations about the 40th president of the US are just not possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Ace,The fall of the Soviet Union was more peaceful than the division of Czechoslovkia into the Czech Repiblic and Slovakia? I should have qualified that as 'one of'. My bad, but it still had nothing to do with Reagan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Nah. James Buchanan and John Tyler win there. On what basis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.