Ronald Reagan's Uniting Principles

[Phatscotty]

The guy sure got a lot of Democrats to vote for him. You gotta be doing something right to get results like this.

[Haggis_McMutton]

[Neoteny]

Laff

[AAFitz]

The guy sure got a lot of Democrats to vote for him. You gotta be doing something right to get results like this.

Indeed. He was an awesome actor. I believed him myself at the time. Then I grew up, and learned.

[Phatscotty]

The guy sure got a lot of Democrats to vote for him. You gotta be doing something right to get results like this.

Indeed. He was an awesome actor. I believed him myself at the time. Then I grew up, and learned.

Um, Fitz? This is 1984 (not 1980).....four years after he was first elected. You think he acted his way to this kind of re-eleciton result? See, I thought all the Democrats saw the results and approved and cast their votes in approval of the previous 4 years, not his "acting". Oh, none of that ever happened? oh, okay, sureeeee

[notyou2]

It seems the Germans bordering France didn't think too much of the little corporal.

[huamulan]

Wasn't this the president who promised a 'Star Wars' missile defense system that was, in actuality, impossible to build?

Maybe Obama could gain some popular support by promising to resurrect unicorns. Just say the words - the implications can be considered after the election.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Maybe Obama could gain some popular support by promising to resurrect unicorns. Just say the words - the implications can be considered after the election.

I think that's pretty much how politics works in general.

[Woodruff]

Wasn't this the president who promised a 'Star Wars' missile defense system that was, in actuality, impossible to build?
Maybe Obama could gain some popular support by promising to resurrect unicorns. Just say the words - the implications can be considered after the election.

Obama already pulled that shit LAST election.

That being said, I'm actually a fan of MOST of Reagan's policies. I know that's a pretty unliberal thing to say these days, but I don't think he was a bad President and I absolutely DO give him hefty (not nearly all) credit for the eventual crumbling of the Soviet Union.

[Phatscotty]

[huamulan]

What did Reagan have to do with the break up of the USSR?

[Woodruff]

What did Reagan have to do with the break up of the USSR?

He put the fear of God into their atheist-loving hearts (and more importantly, spent them into oblivion).

[huamulan]

The USSR didn't bother even attempting to match Reagan's increased spending. They already had tens of thousands of nuclear missiles - what else would they have needed?

[AAFitz]

The guy sure got a lot of Democrats to vote for him. You gotta be doing something right to get results like this.

Indeed. He was an awesome actor. I believed him myself at the time. Then I grew up, and learned.

Um, Fitz? This is 1984 (not 1980).....four years after he was first elected. You think he acted his way to this kind of re-eleciton result? See, I thought all the Democrats saw the results and approved and cast their votes in approval of the previous 4 years, not his "acting". Oh, none of that ever happened? oh, okay, sureeeee

Yes, the economic crisis that immediately followed his presidency was very pretty in 87 and 88, going into a beautiful little recession.

Yes, that happened, and he was able even convince some fools like yourself, that you were better off for it.

[thegreekdog]

In related news, it is common knowledge that the president has total control over the economy.

[Baron Von PWN]

What did Reagan have to do with the break up of the USSR?

He put the fear of God into their atheist-loving hearts (and more importantly, spent them into oblivion).

This is nonsense. For this to be true you would have to show a marked increase in Soviet military expenditures during the same period. The Soviet Union collapsed due to decades of bad economic policy and a lack of political will.



As this graph shows Soviet military expenditure had been gradually rising since the 1960's. Supporting article :http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mo-budget.htm

If anything Soviet military spending slowed during the Reagan period and even fell near the end.

The real reason the Soviet Union collapsed was they no longer had the will to go on. The rhetoric was tiered and worn out, people just didn't believe anymore. The elite didn't care to pursue the kind of repression that would have been needed to hold it together. Had there been another Stalin at the wheel people like Solzhenitsyn, and the glasnost leadership would have simply disappeared.

All Reagan did with his military spending was make military industrialists very happy.

[Phatscotty]

Nobody should underestimate the power that George Bush Sr. wielded as vice president.

[Juan_Bottom]

Click image to enlarge.

http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/2011 ... e-economy/

Reagan's policies took money from the poor and gave it to the rich. And in the world of science, his policies lead to some bitter fighting between NASA, the Airforce, and Europe.
I can't support a President who hates science or space travel.

[Phatscotty]

[saxitoxin]

This man spent the 1940s in a submarine instead of a film studio.

[Phatscotty]

This man spent the 1940s in a submarine instead of a film studio.

You a fan of Carter?

[saxitoxin]

What did Reagan have to do with the break up of the USSR?

He put the fear of God into their atheist-loving hearts (and more importantly, spent them into oblivion).

This is nonsense. For this to be true you would have to show a marked increase in Soviet military expenditures during the same period. The Soviet Union collapsed due to decades of bad economic policy and a lack of political will.



As this graph shows Soviet military expenditure had been gradually rising since the 1960's. Supporting article :http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mo-budget.htm

If anything Soviet military spending slowed during the Reagan period and even fell near the end.

The real reason the Soviet Union collapsed was they no longer had the will to go on. The rhetoric was tiered and worn out, people just didn't believe anymore. The elite didn't care to pursue the kind of repression that would have been needed to hold it together. Had there been another Stalin at the wheel people like Solzhenitsyn, and the glasnost leadership would have simply disappeared.

All Reagan did with his military spending was make military industrialists very happy.

I disagree with you both. The Soviet Union collapsed because the U.S. floored the price of oil. This was a security operation overseen by bureaucrats in the CIA in response to the Golitsyn defection and had nothing to do with the pretend actor heads-of-state in either party. The USSR's top export commodity for hard currency was oil. More than 3-4 years of disruption in the price of oil spelled disaster.



The U.S. is now employing the same strategy - but in reverse - against China. The People's Republic must import oil to fuel their industrialization but the U.S. periodically bombs the infrastructure of oil producing nations, refuses to drill into its own tremendous oil reserves in Alaska or offshore area (under pretense of environmental concern), blocks Canadian exports, and encourages domestic programs of mass oil consumption. This skyrockets the price of oil, keeping it out of reach of the Chinese in the quantities they need.

They're buying enough time so their confederates can find success is sewing unrest in the PRC to break it apart into its constituent parts so it's several easily manageable basket-case republics warring against each other instead of a unified adversary. This will continue whether Obama, Romney or Charlee Sheen is elected president -

[PLAYER57832]

Funny how so many people cite Ronald Reagan who have obviously never met the guy or really talked to him. Ironically, about like Lincoln... all sides seem equally able to call on him and are equally convinced that he supported their current positions.

Republicans call on Lincoln. What are the other sides that equally call on Lincoln? The Democrats, Progressives, or Liberals, Socialists or Communists? How do they call on Lincoln?

"Tax the rich" doesn't seem to fit in so well with "keeping the fruits of our own labor". Quite the opposite in fact....

YOu do realize those are only modern Republican ideas, right?


And Reagan supported things that supported Big Business. He was not really about personal freedom at all.

[Woodruff]

Funny how so many people cite Ronald Reagan who have obviously never met the guy or really talked to him. Ironically, about like Lincoln... all sides seem equally able to call on him and are equally convinced that he supported their current positions.

Republicans call on Lincoln. What are the other sides that equally call on Lincoln? The Democrats, Progressives, or Liberals, Socialists or Communists? How do they call on Lincoln?

"Tax the rich" doesn't seem to fit in so well with "keeping the fruits of our own labor". Quite the opposite in fact....

YOu do realize those are only modern Republican ideas, right?


And Reagan supported things that supported Big Business. He was not really about personal freedom at all.

He certainly supported Big Business, no question. But I don't agree that he wans't interested in personal freedom. What did Reagan do that was anti-personal-freedom?

[Juan_Bottom]

Yeah, technically Lincoln was a Democrat, not a modern Republican. The two parties switched during the 60s or whatever.