Reagan VS. Clinton

[MeDeFe]

REAGANOMICS!

That was my first thought as well.

[Titanic]

REAGANOMICS!

That was my first thought as well.

That doesn't really explain much, is that a reason to be for Reagan or against him?

Out of the two I prefer Clinton, and so did the US public at the end of their 8 year terms according to the polls.

[Baron Von PWN]

Ehn, they were both douche bags. At least Clinton could balance a budget.

[Aradhus]

"You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order -- or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, 'The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.' The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing." --Ronald Reagan
http://patriotpost.us/edition/2009/10/19/brief/

"It depends on what the meaning of the word is, is." --Bill Clinton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

No contest.

"It depends on what the meaning of the word is, is." --Bill Clinton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

I'd like to see anybody come up with a better quote than that...

The disparity between those two quotes is so immense, so majestic, like pauper and prince, savant, buffoon, poet laureate, propa' illiterate, the gulf between a successful president and an awful precedent. One a dignified, elegant, exquisite example of the complexity and beauty of english, the other a disingenuous, disgusting, meandering, and duplicitous showing of insincerity.

No contest, eh? Clinton's quote kicked Reagan's quotes ass.(and only a fool would think otherwise)

[Phatscotty]

pff? lol, I can give you 2 completely opposing quotes from any president in history.

[Phatscotty]

"You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order -- or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, 'The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.' The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing." --Ronald Reagan
http://patriotpost.us/edition/2009/10/19/brief/

"It depends on what the meaning of the word is, is." --Bill Clinton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

No contest.

"It depends on what the meaning of the word is, is." --Bill Clinton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

I'd like to see anybody come up with a better quote than that...

The disparity between those two quotes is so immense, so majestic, like pauper and prince, savant, buffoon, poet laureate, propa' illiterate, the gulf between a successful president and an awful precedent. One a dignified, elegant, exquisite example of the complexity and beauty of english, the other a disingenuous, disgusting, meandering, and duplicitous showing of insincerity.

No contest, eh? Clinton's quote kicked Reagan's quotes ass.(and only a fool would think otherwise)

An overwhelimg majority agree they were both great presidents. only a fool would pretend that isnt true. I dont put much stock into cherry picking quotes, it obviously is not what he did or what he beleived in. Dont be so gullable and narrow

[Woodruff]

An overwhelimg majority agree they were both great presidents.

Yep, I'm a fan of both of them. I gave just a tad edge to Reagan for his immense support of the military (I was in at the time, so it was much appreciated), though Clinton did also support the military nicely.

[Raskholnikov]

Clinton was an extremely intelligent, highly educated, politically experienced candidate who rode a wave of popular support after 12 years of Republican dominance of the WH. Fe failed miserably, both at home and abroad, to take advantage of the peace, propsperity, and goodwill towards the US in the 1990s and implement fundamental domestic and international reforms. His was a totally wasted presidency and Democrats, in particular, will never forgive him for this.

Reagan was a genius at communicating simple, clear, heart-felt ideas. The Presidency was the biggest role of his life, and he gave a brilliant performance. "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" is already one of the most important quotes of the 20th century, next to Churchill's "We shall never surrender..." , Roosevelt's "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself..", Kennedy's "Ask not what you can do for your country.." and MLK's "I have a dream.." (judged not only by rethoric but also by consequences). Despite blunders and mistakes, he gave the US back a sense of purpose and optimism, and helped bring down The Evil Empire.

It is the huge gap between expectations and performance (positive for Reagan, negative for Clinton) that will above all define their respective presidencies.

NB: Obama is attempting to combine Reagan's charisma and focus with Clinton's intelligence and focus on details. We shall see....

[Phatscotty]

Clinton was an extremely intelligent, highly educated, politically experienced candidate who rode a wave of popular support after 12 years of Republican dominance of the WH. Fe failed miserably, both at home and abroad, to take advantage of the peace, propsperity, and goodwill towards the US in the 1990s and implement fundamental domestic and international reforms. His was a totally wasted presidency and Democrats, in particular, will never forgive him for this.

Reagan was a genius at communicating simple, clear, heart-felt ideas. The Presidency was the biggest role of his life, and he gave a brilliant performance. "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" is already one of the most important quotes of the 20th century, next to Churchill's "We shall never surrender..." , Roosevelt's "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself..", Kennedy's "Ask not what you can do for your country.." and MLK's "I have a dream.." (judged not only by rethoric but also by consequences). Despite blunders and mistakes, he gave the US back a sense of purpose and optimism, and helped bring down The Evil Empire.

It is the huge gap between expectations and performance (positive for Reagan, negative for Clinton) that will above all define their respective presidencies.

NB: Obama is attempting to combine Reagan's charisma and focus with Clinton's intelligence and focus on details. We shall see....

but man could clinton bust a mean sax

[Aradhus]

The stupidity in this forum is astounding.

[Phatscotty]

The stupidity in this forum is astounding.

they are opinions. you dont call people stupid because they have a different opinion than yours. says a bit about you tho

[Aradhus]

You've incorrectly assumed and misinterpreted everything I've posted in this topic, which says everything about you.

[Phatscotty]

You've incorrectly assumed and misinterpreted everything I've posted in this topic, which says everything about you.

yes, i saw you took a quote, and transformed that into that persons legacy. kinda funny

[AAFitz]

EVERYTHING trickles DOWN. Trickling UP would defy GRAVITY. (that and it doesn't work- give a poor man $300 to buy a PS3 doesn't help the rest of us much)



THE DEBATE IS OVER!

Yes, EVERYTHING trickles DOWN. TRICKLE being the operative word. As the richest 5% made 100% more, and the rest averaged 5% more... Id say it was perhaps time to turn the faucet on just a bit more.

No one gave a poor man $300. They simply didnt tax him another $300. Giving something for nothing is always a bad idea. Though usually it is done for corporations.

I believe your GRAVITY analogy is incorrect. What's more correct would be a VACUUM CLEANER...which does indeed, suck up from the bottom, into the top....and where it is very often... thrown away.

This was REAGANS true legacy...the effects that will never stop affecting the world, on a geometric scale:

"It is surprising that the president could remain silent as 6,000 Americans died, that he could fail to acknowledge the epidemic's existence. Perhaps his staff felt he had to, since many of his New Right supporters have raised money by campaigning against homosexuals."

Reagan would ultimately address the issue of AIDS while president. His remarks came May 31, 1987 (near the end of his second term), at the Third International Conference on AIDS in Washington. When he spoke, 36,058 Americans had been diagnosed with AIDS and 20,849 had died. The disease had spread to 113 countries, with more than 50,000 cases.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z0YM4UQuNX


He should be rememberd for Ostrichomics, not Reganomics.

Ostrichomics: Ignore the largest growing epidemic at its early stages. That will be the least expensive option in the long term.

Unless of course you understand geometric growth.

-in his defense... AIDS could have just been Gods punishment on Homosexuals for their sins....oh, and those barbaric hemophiliacs. Im sure when someone told Reagan Hemophiliacs were getting the disease too, he only heard the "Hemo" part of it, and didnt worry to much, assuming it was just another group of sinners, that the One True Good God, decided to let suffer a bit.

THE DEBATE IS NEVER OVER, FOR THOSE ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH.

[Baron Von PWN]

THE DEBATE IS NEVER OVER, FOR THOSE ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH.

you forgot his support for dictatorships. As well as his wrongly taking credit for ending the cold war.

[thegreekdog]

I think they were both fine presidents. I think Democrats liked Clinton's ideas more than what he actually accomplished in office, though in his defense he had to deal with a Republican Congress (although, Reagan had to deal with a Democratic Congress).

[Snorri1234]

I think they were both fine presidents. I think Democrats liked Clinton's ideas more than what he actually accomplished in office, though in his defense he had to deal with a Republican Congress (although, Reagan had to deal with a Democratic Congress).

True but I'd say Reagan dealt with a more willing congress than Clinton. Just like W Bush right after 9/11, though not to the same extent. (Luckily Reagan didn't abuse that trust.)

Anyway, Clinton was obviously the more pimping president. He didn't achieve much but in sheer pimpingness he was perhaps only second to John F. Kennedy.

[thegreekdog]

I think they were both fine presidents. I think Democrats liked Clinton's ideas more than what he actually accomplished in office, though in his defense he had to deal with a Republican Congress (although, Reagan had to deal with a Democratic Congress).

True but I'd say Reagan dealt with a more willing congress than Clinton. Just like W Bush right after 9/11, though not to the same extent. (Luckily Reagan didn't abuse that trust.)

Anyway, Clinton was obviously the more pimping president. He didn't achieve much but in sheer pimpingness he was perhaps only second to John F. Kennedy.

I think it had to do with voter popularity... i.e. Reagan was very popular. Not sure Clinton was as popular. It's interesting, I thought President Obama would have a lot more Republicans on his side (and I guess he sort of does with some of the bailout stuff), seeing as how he was so popular when he was elected.

[Snorri1234]

I think they were both fine presidents. I think Democrats liked Clinton's ideas more than what he actually accomplished in office, though in his defense he had to deal with a Republican Congress (although, Reagan had to deal with a Democratic Congress).

True but I'd say Reagan dealt with a more willing congress than Clinton. Just like W Bush right after 9/11, though not to the same extent. (Luckily Reagan didn't abuse that trust.)

Anyway, Clinton was obviously the more pimping president. He didn't achieve much but in sheer pimpingness he was perhaps only second to John F. Kennedy.

I think it had to do with voter popularity... i.e. Reagan was very popular. Not sure Clinton was as popular. It's interesting, I thought President Obama would have a lot more Republicans on his side (and I guess he sort of does with some of the bailout stuff), seeing as how he was so popular when he was elected.

Clinton was very popular in his second term, probably as popular as Reagan. (Though he wasn't so popular at first.)

And yeah I thought Obama would have had far more support from Republicans at first too. The parties are very polarized right now and I doubt that was the case when Clinton and Reagan were president. (But I don't know.)

[Aradhus]

Obama tried to get republicans on his side, he took them out to dinner, invited them to the white house, etc. They're not interested in playing ball at all, they just want to block, in any way they can, any proposal Obama comes forward with.

The good a president does so very rarely has any major effect on the everyday lives of Americans. The bad policies do. And in that regard, the repurcusions of Reagans policies still affect people today. Clinton, not so much. Which is one of the reasons why Clinton was a better president than Reagan, he fucked much less up. The irony of course is that Reagan could do more(harm) because democrats are slimely spineless weasles, whilst Clinton couldn't because republicans are dirty, come out punch you in the mouth, assholes.

[Phatscotty]

THE DEBATE IS NEVER OVER, FOR THOSE ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH.

you forgot his support for dictatorships. As well as his wrongly taking credit for ending the cold war.

they all support varied dictatorships. you can not play that card with a straight face, no wait, you just cant play that card.

[Baron Von PWN]

THE DEBATE IS NEVER OVER, FOR THOSE ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH.

you forgot his support for dictatorships. As well as his wrongly taking credit for ending the cold war.

they all support varied dictatorships. you can not play that card with a straight face, no wait, you just cant play that card.

I can if I don't like any of them.

[Phatscotty]

THE DEBATE IS NEVER OVER, FOR THOSE ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH.

you forgot his support for dictatorships. As well as his wrongly taking credit for ending the cold war.

they all support varied dictatorships. you can not play that card with a straight face, no wait, you just cant play that card.

I can if I don't like any of them.

just pointing out, its like saying "but Reagan was a white man"

[Baron Von PWN]

THE DEBATE IS NEVER OVER, FOR THOSE ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH.

you forgot his support for dictatorships. As well as his wrongly taking credit for ending the cold war.

they all support varied dictatorships. you can not play that card with a straight face, no wait, you just cant play that card.

I can if I don't like any of them.

just pointing out, its like saying "but Reagan was a white man"

hmm not quite. A big part of why people go gaga over Reagan is because he "defeated" the Soviet Union and freed Europe. Which is total BS, the soviet Union was brought down by over ambitious reforms enacted by Gorbachev. Meanwhile Reagan propped up all kinds of dictators, so much for his support of freedom.

It's pretty annoying that the US has consistently supported repressive regimes in order to stop democratic ones it doesn't like. It would be nice to have the leader of the free world support freedom.

[Phatscotty]

It's pretty annoying that the US has consistently supported repressive regimes in order to stop democratic ones it doesn't like. It would be nice to have the leader of the free world support freedom.

perhaps you should listen to reagans speech, just before he says "Tear Down this Wall!" You will see a leader supporting freedom., it can be found on page 1 of this thread, not more than 3 mintues