I eventually get around to editing my posts! Need a spell checker!Fesuni Chopsui wrote:
Hmm I always thought you were liberal Winnow...guess I was wrong!
Then again, I also thought you were good at typing
Here's some negativity for you:Karae wrote:Again, a pointless statement with zero evidence.Aruman wrote:Regardless, Ronald Reagan did more good for the country than bad, no matter which category you fall into.
People keep arguing that the 80s was a prosperous time. I have never once debated that. That prosperity just came at an unjustifiable price, mainly the huge economic price of the largest deficit spending in history and the threat to our security of fortifying Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
It's laughable that some of you jump up and down about how evil Saddam Hussein is, and how right we are to invade Iraq, and then turn around and want to talk about how great Ronny Reagan was when he is the sole reason Saddam survived the 80s.
Again, I'm focusing on the truth as a whole. The negative outweighs the positive and, as evidenced by the posts to this point, you cannot rationally argue the opposite.
Congratulations on another totally pointless post that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.Aruman wrote:Here's some negativity for you:
Wait until Clinton dies and a worldwide collective yawn occurs, then you can whine about how everyone is disrespecting that morally corrupt, lack of responsibility, two faced wanna be.
Reagan was a president and leader.
Clinton was a poser and didn't even qualify as a follower.
Please, continue to flame me. It only serves to show that you can't rationally debate me and how pathetic your argument is.Winnow wrote:Bullshit. Your posts have everything to do with negativity. You're worse than that cocksucker Michael Moore. I hope your college classes are over soon so you can get back to reality and quit whipping up these angry young man commentaries practiing your bullshitting skills for meaningless political science papers.
Thanks for proving me right.Aruman wrote:I've been thinking the same thing since your first 'post'.
Reagan is and was relevant to the United States. Unlike your drivel.
Here you go Karae... I'll fit your stereotype... Fuck you and talk to the hand.Karae wrote:Thanks for proving me right.Aruman wrote:I've been thinking the same thing since your first 'post'.
Reagan is and was relevant to the United States. Unlike your drivel.
Honestly, this is fucking pathetic.
Can someone with a brain in their head PLEASE make an attempt at debating me on this topic?
Oh...wait...all those people agree with me.
Yeah, isn't jumping through hoops a wonderful thing! Face it... Karae wants this to be a so called 'debate', instead of just respecting what Reagan accomplished.Kelshara wrote:I see Aruman fits in perfectly with that side of the argument. Gratz2u!
That said, in 100 years I am willing to bet that Clinton will be ranked over Reagan as the best presidents. That is, unless it is a Republican writing the story.
roflKarae wrote:
Thanks for proving me right.
Honestly, this is fucking pathetic.
Can someone with a brain in their head PLEASE make an attempt at debating me on this topic?
Oh...wait...all those people agree with me.
Actually, the more that comes out from people who had to deal with or for for the admin, the more most of these perceived ills gain clout.Winnow wrote:Cut and pasting a list of perceived ills attributed to Reagan and then sticking out your chest because we're not in the cut and paste mood is good entertainment for 50 posts or so.
Your point is? Kerry does not speak for all Democrats or all liberalsKylere wrote:In the words of the current democratic presidential nominee... (source: usatoday.com at http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicsel ... agan_x.htm )
"Yesterday, we lost one of our great optimists," Kerry told graduating seniors at Bedford High School. "President Reagan's belief in America was infectious. And because of the way he led, he taught us that there was a difference between strong beliefs and bitter partisanship."
Kerry's campaign said it was canceling all public events through Friday, including star-studded fund-raising concerts scheduled for Monday in Los Angeles and Thursday in New York.
Kerry called Reagan "the voice of America in good times and in grief." He remembered Reagan's tribute to the men who fought at Normandy on D-Day — whose 60th anniversary was Sunday — his challenge to bring down the Berlin Wall and his poignant remembrance of the Challenger space shuttle astronauts.
"Free men and women everywhere will forever remember and honor President Reagan's role in ending the Cold War," Kerry said. "He really did believe that communism could be ended in his lifetime, and he helped to make it happen. Perhaps President Reagan's greatest monument isn't any building or any structure that bears his name, but it is the absence of the Berlin Wall."
Kerry's speech to the school's 372 graduates was scheduled to mark the D-Day anniversary, and he went ahead with the appearance despite Reagan's death Saturday at age 93 after a 10-year battle with Alzheimer's disease.
I commend you for the sincerety of your words towards Satan, I mean Reagan...but honestly, cut the crap, this has nothing to do with Carter or the pathetic excuse for a Presidency that he hadMetanis wrote:Ronnie finally went home. He was a helluva man and a helluva president. I had the honor of voting for him both terms. I feel a great deal of sympathy for his family but I'm glad that he has passed out of this life and the trials of Alzheimers. Ronnie was like a breath of fresh air after the impotent whiny little crybaby Carter.
Ronnie, I salute you!
What excuse are you going to use for what the leaders of countries besides the United States had to say? Bush rattling his sabre?Fesuni Chopsui wrote: Your point is? Kerry does not speak for all Democrats or all liberals
In fact, what the fuck do you EXPECT from a presidential candidate? "Oh, yeah, Reagan was the epitome of conservative fanaticism and today is a day of joy that this man, this monster, this satan-incarnate is dead."
Give me a break, Kerry (regardless of what he really believes) had no choice but to say what he said in rememberance of Reagan because otherwise he would look bad...so don't try spewing this shit out here in an attempt to prove any kind of point or guilt others into rethinking what they've said
Attempt to wave the words of world leaders in my face in an attempt to make me feel sorry for Reagan and I will tell you to go fuck yourself and try to give you a reasonable answer...but until that happens Aruman, my friend, I could care less what other countries say or think about this because frankly it doesn't concern themAruman wrote:What excuse are you going to use for what the leaders of countries besides the United States had to say? Bush rattling his sabre?Fesuni Chopsui wrote: Your point is? Kerry does not speak for all Democrats or all liberals
In fact, what the fuck do you EXPECT from a presidential candidate? "Oh, yeah, Reagan was the epitome of conservative fanaticism and today is a day of joy that this man, this monster, this satan-incarnate is dead."
Give me a break, Kerry (regardless of what he really believes) had no choice but to say what he said in rememberance of Reagan because otherwise he would look bad...so don't try spewing this shit out here in an attempt to prove any kind of point or guilt others into rethinking what they've said
Actually, my friends are intelligent people who can debate a point without resorting to personal attacks.Winnow wrote: I can picture Karae boring his friends at a bar debating with himself over whether his manhood or brain is bigger.
No Kylere, what it sounds like to me is that Kerry is trying to win an election...and that he is probably a whole hell of a lot more compassionate than I amKylere wrote:What it sounds like to me is that Kerry is more informed than you are Fesuni.
Perhaps you could study something before you swung into it, but Reagan's biggest mistakes were pretty dumb ( The ketchup is a vegetable one was huge), but his sucesses smoked them.
Feeling sorry for Reagan? I wasn't suggesting any such thing.Attempt to wave the words of world leaders in my face in an attempt to make me feel sorry for Reagan and I will tell you to go fuck yourself and try to give you a reasonable answer...but until that happens Aruman, my friend, I could care less what other countries say or think about this because frankly it doesn't concern them
Yes, there are a plethera of world leaders that are SINCERELY in mourning for this man, but for every one of those I can promise you there is another world leader that is muttering under his breath "I hope you rott in hell, you sack of shit"
Edit: I am not trying to come up with excuses for these world leaders or for Kerry, because there is none for those of them who are not really sincere...I am just stating a simple truth
You attempted to give a reason for what Kerry said, without any basis for suggesting such a thing.Give me a break, Kerry (regardless of what he really believes) had no choice but to say what he said in rememberance of Reagan because otherwise he would look bad...so don't try spewing this shit out here in an attempt to prove any kind of point or guilt others into rethinking what they've said
You really don't have any understanding of the history of the Cold War at all, do you? The Soviet Union was not expansionist during Reagan's Presidency. It was clearly in decline even before he was elected.Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Communism "doesn't work" was not going to stop its spread. Sure, it may have collapsed at some point, but the only way it was going to work (in the minds of those who backed it) was to have every country on the planet be a communist nation. Communism was a forced doctrine......and as everyone knows, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Oppression under Soviet regimes has not one iota to do with this debate. For the rest, see above.If you had voiced the same sentiments towards your leader in a communist country, you would have ended up in prison or dead. Reagan definitely helped to keep the spread of communism from affecting more countries...and he helped to kill it off in countries that already had it.
These are all issues with the character of the person, not the quality of their Presidency. Reagan was absolutely a "good" person. He was just a horrible President.Lincoln a great president? Jefferson? Washington? Which of the presidents would you like to pick so we can point out their shortcomings? Jefferson fathered illegitimate children with slaves he owned. Lincoln owned slaves. Which did not have skeletons in their closet? Clinton was one of the worst presidents we had in the last 50 years. Only Carter could could top him in being a useless slug while in office.
Iran Contra, though one of his more public mistakes, historically has carried the least consequence.Reagan made mistakes....the biggest of which was that people were caught during his term. If you all don't think shit like the Iran-Contra scandal is going on and has been going on for the last half -century, then you are foolish. The biggest problem Republicans in office have is that they don't know to hire the best criminals to cover shit up for them. The dems definitely have the advantage in that department.
Of the last 75 years, I'd say the Presidents whose good outweighed the bad are FDR and, debatably, JFK.Karae....if you believe Reagan was such a bad president, then please enlighten us on who YOU think has been the president who has been the bright beacon of light from the last.....ooohhhh 75 years?
I flame after I make a point and people try to argue it with idiocy/flaming me.Adex_Xeda wrote:Karae, you engage in personal attacks all the time.
Now you chafe at someone returning the favor?
That's funny,
I agree. I never said there weren't positives in his Presidency. I only said that the massive negatives (Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, $2.9 trillion federal debt, etc) greatly outweigh the good things he did. I don't agree that anything you posted would outweigh that, though I don't think you were suggesting that.Thess wrote:Ok Karae
While I don't necessarily believe Reagan was a good president - he definately has his positive points.
Reagan became president during a time when people did not have much confidence in government. He was extremely charismatic and had a lot of pride in America. He was always positive about problems and made sure the public knew that he was optimistic about problems.
Reagan gave people a 'secure' feeling about their safety, at the time. The majority of people felt that nothing was more important than national security. Communism and it taking over the world was a big fear for americans at that time, while it was not justified because it is quite obvious now that comunism doesn't work - during Reagans term in office and LONG before he was in office, it was a valid fear of americans - the politicians, including some presidents made sure that americans feared communism.
All in all Reagan ended the cold war, he made americans feel safe as well as proud to be an american during a time when americans just simply were scared.
Looking back now at what he did, it's easy to see that he caused us many problems. When a president decides on a solution for a problem they seem like a 'good' or quickfix unfortunately presidents need to have some sort of foresight in order to see that their actions could very well hurt future generations.
I flame in general, but I view this forum with more seriousness than general. Flaming in general is entertainment. This forum, for me, is for rational debate. I get annoyed when people post their stupid, uninformed opinions, so I flame them.Adex_Xeda wrote:Well I'll give you this Karae,
Out of the all of the folks that flame me on a regular basis. You attacks have always carried wit.
I'm not too worried about holding my own in a debate with you. Unfortunately, all you seem to be able to do is call anyone responding to your posts a moron, idiot or stupid motherfucker and then talk about how intelligent you are.Karae wrote:Actually, my friends are intelligent people who can debate a point without resorting to personal attacks.Winnow wrote: I can picture Karae boring his friends at a bar debating with himself over whether his manhood or brain is bigger.
Hence, you are not one of my friends.
In October 1987 Ronald Reagan stood at the Brandenburg Gate and said, “General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization…tear down this wall.” Two years later, in what may be the most spectacular political event of our lifetimes, the Berlin Wall came tumbling down, the Soviet empire collapsed, and the world entered a new period of relative peace and prosperity.
Now that he, too, has passed into history, it is only right that we recognize the statesmanship of the Western leader whose policies helped bring about the end of the cold war: Ronald Reagan.
As early as 1981, when virtually everyone considered the Soviet empire a permanent fixture of the international landscape, Reagan spoke at the University of Notre Dame where he predicted that “the West won’t contain communism; it will transcend communism. It will dismiss it as a bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages are even now being written.” The next year Reagan told the British Parliament that freedom and democracy would “leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history.”
When Reagan made these forecasts the wise men in the media and academia scoffed. Today these same pundits maintain that the Soviet Union collapsed by itself due to economic failure, or that Mikhail Gorbachev was responsible. Reagan, they insist, merely presided over an event that his policies did little to influence.
This analysis makes no sense at all. Sure, the Soviet Union had economic problems on account of its socialist system. But the Soviet economy had been ailing for most of the century. Never in history has a great empire imploded due to poor economic performance alone. The Roman and Ottoman empires survived internal corrosion and domestic strains for generations before each was destroyed by military force.
Like many empires suffering from domestic strains, the Soviets during the 1970s compensated for these by pursuing an aggressive foreign policy. Between 1974 and 1980, while the U.S. wallowed in post-Vietnam angst, 10 countries fell into the Soviet orbit: South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, South Yemen, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Grenada and Afghanistan. The Soviet nuclear arsenal surpassed that of the United States, and the Soviets deployed a new generation of intermediate-range missiles targeted at Western Europe. Far from being on the verge of collapse, the Soviet Union in 1980 seemed to be in the vanguard of history.
It is no less problematic to attribute the Soviet collapse to Gorbachev. He was undoubtedly a reformer and a new type of Soviet general secretary, but why did the Politburo in 1985 feel the need to turn over leadership to this man? Certainly the communist bosses did not wish him to lead the party, and the regime, over the precipice.
Nor did Gorbachev see this as his role. On the contrary, he insisted throughout the second half of the 1980s that he sought to strengthen the Soviet economy in order to strengthen the Soviet military. The Politburo supported Gorbachev’s reforms because he promised “regained confidence in the Party.” In his 1987 book Perestroika Gorbachev presented himself as the preserver, not the destroyer, of socialism. No one was more surprised than Gorbachev when the Soviet regime disintegrated, and when he was swept out of power.
The only man who foresaw the Soviet collapse and implemented policies to bring it about was Ronald Reagan. During his first term Reagan pursued tough anti-Soviet policies aimed at curtailing the Soviet nuclear threat and stopping Soviet advances around the world. Calling the Soviets an “evil empire,” Reagan initiated a massive defense buildup. He deployed Pershing and Cruise missiles in Europe. He sent weapons and other assistance to anticommunist guerrillas fighting for self-determination in Soviet satellites like Afghanistan, Angola and Nicaragua. He announced a new program of missile defenses that would eventually “make nuclear weapons obsolete.”
These measures were fiercely resisted by liberal Democrats, who decried Reagan’s policies as confrontational and likely to make nuclear war more likely. Historian Barbara Tuchman spoke for many liberals when she urged that the West ingratiate itself with the Soviet Union by pursuing “the stuffed-goose option—that is, providing them with all the grain and consumer goods they need.” If Reagan had taken this advice when it was offered in 1982, the Soviet empire would probably be around today.
Reagan’s military buildup and his missile defense program threatened the Soviets with an arms race they could ill afford. The Reagan doctrine of aid to anticommunist guerrillas halted Soviet advances in the Third World: between 1980 and 1985 not an inch of real estate fell into Moscow’s hands and one small country, Grenada, reverted into the democratic camp. Thanks to Stinger missiles supplied by the United States, Afghanistan rapidly became what the Soviets themselves would later call a “bleeding wound.”
Clearly the Politburo saw that the momentum in the cold war had dramatically shifted. After 1985, the Soviets seem to have decided on a new course. It was Reagan, in other words, who was responsible for thwarting Soviet gains and introducing a loss of nerve that contributed to the elevation of Gorbachev to power. Gorbachev’s policies were responses to circumstances created not by him but by Reagan. No wonder that Ilya Zaslavsky, who served in the Congress of People’s Deputies, said later that the true originator of glasnost and perestroika was not Gorbachev but Reagan.
Reagan immediately recognized Gorbachev as a new breed of Soviet leader. He supported Gorbachev’s reforms and arms control initiatives during his second term, when many conservatives criticized him for being naïve and credulous. William F. Buckley, Jr. warned that Reagan’s new stance was “on the order of changing our entire position toward Adolf Hitler.” Columnist George Will mourned that Reagan had “accelerated the moral disarmament of the West by elevating wishful thinking to the status of political philosophy.”
These criticisms missed the larger current of events that Reagan alone appears to have understood. In attempting to reform communism, Gorbachev was destroying the system. Reagan encouraged him every step of the way; as Gorbachev himself joked, Reagan induce him to take the Soviet Union to the edge of the abyss and then take “one step forward.”
The tears of joy with which millions greeted the collapse of the Soviet empire proved that Reagan was entirely justified in calling it an “evil empire.” Even some of who were previously skeptical of Reagan were compelled to admit that they had been wrong and Reagan’s approach had been thoroughly vindicated. Reflecting on Reagan’s complex strategy of initial toughness toward the Soviet Union—in the face of denunciation from liberals—and later support for Gorbachev—in the face of criticism from conservatives—Henry Kissinger called it “the most stunning diplomatic achievement of the modern era.”
Margaret Thatcher composed Reagan’s epitaph when she said that “he won the cold war without firing a shot.” That’s how history will remember him. We who are enjoying the current era of peace brought about by the collapse of the Soviet empire should do Reagan the honor of acknowledging his prescient leadership.
Dinesh D’Souza is author of Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader (Touchstone Books).
Polititians often speak ill of the dead. It does wonders in public opinion polls.Aruman wrote:What excuse are you going to use for what the leaders of countries besides the United States had to say? Bush rattling his sabre?Fesuni Chopsui wrote: Your point is? Kerry does not speak for all Democrats or all liberals
In fact, what the fuck do you EXPECT from a presidential candidate? "Oh, yeah, Reagan was the epitome of conservative fanaticism and today is a day of joy that this man, this monster, this satan-incarnate is dead."
Give me a break, Kerry (regardless of what he really believes) had no choice but to say what he said in rememberance of Reagan because otherwise he would look bad...so don't try spewing this shit out here in an attempt to prove any kind of point or guilt others into rethinking what they've said
Yeah, as experience has shown, our face to face conversations = you apologizing to me.Winnow wrote:A face to face conversation would certainly be different but this is the flamevault and geared toward sporatic responses while slacking off at work or during commercials.
1. LincolnSirton wrote:Ive seen him in the top 5 many times and always in the top 10 already except by the <10% ultra liberal groups:
1) Teddy Roosevelt
2) George Washington
3) FDR
4) Ronald Reagan
5) Thomas Jefferson
6) Lincoln
That line is the only thing in that article I would agree with.Winnow wrote:Here's another viewpoint on Reagan's contribution to the collapse of the Soviet Union. It's a little long but will give some needed background for this thread:
attempting to reform communism, Gorbachev was destroying the system.
<Snip>
Dude you go off half cocked on other people here for posting statements with no back up then do it yourself. Explain to all of us neophytes how communism collapsed including contributing factors.Karae wrote:Yeah, as experience has shown, our face to face conversations = you apologizing to me.Winnow wrote:A face to face conversation would certainly be different but this is the flamevault and geared toward sporatic responses while slacking off at work or during commercials.
You're a punk, end of story.
If you do in fact post something intelligent tomorrow morning...about damn time.
Here's another fact for you, Kylere: I understand Communism, its fall, and all the contributing factors better than you understand the use of a toilet.
