Printable View
You bring up Reagan. Can someone please enlighten me and explain what was so great about him. I watched Showtime's "The History of the US" and it didn't paint him as a good president to say the least. The documentary was directed by Oliver Stone, who's liberal I believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebluefood
I'll take a shot at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by DM72
I think Reagan was probably the best leader this country has had since JFK.
And by that I mean that he created (or tapped into) the nation's desire for greatness.
Like his policies or not (and I disagreed with a whole bunch of them), he sure did make Americans proud of their country.
And I think that's a big part of the job.
The Presidency isn't all about deficits and things like that. That's an important part, but it isn't the only part.
He was The Great Communicator. He could tell Gorbachev to GTFO of Eastern Europe and follow it up by inviting him to the White House and charming him and his wife into staying for breakfast.Quote:
Originally Posted by DM72
He told the democrats in congress what he would do. Congress balked. So he told them to pick up line 1, it was the American people demanding to speak to their congressman. Congress caved. Do you think they were mad about it? Hell no. They were as hypnotized by his charm as Gorbachev. Tip O'Neill regularly bought him dinner.
Reagan was a force of personality. In retrospect, I think some of his policies were reckless and stupid. But none of that mattered at the time, he was a great leader and a great President.
His re-election against Mondale I think was one of the most lopsided in the history of the US
Oh, and Oliver Stone is a ****tard. No, seriously, he has made the world a dumber place.
Agreed. Trickle down economics, which as far as I can tell has been the Modus Operandi of both parties at the federal level since him, was awful but there's something to be said for that Head Coach role of a President, to dumb it down significantly. You don't always have to have the best Xs and Os if you can unite and inspire and it's an underrated quality in a President that's not really quantifiable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry
I tend to Reagan is hard to talk about because of what he said vs. what he did vs. what his legacy has become.
Reagan talked and is remembered as an anti-environmentalists, but he suppored and saw an implementation of a ban on CFCs before any other country in the world had signed (where a US only ban wouldn't have done much good) and before a real impact on the US was very iminent.
He also outlined the cap and trade policies that would become part of the Clean Air act (was actually implemented under Bush I).
He talked about (and realistically tried to) massively cut taxes, but actually increased a lot of taxes.
You can see similar things in terms of nuclear test bans.
I think the first 4 years of Reagan were good for the economy. I think the actual policies that were implemented (not necessary the ones that he vocally supported) under Reagan (coupled with what Carter had done to limit inflatoin), did cause an economy to grow that had been pretty stagnant for a decade +. I think parts of his middle east foreign policy for a short time were probably good and necessary.
His foreign policy with respect to the Soviet Union was probably very bad from the start. He completely over estimated the threat of the Soviet Union even pre-Gorbachev.
The last 4 years were pretty blah to down right brutal.
Going back to the original subject, it should be made clear that Jindal was not talking about making the GOP's policies less shortsighted and regressive, just that politicians have to stop being so blunt about admitting what the GOP platform really says and means.
What a bull :pooh: characterization of "those liberals in the national media." :doh:Quote:
Jindal said:
I am not one of those who believe we should moderate, equivocate or otherwise abandon our principles... This badly disappoints many of the liberals in the national media, of course. For them, real change means: supporting abortion on demand without apology, abandoning traditional marriage between one man and one woman, embracing government growth as the key to American success, agreeing to higher taxes every year to pay for government expansion, and endorsing the enlightened policies of European socialism.
More importantly, it shows that Jindal isn't concerned with any of the GOP's policies - just with how they are being presented. "Stand for the same stupid things, just don't come across as so stupid when you do so."
Well, we've heard that strategy (keep pushing the same ****, just don't be honest about it) before.
Heck, I think I heard it from W.
While he certainly did overestimate the Soviet threat, the same could be said of every other post-war President outside of maybe Eisenhower. Furthermore, he always found the right balance between keeping Gorby engaged, but never blinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterMP
I actually think economically his 2nd term was better - the combination of the 86 tax reform act coupled with the Gramm-Rudmann act cut the deficit nearly in half. Miller was the best budget director the GOP has had since Chuck Colson, as opposed to Stockman and dastardly Dick Darman (the absolute worst pre-GWB) who botched it his first term. Unfortunately, all the progress he made was undermined by Poppa Bush, who in his first budget in 89 intentionally cooked the books to sabotage Gramm Rudmann so he could justify breaking his no new taxes pledge. Whereas Reagan took out 10,000 pages of costly regulation, GHB added 20,000 more. Just as John Major undid most of Thatcher's work, the Bush family are whom I hold responsible for undoing Reagan's legacy and turning the party into a bunch of Neo-Nixonian theocrats.
Reagan should also get credit for starting the Uruguay round of GATT talks and proposing NAFTA, though both accomplishments would take until the Clinton administration (my 2nd favorite President of my lifetime) to materialize.
Cruz is stupid now?Quote:
Originally Posted by zoony
as far as Perry ya left out prosperous , it ain't stupid if it works.
If Jindal is talking about stop being stupid. Look at this piece of legislation that is being introduced in Arizona.
But guess who warns against this?Quote:
Public high school students in Arizona will have to “recite an oath supporting the U.S. Constitution” to receive a graduation diploma, if a new bill introduced in the new session of the state legislature is passed and signed into law. The measure, House Bill 2467, was offered by Rep. Bob Thorpe (R), a freshman tea party members who also backs a bill preventing state enforcement of federally enacted gun safety laws.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...loyalty-oaths/Quote:
Constitutional experts warn that both proposals are unconstitutional. As American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona Public Policy Director Anjali Abraham explained, “You can’t require students to attend school … and then require them to either pledge allegiance to the flag or swear this loyalty oath in order to graduate. It’s a violation of the First Amendment.”
This is a stupid bill that is trying to be passed in Arizona.
Arizona is as Arizona does....
There must be something in the water in Arizona.
I didn't watch it, but on my xfinity home page there's a video titled "Fox Says Goodbye to Palin" so maybe someone's listening to Bobby. :pfft:
---------- Post added January-26th-2013 at 02:02 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riggo-toni
http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s...teh-stupid.jpg
---------- Post added January-26th-2013 at 02:02 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riggo-toni
http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s...teh-stupid.jpg
1. Carter might have over estimated the Soviets, but he did so to a much less extent. Just look at their priorites in terms of foreign policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Riggo-toni
2. Reagan clearly was the person that brought the religious right into the Republican party. He took the Goldwater coaltion, which wasn't enough to win elections and added the religious right to win elections. Bush (I) was never comfortable with them with him.
3. How much of the regulations were tied to issues with the S&L crisis and similar issues (which the '86 tax reform also contributed to)?
4. Nobody believes that Gramm-Rudman had much of an impact beyond bringing the deficiet to the forefront in terms political understanding.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-again/303805/
Everyone complains that the Republicans are making a mistake by ignoring growing minorities and yet people in this thread are cheering that some in the GOP are trying to abandon the stupid? Crazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jumbo
:evilg: