Revisional History?

[Jeffy-CanCon]

I liked Reagan, from day one. I was always a little jealous that he wasn't leader of my country.

...
I have never understood the desire for movie actors to get into politics. Peole with no schooling of economics, politics or even law are elected into some of the highest seats of power at the state and federal level and are expected to do a good job?

...

Reagan entered politics in the 1950s, first as a union organizer in Hollywood. In the 1960's, he was encouraged by others to enter state politics in California, where he later became governor for two terms. That's considerable experience, before becoming President, IMO.
His lack of formal education doesn't seem to have been a handicap. He was a self-made man, and surely he learned more from expereince than a university could teach him.


If you ask the people who lived during Reagan's time, the thing they ususally say first is thet he made Americans feel proud again. He was truly "the Great Communicator" - an inspirational leader whose people did great things, not because of his direction, but because of his encouragement.

He wasn't perfect - no man is. Reagan's most commonly recognized fault is that he tended to delegate maybe too much, and supervise too little. He has always been recognized as a great optimist. He set goals, and deregulated industries, and trusted people to do the right things. That didn't always happen, as in Iran-Contra, and the S&L debacle. Maybe he can be held responsible for that, but he can't be faulted for trying great things.

...
As for how I spoke to Army, talk to me like I'm an idiot and I'll do it back. To insist that I present a signed bill with Reagans name on it to show that he sold rockets to Iran while he goes on claiming that Reagan's insane need to buy more and more weapons is the primary reason for the collapse of Russia is preposterus and insulting.

Reagan, and the USA in general, never sold weapons to Iran. The Israeli's did, with Reagan's permission. Maybe that's not a moral difference, but it is a legal one.

As for how you spoke to Army, you insulted him, and all other soldiers. He didn't talk down to you at all, he just asked for better proof of your allegations. I thionk you owe him (and all other soldiers) an apology.

Here is my answer to why I feel that Reagan was not only one of the worst but one of the worst who will have the longest taint on American government.

First, it is undeniable that he wholly ignored the AIDS issues. Reports of the existance of GRID/AIDS went as far back a 1978. Even after the CDC issued a warning that it was a blood transferred disease Reagan still refused to act thereby putting the rest of the country at risk.

Put aside the lack of funding.
Put aside the lack of public awareness.

REAGAN FAILED TO ACT IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE POPULATION!

...

I have to say, I don't get this fascination you seem to have with AIDS. Reagan made other mistakes, and there are effects of his economic policies that I don't particularly like. That he didn't do all he could to deal with one particular health issue is almost irrelevant. The President of the USA has a lot of things on his plate. For you to say he was a bad President because he didn't deal with your pet issue is very small-minded.

[Hasty8]

I liked Reagan, from day one. I was always a little jealous that he wasn't leader of my country.



Reagan entered politics in the 1950s, first as a union organizer in Hollywood. In the 1960's, he was encouraged by others to enter state politics in California, where he later became governor for two terms. That's considerable experience, before becoming President, IMO.
His lack of formal education doesn't seem to have been a handicap. He was a self-made man, and surely he learned more from expereince than a university could teach him.


If you ask the people who lived during Reagan's time, the thing they ususally say first is thet he made Americans feel proud again. He was truly "the Great Communicator" - an inspirational leader whose people did great things, not because of his direction, but because of his encouragement.

He wasn't perfect - no man is. Reagan's most commonly recognized fault is that he tended to delegate maybe too much, and supervise too little. He has always been recognized as a great optimist. He set goals, and deregulated industries, and trusted people to do the right things. That didn't always happen, as in Iran-Contra, and the S&L debacle. Maybe he can be held responsible for that, but he can't be faulted for trying great things.



Reagan, and the USA in general, never sold weapons to Iran. The Israeli's did, with Reagan's permission. Maybe that's not a moral difference, but it is a legal one.

As for how you spoke to Army, you insulted him, and all other soldiers. He didn't talk down to you at all, he just asked for better proof of your allegations. I thionk you owe him (and all other soldiers) an apology.



I have to say, I don't get this fascination you seem to have with AIDS. Reagan made other mistakes, and there are effects of his economic policies that I don't particularly like. That he didn't do all he could to deal with one particular health issue is almost irrelevant. The President of the USA has a lot of things on his plate. For you to say he was a bad President because he didn't deal with your pet issue is very small-minded.

For you to fail to read, or simply fail to acknowledge, the rest of my concerns is likewise small-minded.

I have, quite clerly too, made it clear that my other problems with him was his gutting of programs required to help the less fortuante in order to pay for his whooly useless defense spending that regardless of what osome say here the majority of thsoe funds simply did not go to increasing the quality of life for our soldiers.

The Bradley, STAR Wars, nuke proliferation and may more are shining examples of Reagan's immense hubris.

Then take in Iran-Contra. The man helped bring about the greatest drug epidemic ever because, again, he just had to have his way. He wanted policy change in Nicaragua so he had the NSC circumvent the law and poison our streets with a dealy drug.

His insane spending on the military has left us with what is probably the greatest waste of natural materials ever as hundreds of unused naval vessels now sit at anchor in mass ship graveyards.

Add to that the manner in which Reagan wholly ignored the impending tidal wave that was the AIDS epidemic and you paint a pretty decent picture of why I choose not to like him.

Yes, hindsight is always 20/20 but from 1978 through 1986 the death toll great at an exponential rate and Reagan just really seemed to ignore it. As for my expereince with it, I think I have a more direct experience with it then most of the other conservatives here.

My mother ran a typesetting business in lower Manhattan throughout the entire 80's and we knew quite a number of people who got the disease.

I have also lost three good friends from it who were no drug using heterosexuals. They contracted the disease through blood transfers. Blood which Reagan inaction allowed CDC warnings and suggestions to go unheeded by the blood banks of America.

While Reagan may have not actually pulled the trigger in a lot of these cases he most certainly loaded the clip and readied the frist roundin the chamber.

Just my point of view and I'm entitled to it.

As for how I spoje to Army, I did not insult all soldiers. In fact I did not even insult him. I called in his ability to think but I did not refer to him as a tool simply becuase of his beliefs and 1DE has done to me numerous times here. If you bothered to read the majority of my posts here and in other threads you will see the I am very proud of our fighting forces. The soldiers at least. I'm not exactly sure at what level it is on the ladder in the miliatry but at some point soliders stop being soldiers and start becoming politicians.

My tone to Army was insulting in response to his post for the following reason.

He wants to have his cake and be able to eat it too.

You made the accusations, now show your facts. We don't want to see a study done by some unknown blowhard leftist dipthong, we want to see hard facts of wrongdoing by Reagan.

Prove he flooded the country with illegal drugs in order to fund right-wing cells in other countries. Show me the congressional record of the committee formed especially to confront this.

Prove he willingly denied the CDC, or any other govt. agency, the means to study a...at the time...disease that wasn't common, nor especially deadly. More people STILL die of the flu, or heart disease, than have died from HIV/AIDS. Why didn't Jimmy Carter do anything about it? Why didn't Clinton with his 8 years, do anything about it?

Prove that he sold arms to Iran, show me the invoice with his signature on it. Telling his people to "take care of it", is a long way from saying specifically to do so.

Why do you think the USSR was in decline? Jimmy's politics? How about trying Reagans steadfastness in the face of the Soviet leadership. How about his threatening to, then deploying the Pershing II medium range missiles? The Soviet spending to counter that brilliant chess move nearly wiped them out. Trying to maintain a multi-ocean blue water Navy that could match or defeat ours was also a near impossibility for the Soviet system. Not to mention our wooing China and Pakistan into our camp. Yes Reagan played a dangerous nuclear game, as were the Soviets...remember the Cuban missile crisis...Mr. Reagan knew that the ONLY thing the Soviets responded to, was a show of resolute force.

Reaganomics was a deal made with the deplorable liberal controlled congress. For every dollar Reagan spent, congress agreed to cut 2 dollars from the budget. This was a gentlemans agreement, but as we all know, liberals ain't too gentlemanly. So, Ron cut our taxes by the widest margin in history, and spent his one dollar. However, congrees did NOT cut their 2 dollars as agreed, but added spending clauses to nearly every bill that came across their desks. This resulted in the huge deficit of the 80's. While the good people were attempting to put America First, liberal politicking was breaking the piggy bank. Despite that, tax incentives to the manufacturing base helped rebuild the US factories into the modern, outstripping the rest of the world in production and services. I remember well the wonderful exchange rate in Europe, when an Army Private could live like a King off-post in Germany with his measly pay. But Reagan fixed that too, with his DOD budget allowing huge pay increases to our military. See, most of all that military spending...was for pay, housing, and recruiting incentives, not for whiz-bang stuff.

These are all FACTS, easily found in any congressional report of the time. I, nor anyone else, made any of it up to discredit.

First, I am not allowed to use any unknown blowhard leftist dipthong facts. Second I have to provide clear and incontrovertable prrof that Reagan was involved in either Iran-Contra, the increase of drug trafficking in Amerika or that he intentionally withheld fudning for AIDS research yet he is more than perfectly allowed to go and rant on about some "gentleman's" agreement mularky between Reagan on Congress? He says that they are all facts yet cannot, or simply will not, post and supporting proof for his "gentleman's agreement" claim.


Sorry bub, but you just can't have it both ways.

I treated it as I took it. Luckily, I happen to live in a country that allows me to be as insulting as I have been insulted for doing something as America as voicing my opinion.
And by the way Army, in case you ever do get around to posting actual facts, I don't want any unknown blowhard rightist dipthong. I want to see hard facts of rightdoing by Reagan.

[PissedGodzilla]

Hey Rooster, no huge comeback for this one huh??? awww too bad... i would have liked to see what you could have said to make yourself sound even more ignorant...

Let's discuss the requirement of an education and the ability for critical though for just a moment, shall we Rooster?




Can you please show me a single paleontologist who has ever once said that humans are decended from monkeys or any other primate? This is a typical retort given by those who refuse to believe anything other than god and his "immaculate creation".

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers --all are related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).

The claim Rooster, is not that we decended from monkeys or any other primate but that all primates (humans and all other monkeys) have a COMMON ANCESTOR!

It is a scientific fact that all the separates humans from the gorillas is less than 2% genetic material, however, that 2% gives us Mozart, Bach, Pasteur, Einstein, Dahmer, Gacy and Hitler.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with our beliefs. That's is your right as a free thinking person and I am not here to try and convert you.

But the least you could do is at least get it right before you make fun of us.

[Rooster]

"Anyone that destroys another persons way of life looses a good-point in my eyes."

LOL! So you feel Al-Quida should have been left alone, and that Nazis were perhaps just a little misguided. There are certain people that need to be removed from existance. Soviets were one of them.

Btw, I'm glad the liberal children have returned. It was hard passing the time without being able to laugh at the ignorance of the modern liberal. If only I could be as simple and as niave as you, but then again, being the scum of the earth has never suited me well.

[-Carnifex-]

Rooster, with your logic one could say, that is if they hated America, that we don't deserve existence either.

[Hasty8]

Hasty you're skewing what people say here.

1DE didn't say that because Clinton was immoral that all democrats are.

He did not say that AIDs was merely a homosexual disease (though the statistics say that it was mostly spread through homosexual males.) Once again, it isn't Reagan's fault people ingaged in unsafe sex. It isn't Reagan's fault that the blood banks didn't heed the words of the CDC.

I may be wrong, but since when was it the president's job to address diseases? I thought that's what the CDC (That's Center For Disease Control for Hasty) was meant for.

It's the PResident's job to act in the best interests of the population. Reagan was certainly knowledgeable that there was a new disease out there and that it could be contracted by bolld transfusion. With that simple knowledge alone he could have easily issued a Presidental Executive ORder forcing the blood banks to screen their supplies.

That on step alone could have easily prevented over 20,000 new cases of AIDS from 1985 to 1993 according to many estimates.

Again, I'm not saying it was entirely his fault and I ahve never said that. I am saying, and have said, that I think he could have done more.

[PissedGodzilla]

YAY!!! more ignorance for me to laugh at!!! let's start....

Anyone that destroys another persons way of life looses a good-point in my eyes."

LOL! So you feel Al-Quida should have been left alone, and that Nazis were perhaps just a little misguided. There are certain people that need to be removed from existance. Soviets were one of them.

Sigh... how ignorant you really are... I love it... Groups such as al-Queada and the Nazi's were out to destroy another persons way of life. You are using yet another bad example... in fact you used the resnon you are wrong as why you think you are right!!! ahahah!!! some people need to go back to school!


Reagan did not destroy the soviets, the destroyed themselves... Learn the facts...

Btw, I'm glad the liberal children have returned. It was hard passing the time without being able to laugh at the ignorance of the modern liberal. If only I could be as simple and as niave as you, but then again, being the scum of the earth has never suited me well.

Scum of the earth is something you are quite good at being, I'm suprised you don't think it suits you well...

Thanks for the entertainment! Got anything else to make me smile today?!?

[Kellen_p8nt]

rooster. Just sut up and listen to yourself. Yea of course i think Nazis were wrong and of course I think Al-Queda is wrong. And that fits perfectly into my statement.

Nazis tryed to exterminate the Jewish way of life=bad

Al-Queda tryed to exterminate our way of life(to generalize)=bad


I am not the *** of the earth Rooster. If anyone is its those that are beligerent and hatefull especially those that single out a part of society and defame and commit aggravated actions be they murder or simply beligerant actions such as yours.

Nazis Singled out Jews to be the scapegoat for the poor economy amongst other things
Al-Queda singled USA out for various reasons
Now you are singling out liberals, all of them.


You like the other two examples are generalizing. Im sure there are americans who disagree with the actions that i imagine we commited to piss al-queda off. But that doesnt matter to them they hate all americans.

There were probably jews ho prior to the Nazi rise to power, were quite friendly and economically beneficial to those that would become Nazis(i in no way blame jews if it sounds like it, im just makign a point) The Nazis ignored the specifics of the individual and instead singled out the Jews.



I have said nothing in any of my posts that wasnt logical or the obvious. Yet you call all liberals scum. You dont know me rooster. And i certainly havnt done anything that should justify you thinking im the scum of the earth.

And note any "attacks" I have made in tis thread have been based on the statements made y those I attack in this thread. SO if you make a fol of yourself by acting beligerant and then i call you beligerant, there is no fault in my argument. Notice I never said all conservatives are this that and the other. I respect and enjoy listening to what most conservatives have to say. My best friend si a conservative who agree with me on everything except one topic. I read the ECONOMIST(which ive been infromed is a fairly consevrative(fiscally) mag).


now lt me explain one other thing. By acting in this way you are making a fool of yourself, which is your right to do. So feel free.

<- your behaviour
almost everyone else on this threads behaviour->

[Hasty8]

rooster. Just sut up and listen to yourself. Yea of course i think Nazis were wrong and of course I think Al-Queda is wrong. And that fits perfectly into my statement.

Nazis tryed to exterminate the Jewish way of life=bad

Al-Queda tryed to exterminate our way of life(to generalize)=bad


I am not the *** of the earth Rooster. If anyone is its those that are beligerent and hatefull especially those that single out a part of society and defame and commit aggravated actions be they murder or simply beligerant actions such as yours.

Nazis Singled out Jews to be the scapegoat for the poor economy amongst other things
Al-Queda singled USA out for various reasons
Now you are singling out liberals, all of them.


You like the other two examples are generalizing. Im sure there are americans who disagree with the actions that i imagine we commited to piss al-queda off. But that doesnt matter to them they hate all americans.

There were probably jews ho prior to the Nazi rise to power, were quite friendly and economically beneficial to those that would become Nazis(i in no way blame jews if it sounds like it, im just makign a point) The Nazis ignored the specifics of the individual and instead singled out the Jews.



I have said nothing in any of my posts that wasnt logical or the obvious. Yet you call all liberals scum. You dont know me rooster. And i certainly havnt done anything that should justify you thinking im the scum of the earth.

And note any "attacks" I have made in tis thread have been based on the statements made y those I attack in this thread. SO if you make a fol of yourself by acting beligerant and then i call you beligerant, there is no fault in my argument. Notice I never said all conservatives are this that and the other. I respect and enjoy listening to what most conservatives have to say. My best friend si a conservative who agree with me on everything except one topic. I read the ECONOMIST(which ive been infromed is a fairly consevrative(fiscally) mag).


now lt me explain one other thing. By acting in this way you are making a fool of yourself, which is your right to do. So feel free.

<- your behaviour
almost everyone else on this threads behaviour->

Kellen, I officially induct you into the "moderate camp". May you forever use the most important muscle in your body and may you forever question both sides of the argument.

[Kellen_p8nt]

ay smiley faces drinking beer.

thansk Hasty I appreciate positive feedback. Actually i appreciate feedback ive generally been ignored in these thread.

[1stdeadeye]

Reagan did not destroy the soviets, the destroyed themselves... Learn the facts...

It happened in a vacuum? They imploded of their own accord? WE BANKRUPTED THEM!!!! Maybe you need to learn some facts.

Hasty8=Collegeboy Wannabe!

[Hasty8]

It happened in a vacuum? They imploded of their own accord? WE BANKRUPTED THEM!!!! Maybe you need to learn some facts.

Hasty8=Collegeboy Wannabe!

Can you please post any facts, just once 1DE? Or is the entireity of your argument based on hypothesis?

And I care about Dead's opinion of me why exactly?

Either have a point to your posts 1DE or don't post at all.

Thanks.

[Hasty8]

Wow! So not only do you give blood five times a day, you also work for the Blood Bank. Id like to know where you get all your information from.


Look, im not saying Reagan was "behind the scenes" fighting for a cure for AIDS.

Im saying, that its bull for you to argue his involvement based on when he first publicly said "AIDS"

Can't you hear how ridiculous that sound?!. "The first time he publicly used the word "AIDS" was in ________<---Insert Date Here"
Even if that was accurate,which im sure its not, how is that any indication as to what he was doing to stop or minimalize the disease.

Taylor.

the President leads the country.

Take for example the issue of stem cell research. This too is a new science, as many here have argued that AIDS was new, as if somehow, AIDS being "new" warranted Reagan's ignoring the topic.

Bush has issued legislation banning federal fudning for stem cell research, saying that it's benefits are not yet known. I happen to disagree with this but at least Bush is not pretending like it doesn't exist.

As for your being sure, you are wrong. Try doing a google search. You'll be amazed at what you can learn.

[cphilip]

Enough already. this is why we don't allow political posts. Too many people tell others to shut up and stuff. Flamming rages is all they ever are

Fact is everyone normaly has made up their minds and not going to change. Good open Debate is never going to truely happen when closed minds enter into it.