Goopers Would Rather Have a Dead Reagan Than Romney or McCain
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTiIXmLlZR4[/youtube]
Connect
Connect with us on the following social media platforms.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTiIXmLlZR4[/youtube]
Connect with us on the following social media platforms.
Pardon us if we would like to have America’s greatest President back with us again. The idiot that put this video together gave the premise that IF Reagan WAS alive, would you vote for him. He then proceeeds to say that the GOP would rather had a dead guy then there current president. In other words, they prefer a LIVE Reagan over the current candidates. However I am sure they would all vote for a DEAD Reagan over any of the crappy wastes of good oxygen vying for the Donkey nomination. I know I would.
Pardon us if we would like to have America’s greatest President back with us again.
Good one!
Repubs apparently love Presidents that set records in growing government, ballooning the deficit and debt, fund tax cuts for rich people w/ borrowed money, increase defense spending beyond military necessity, raid the taxpayer treasury on behalf of big corporations, and also commit many war crimes in foreign nations, etc.
No, I’m not talking about the record of the protégé George Bush. I’m talking about his teacher, the last Gooper Prez to set many of these records: Ronald Reagan.
What Barack Obama said!
Obama merely pointed out that the American people had bought into this political machine, to their great detriment, ever since the GOP put forth Reagan, the great communicator
“the protégé George Bush.”
Truly laughable. Bush was RNC chairman, ambassador to China, and head of the CIA all while Reagan was a former Governor of California.
Bush and his ilk were foisted on Reagan in ’80 (recall Reagan wanted Gerald Ford to consider being his VP) by James Baker and his fellow Bushies, who threatened at the ’80 convention to squelch Reagan’s campaign, namely by drying up money resources over which they had immense control.
The idea that “brown shoe boy” George Bush, a skull-and-bones Yalie, budding scion of the “eastern establishment”, and whose father had recruited Richard Nixon into politics…was a “protege” of Reagan is worthy of guffaws from any serious student of history.
Also notice how the Reagan scandals involved Central America and the middle east…the Bush clique’s bailiwicks. Bush ran amok behind the scenes in the Reagan administration, creating all kinds of problems for the “boss” including with Bush’s man Ollie North. Why do you think Nancy Reagan so detested George Bush, and even snubbed the whole family for the Reagan funeral? She knew the deal.
“Bush and his ilk were foisted on Reagan in ‘80….”
Yes, the great president was a victim and had no choices.
“by James Baker and his fellow Bushies, who threatened at the ‘80 convention to squelch Reagan’s campaign, namely by drying up money resources over which they had immense control”
You do have me there. Nothing makes a Gooper surrender his principals like a little green. Although I think it’s doubtful that Goopers would have effectively given a 2nd term to Carter because George Sr. wasn’t the VP.
“Also notice how the Reagan scandals involved Central America and the middle east…the Bush clique’s bailiwicks. Bush ran amok behind the scenes in the Reagan administration, creating all kinds of problems for the “boss” including with Bush’s man Ollie North”
Actually, this hurts your case. It’s well documented that many of the techniques employed by the Bush Jr. administration to garner and sustain support for its wars and to employ effective disinformation were forged and refined in the laboratory of Central America during the Reagan years. Bush Jr. hired many of Reagan’s appointees for that purpose.
Both Reagan and Bush Jr. curried the active support of the USA religious right in pursuit of its foreign and military policy aims. The Reagan years became a template for the Bush years.
There’s a great book on the topic.
http://www.amazon.com/Empires-Workshop-America-Imperialism-American/dp/0805077383/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
“Why do you think Nancy Reagan so detested George Bush, and even snubbed the whole family for the Reagan funeral? She knew the deal.”
I seem to recall him speaking at the funeral; he broke out in tears when he did so.
“Although I think it’s doubtful that Goopers would have effectively given a 2nd term to Carter because George Sr. wasn’t the VP.”
And I thought you would have known by now how the Bushes do business. Guess not. If the Bushes can’t have a seat at the power table, no other Republican should either. That’s the way they roll. Loyalty is their only “honor”.
“Nothing makes a Gooper surrender his principals like a little green”
Oh that’s right, it’s only the GOP presidential candidates who use money to run campaigns. Get a grip on reality, Dana, and get back to me.
Big stakes politics don’t operate in your socialist ga-ga world. Never have. Your (current) party is no exception. Seems to me your party’s two “front runners” can’t grab enough corporate money fast enough can they?
I recall it was a DEMOCRAT who said “money is the mother’s milk of politics.” In fact, it was a Democrat who routinely lambasted Reagan.
“I seem to recall him speaking at the funeral; he broke out in tears when he did so.”
Yeah, he has been blubbering about a lot in recent years. He should be.
God sometimes I wonder whether you are just totally naive or purposefully blind.
“Bush Jr. hired many of Reagan’s appointees for that purpose.”
Nice circular logic. Bushies were suffused into Reagan’s administration as appointees…like James Baker. That was practically the whole point of what I wrote.
Believe it or not, Dana, serving under Reagan did not change these people from being “Bushies” and if/when they joined Jr.’s administratrion, they were far more at home than under Reagan. There was and still is plenty of tension between the true Reagan crowd and the Bushies. There are also a good number of Reagan appointees who have lambasted Jr. pretty damn hard.
Nevertheless, Reagan is responsible and also took responsibility for his administration. I do agree with you he should have stood up to the Bushies and dumped them over the side in ’80. They almost became his undoing.
“Seems to me your party’s two “front runners” can’t grab enough corporate money fast enough can they?”
I don’t know that Obama takes corporate money, but I know he doesn’t take money from lobbyists. In any case, you support someone who takes money from Nazis, KKKers, and their ilk: Ron Paul and refuses to give it back to them when he knows they’ve done it.
“God sometimes I wonder whether you are just totally naive or purposefully blind.”
Stick it, Tyler. I already know your conspiracy theory, one of several you entertain, about Bush blackmailing Reagan to become VP is pure hooey. I watched the convention that night while the news commentator announced that Reagan had approached Ford about VP, a co-presidency it was called. Jessie Helms was being interviewed at the moment. He was upset and made noises about Reagan losing conservative support if Ford got on the ticket. That was all it took. Jessie Helms spoke for the Gooper south. He had more power than Bush had w/ all his kooky alliances to trilateral commissions and Yale secret societies sand other buzz terms that set you conspiracy kooks off notwithstanding.
Change the subject all you want. Meander off topic all you want. Throw in all the garbage you just now found with a quick Google search to come up with an answer that sounds knowledgeable. Tell us how the live coverage makes you “watched…that night” makes you an authority. Basically, you are full of it and so are your broad brush ad hominem guilt-by-association smears. Try reading some history besides your left wing revisionist tripe, for a change.
Your increasingly unhinged attacks on everyone who challenges your ad hoc pronouncements are the work of your own paranoia. Just about everything you write these days is a conspiracy theory, but I am familiar with all the ones you entertain, because we are all entertained by them….evil businesspeople, GOP cabals, everyone is out to get Hugo Chavez – the Venezuelan savior you so worship, there is an anti-unionist behind every tree, lawyers and realtors taking kickbacks on title insurance (?!?). The list goes on.
Again, you obviously are clueless about how the Bushes operate, even when it is splashed across the headlines of the daily news. But go ahead and change your position to defend the Bushes. They are just innocuous politicians like any other dynastic family eh? Okey doke.
By the way, bash Reagan all you want Comrade Dana.The public disagrees with your sour bitchiness….in droves.*
1. George Washington (94% favorable)
2. Abraham Lincoln (92% favorable)
3. Thomas Jefferson (89% favorable)
4. Theodore Roosevelt (84% favorable)
5. Franklin D. Roosevelt (81% favorable)
6. John F. Kennedy (80% favorable)
7. John Adams (74% favorable)
8. James Madison (73% favorable)
9. Ronald Reagan (72% favorable)
10. Dwight Eisenhower (72% favorable)
* From a Rasmussen Reports poll taken June 13-24 of 2007 amongst 1,000 randomly selected adults to rate America’s presidents.
“I don’t know that Obama takes corporate money, but I know he doesn’t take money from lobbyists.”
Yeah, sure. He just lets them bundle donations for him.
http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/candidate.cfm?CandidateID=C0009
(Next up from Dana : Accusing me of being “racist” for daring question Obama’s fundraising)
Tyler,
Tell me is a homemaker a lobbyist? One of the persons mentioned on the list is a homemaker by profession.
And the person whose profession is listed as “unknown,” is that secret code for “lobbyist?” (Now don’t go crazy w/ those words “secret code.” )
Are all people who work Citigroup registered lobbyists? Can’t people who work for citigroup contribute to campaigns and join other people (and we don’t even know if they did so w/ people from the same company or an industry related PAC) and contribute to a campaign?
You are either dumb or a gutter cheap shot artist. You have offered NO EVIDENCE that any of these people are professional lobbyists and even if so, the contributions they gave were part of their official lobbying activity. NONE.
Besides, Tyler, you are in no position to cast stones. You arguably helped put a white supremacist on the DE GOP primary ballot this year, one who gets donations from avowed racists through racist websites like StormFront. And when the Ron Paul organization is told about it, they refuse to ask the racist group to remove their official Ron Paul contribution link and won’t return one penny from the racists that contribute to his campaign.
So don’t think for one second you are in a position to lecture anyone. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
But do tell, Tyler? Have you discovered the Obama link to 9/11 yet? I’m sure one of the 9/11 truthers must have the scoop by now.
Well Dana,
You have done it again, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
The little known fact is Paul is running on Thomas Jefferson’s platform. If you do not like the man it is one thing, but if you do not like the message what does that mean?
I want you to look up Jeffersonian Democracy.
I for one like Jeffersonian Democracy. I also want you to take a quick look at Republicanism. Not the typical Republican Party type, but the real thing. There is a world of difference there.
I think Obama and Paul both have a good idea of what Republicanism is…
But you need to be careful about throwing around aspersions, they can come back to haunt you. So what if a minority of the guy’s donors are nut jobs. The majority are just hardworking normal people and many, many African Americans support his message. Because they know that his message of fulfilling the promise of the Constitution is exactly the prescription that MLK gave. “The constitution is a promissory note that remains to be fulfilled…”
Hillary and Obama both have some nut jobs too. Like Andrew Card for one, and more than a few others, not to mention the fact the Hillary is friends with our favorite, Rupert Murdoch. Think YUK!
Obama is not immune from fund raising scandals too. There are some fringe groups that prefer him too. I could lay them out here, but I prefer not to do so as it would embarrass my friends who support him with such passion. I like their passion for their candidate.
But I can point out one nut job, Amiri Baraka the poet Laureate of New Jersey until his 9/11 poem caused such a scandal. Who does he support? I wonder. Ok. Chill dude.
I like Tyler’s passion for political debate too. I like your passion for debate too. But man, you are going off and need to relax the ideology.
One other thing I can point out both Hillary and Obama are in the DLC. John Edwards is not. Do you see the difference in the way the media treats them? I certainly do. Ever wonder why that is? Go to the DLC website and look around for a while. Read the economic reports.
So yes there is underhanded stuff on both sides and enough to go around!
But I am a little confused, is your fear of Jefferson’s message or the fact that someone has energized people who have never been involved in politics before? You could argue Obama has done the same…and I could make the same argument here about him. Is that the real reason you want to beat the hell out of Tyler all the time? Every time I read your post it is either Tyler Nixon sucks, or you all suck, or you nut jobs.
Let’s raise the standards here.
If Obama and Edwards win it will be interesting to see how we deal with economic problems. If Paul wins well, we will be headed back toward the American economic system and away from John Keynes’. If Hillary or Rudy or Bloomberg win we are all screwed.
I shit you not.
So, please show some consideration and do not think I am some- in your words- “trilateral commission kook” for enjoying listening to a person talk about Jeffersonian democracy, free markets, an atmosphere of liberty, peace, etc. Those are fundamental to Jefferson’s idea of what makes a republican government and they are exceptionally good messages all the time.
That message is as perfect today as the day it was first written.
If you continue in this way, you will lose support from inside your party and you are alienating support by just belching out the same old platitudes. I just got a call from a friend who I got interested in this site because he is a Democrat asking about your exchange here; he said that your opening salvo is the typical “Washington DC bullshit politics” and is back to TV land.
Thanks Dana. Way to steal defeat from the jaws of victory. Just when I thought I was going to bring a new voice into this discussion. Way to shut the people up. Thanks.
Kick the acerbic tone down a few notches. I would like to see us raise the standards in political discourse not eviscerate them.
“You arguably helped put a white supremacist on the DE GOP primary ballot this year, one who gets donations from avowed racists through racist websites like StormFront.”
Apologies to Brian, but I am going to have to hit back hard here.
Arguably? By who? A jackass smear artist repeating the same tripe like a badly skipping Pat Boone record?
It’s called PROOF. Bring it, bitch. Donations? From “they”??
(Oh and from a credible source, please, not Delaware Watch or another similarly hyped-up leftie smear job site, thank you very much.)
You ought to be ashamed of yourself but you obviously have none, nor any self-respect with the fantastic unsubstantiated drivel you actually write under your name these days.
Lecture others? Nah. You have appointed yourself to that unending mind-numbing-for-the-rest-of-us task, Dana.
As far as Obama, so no lobbyists bundle up nice fat donations for him? Chrissakes, try actually READING something besides your own posts, for a change. And what the hell does Obama have to do with 9/11?!?
You become more and more unintelligible with every comment.
Dana- You do need to be ashamed now.
Brian, no use arguing with Dana about Jefferson. To Dana he is just an 18th century slave-owning white supremacist fossil with antiquated notions and extreme ideas about things like “individual liberty” as the fount of “human rights”. Talk up Marx or Chavez or Castro or Lenin or (bow your heads) Chomsky and you will be in like Flynn.
Well, Chavez is actually a big fan of Jefferson, and his General Baduel is a huge fan of Jefferson and Patton. Chavez is also a big fan of Bolivar and Bolivar was a biggest fan of Jefferson ever. There is a great statue of Bolivar in Washington DC. Bolivar launched the largest revolution in the history of the world against Spanish Colonialism from Venezuela modeled after Jefferson. And established the first republic of Venezuela. Chavez named his movement the 5th republic after the fall of the four repbulics Venezuela has had without a constitution, and institued the consitution of Venezuela with the same civil liberties we used to enjoy. He modeled it on Jefferson and Bolivar. So there is a connection between them. Not the rest.
I do not know about Castro except that he likes a Hillary ticket. He said so in Granma. But that would give him leverage becuase Hil-0 will maintain the embargo and keep his regin stable while Raul takes power. Once the embargo is gone, the reason for him to be in power is gone too, and the island gets more democratic. So this is understandable. If Hil-o will keep up the tension it will be harder for him to keep his family in power. But think of it, Hill-o and the Bushies are like dynasties too.
So there is a connection there, every world leader has their own candidate I guess. But as to the other stuff, Dana needs to tone it down. He is all attack and has a nack for alienating people who would otherwise be turned on by politics and this site when he gets off on these kind of negative partisan arguments. So let’s keep the personal dispute you two have out of it and focus on the issues. The issue is Ron Reagan.
Sorry, I said, “Harder” It will be easier to keep his family in power if Hill-o keeps up the tension. Embargo gone, and the democracy will come out. Castro needs Hil-o or whoever to maintain the embargo to keep power. It is a rallying point for Cubans to say the embargo…embargo gone, then the power structure changes.
The issue is not Lenin. And not Tyler.
It is the Issues not the people.
Dana if you just want to bitch go ahead, but tone it down and do not rake this rascist shit through the coals. It is low to target supporters.
Especially when every single fucking party is at fault. I would be remiss if I did not tell you that it is our democratic party that kept slavery going and in Dela2ware kept it illegally going even in 1883…. It was one of my relatives John Hunn an evil Republican who ended it in 1905! So if you want to bitch about something or show me how touchy feely you are, ask Obama to revoke the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, or the other Bush acts that suck. Let’s talk about that.
So you can either admit there are good people and bad people on both sides of the poltical divide or we can contiue to create apathetic young people and fuck our republican system of government with bitching about our supporters. I do not give a shit who supports you, I give a shit about who influences your decisions.
Fuck; I mean Obama likes Reagan for the way he could communicate. Ron Paul said he likes Obama and that Martin Luther King, Gandhi and Rosa Parks are his heroes. Bet that won him some votes among his all his “rascist” supporters. Thanks again Dana.
You want to know a secert? Why do marginalized people like them both? Becuase there are a shit-load of marginalized people! Are you going to pick on one group and marginalize them into more radical positions? Well you aleinated a black kid today Dana. Good job.
I want to support the person that ladyboys and wierdo’s, businessmen and workers, old people and guys on fucking stilts support- but not Rudy- even if he gets a dog to walk on stilts- if you look you will find people who want change and a free society in either the Obama or Paul camp.
You will not find them in Hil-o’s and you will not find them in McCain’s.
What I do not want is Hillary, or Rudy 0r Bloomberg or McCain or the Huckabeast. If we get any one of them we are fucked. And I think you know it. So please guys let’s debate the issues….do not just slam each other.
Reagan:
Make southern whites feel comfortable voting for him by stating the Civil Rights Act humiliated these people. White Makes Right – Check!
Succeeded in rolling back programs which helped low and middle-income families with day-to-day issues and education. White Makes Right – Check!
Like any Great Leader, he had the incredible foresight to understand problems before they became all too real. Such as the awesome decision to remove the Carter’s Solar Panels from the White House the first week on the job, not for eliminating the free power source, but for what those panels represented….Way to go Ronnie – you fvcking asshat! – Check!
As time passes Raygun’s veneer has been coming off at an incredible pace. In 20 years, his greatest accomplishment might just be fooling average Americans in voting against their social and economic interests, while solidifying the bastard collaboration between Fundies, Big-business, and gun-nut xenophobes. But to the rest of us, he’s nothing more than a Face man, a snake oil salesman.
Von,
That is really funny.
Yeah, and creating the 30 years of nearly uninterrupted, low-inflation economic growth that followed? Plus, who really wanted to win the Cold War without firing a few nukes and killing a whole bunch of people?
That Reagan really WAS an asshat.
FSP – Wha????
We all know the pope had more influence on the collapse of the Soviet state than Raygun. Ultimately, it was the Soviet elite that killed the state. Living like kings and spending money on unnecessary weaponry hastened its collapse.
Bonzo’s domestic policies increased poverty and crime rates to a historic level – so, I guess to a rethug, he is The Bestest Evvaarrrr….
It seams you’re equating the rise in the stock market to across-the-board economic growth. If that’s the case, then you really don’t know what you’re talking about – growth maybe for the have-mores, but not the have-nots.
That growth you’d like to claim for Asshat, really came about during the first Clinton term when he raised taxes on the wealthy – you know – making them pay their fair share. What happened when those taxes were repealed by Chimpy the Younger? Well, it ain’t the salad days, now is it?
We are all damn lucky Reagan didn’t blow up the world.
One little-acknowledged front of the Cold War was fought over energy prices. The Soviet Union is an exporter of gas and oil, so during the Arab embargoes the price of gas and oil went up and the Soviets were able to expand their military and they began challenging the US on the seas and launched their adventure in Afghanistan.
But one effect, intentional or not, of Reagan’s pro-drilling, pro-consumption policies was the lowering of oil price and therefore a sudden reduction in Soviet revenue.
This also explains why Bush Sr. was cozying up to the Saudi Royal family; at the time we needed them to create an artificial oversupply of oil to starve the Soviets of cash.
“Bonzo’s domestic policies increased poverty and crime rates to a historic level”
By what measure?
“That growth you’d like to claim for Asshat, really came about during the first Clinton term when he raised taxes on the wealthy – you know – making them pay their fair share.”
The “wealthy” pay most of the income taxes, so I’d say they’re paying their ‘fair share.’
Plus, since 1982, we’ve only had five QUARTERS where economic growth was in the red.
GDP growth rose more under Reagan than under Clinton.
Are you right about anything?
Dear Democommies,
Discussing Glorious St. Reagan is the straight path to Hero Mukasey’s re-education centers. The founder of this Glorious Conservative Cultural Revolution is the Hero of all Heroes.
Hero Chris speaks only the truth.
You progresso-nazis are going to find it considerably harder to do your work wearing orange jump suits and flip-flops at Gitmo.
Average GDP growth under Clinton was 3.7%.
Average GDP growth under Reagan was 3.4%.
The crazy 4. whatever figure wingnuts like to bandy about for Reagan cherrypicks out the first Reagan fiscal year, when growth was -2%. But even if we allow that, we have to redo the Clinton figs to take out his first year recovering from the Bush I recession which would likely make the Clinton number better.
Oh well, FSP, I guess you’re not right again….Wha-wha-wha-whaaaaaa. But you’re conviction of misplaced righteousness cannot be questioned.
Now about those misnomers about the wealthy contributing more than their fair share to the tax coffers….
Dollar for dollar that may be the case, but the shear amount of tax dollar usage falls onto the wealthy, including the ones falling just below that income bracket. Simply put, they uses more tax resources ($$$) than their poorer counterparts. You just still conveniently believe that all tax moneys go to black, Cadillac-driving, welfare queens who have an abortion once a month. That’s actually pittance compared to the Wealthy’s usage of infrastructure and how they benefit from military spending which keep their business interests either alive or to fortify its stranglehold on the national/world market.
Yeah, fair share….
Clinton’s real GDP growth (2000 dollars) for 8 years was 32%; Reagan’s was 36%.
And Clinton benefitted from Reagan’s policies, while Reagan inherited stagflation. Please, people.
uhhh, Clinton inherited and eliminated Reagan’s deficits. Clinton paid Reagan’s bills.
“The “wealthy” pay most of the income taxes, so I’d say they’re paying their ‘fair share.’”
Fair share of what – their income? or Treasury revenue? there’s the blur you guys like to create.
Fair share of WHAT?
Dogless likes Obama. Dogless likes Paul. But nobody cares about a man without a dog.
I have been made an alien.
Notice the self-imposed ignorance and the quick change of direction….
Shorter FSP: “It is because we say it is! Facts be damned! I don’t know what “Gross” means but it has to be the tops!”
Gross don’t mean shit if there’s a massive spending deficit on the other side, einstein.
“uhhh, Clinton inherited and eliminated Reagan’s deficits. Clinton paid Reagan’s bills.”
Sorry but reality is that the GOP Congress (104-106) inherited and eliminated the (40yr) Democratic Congresses’ deficits…until Gingrich left and W came along.
Clinton gets credit too, but he was hardly the prime mover on deficit reduction, just as Reagan was not the prime mover on deficit spending.
The GOP Congresses from 2001-2006 were disgraceful….spending like drunken Democrats did under Tip(sy) O’Neill. (Although did not the Democrats control the Senate for some of those years?).
With the Democrats now in control of Congress I can see now why the sudden shift to “the President runs up the deficits”, whereas for years it was the “GOP Congress runs up deficits”.
Sorry folks, you can’t have it both ways. Congress writes the budgets. I will take the lumps for the GOP Congresses of ’00-’06 but we also get credit for the Gingrich-led GOP Congresses eliminating the deficit. The problem is big government Republicans (since we know there is no other type of Democrat no?).
Tyler, why not just come out and say that whenever something good happens, credit goes to whoever the ranking Republican is at the time. And whenever something bad happens, blame the ranking Democrat.
Clinton was able to eliminate the deficit because of revenue growth, not spending cuts. I dont think spending was actually cut, just controlled.
And revenue grew because the Clinton tax increases showed the financial markets the US was finally serious about paying down the Reagan structural deficits, which were threatening economic fundamentals.
plenty of those deficits were caused by the absurd amount of military spending, etc…in order to keep the Communism at bay, or so we’re told unless one would appear to be anti-american or a commie sympathizer….
…back then though, the Dems didn’t give a fuck – they were going to get theirs, since nixon and raygun played their trump cards, so did the Dems.
During the 90s, the lack of a commie boogeyman gave both the GOP and Dems the opportunity to take those moneys and start balancing the budget. But now since the warring and the spending have re-commenced…..
That, and the fair share of taxes paid by the wealthy.
And let’s not forget, the reason the Gingrich congress could puff out their chests about controlling spending was that they were on the cusp of the boom created by the Clinton deficit control, and didn’t have to worry so much about funding Reagan-era legacies like homelessness and unemployment.
The GOP Gingrich-era fiscal discipline was never really challenged, because they were riding the wave of prosperity created by the emerging Clinton boom. Welfare reform is easy when your nation is in a jobs boom.
“Tyler, why not just come out and say that whenever something good happens, credit goes to whoever the ranking Republican is at the time. And whenever something bad happens, blame the ranking Democrat.”
Sorry anon, that is your typical game (in reverse). Since you always trot out that old saw, what do you expect from the other side.
I give Clinton credit, just not the same you do. I give Republicans blame and just did, but you won’t give them credit under any circumstance.
So if I happen to call attention to or answer the flaws of your all anti-GOP all the time jive, please spare me the accusations that I am somehow the same level of blind partisan you are. When I start any conversation off by blasting Democrats anywhere, feel free to call me a liar and a hypocrite. Until then, don’t drag people into the mud with you and then call them dirty.
“Clinton deficit control”
Get real, anon. You are a rank partisan. But revise away.
We all know your rap: GOP = ALL BAD, CLINTONS = ALL GOOD.
OK. Thanks.
cough, cough
Iran Contra
cough cough
and FSP you make yourself look foolish when you say Reagan brought the walls down and ended the cold war. Pluuuheeease. What a maroon.
Didn’t Reagan have Alzheimers too? how come we forget that little nugget during his presidency…wait, I made a funny there…alzheimers and forget…
the great thing about the Bush Recession is it is going to be ALL his…
“Reagan-era legacies like homelessness and unemployment.”
Excuse me but HAH.
I get the distinct impression you are pretty young, anon.
Such an obviously skewed and distorted revision of history demonstrates you have been reading too much anti-GOP paraphernalia and never actually lived through that era.
No wonder people are digging Obama over the Clinton spew machine like we see from anon. Obama can give credit to a guy like Reagan. He doesn’t need to constantly attack and destroy the opposition. Good riddance the Clintons. (And the Bushes too…..I am looking right atcha donviti).
wink wink newt lover
Funny that you actually believe Obama was giving Raygun praise. He was ripping him, and while doing so, said he admired Ronnie’s ability to bring groups together to vote for him even though the policies he was advocating had and would eventually hurt those same voters.
Again, with all snake oil or used cars pitchmen – bait and switch.
Tyler, you may be smarter than me but you aren’t older. I saw the picture of you standing in the middle of a crowd in robotic Ronnie worship (on the parental dime?) while I was out bouncing from one entry-level layoff to another in the Reagan economy.
If you were in fact working, and weren’t in the upper economic ranks, most of the Reagan years were economically quite harsh.
And if you thing RR had any luck with deficits, you were just not paying attention. In Reagan’s last two years deficits were in fact heading down, but Reagan had built a Republican economy that could only survive with new infusions of debt, and that is exactly what happened during the Bush Sr. administration. Which is why Clinton won in 1992. Remember Ross Perot flipping his deficit charts? He wasn’t lying.
You. sir. are the revisionist.
1980 was the first election I voted in, and the first time (but not the last) that I had the pleasure of voting against a religious-right, supply-side Republican. Sad to say Reagan was the best of that lot, because he at least compromised and governed.
I thought of Obama’s position more as a statement about the American people than about Reagan per se.
DEMs had a solidly corrupt congress in place for a long, long time when the GOP brought Reagan’s oratory skills into play. The America Joe was taken in by the promises made (not kept, as we know). Clinton would not have been able to break that lock without the help of the third party candidate. By and large, the reason Clinton took the left to the center was that it was the only way to win.
The 80’s were good to a lot of people. And the Republican’s dream greed machine kept promising just enough to keep the unwary in a rosy haze Meanwhile, they borrowed the capital that kept the pain at a distance – just as they are doing today.
Obama was correct. He never said that the ideas were good.
I agree that he worked around question one but wasn’t that something that Bill had been saying all week even though Hillary didn’t say it during the debate?
I think that DEM candidates can bring the American Jane’s head up out of the sand by talking about exactly where their faith in GOPer talking points has gotten them. Spell it the fuck out.
Hillary should embrace this discussion and denote how she intends to be a different leader than Bill.
He owns NAFTA and China/India’s rise which have hurt the American middle class.
“while I was out bouncing from one entry-level layoff to another”
I’m sure that was all Reagan’s fault too. Nothing to do with your smack talking attitude and whining about how the Republicans ruined your life.
Try some milk with those cookies, anonny.
But thanks, now we know you are bitter AND old, to match.
VC – I said Obama gave Reagan credit, not praise. Unlike all of the people here whining about the political landscape nearly 30 years ago, Obama recognizes that Reagan was effective. You can bitch about him all you want. You are in a small minority of Americans.
Hey, at least I have so far avoided peddling my ass on blogs, with a cheezy AOL address no less.
Yeah, you are too craven to even use your name, anon. Are the big bad Republicans going to get you if you do? Oh…nanny boo boo.
Nice spelling too, retard. I am glad you like my email address, but we can all tell you’re not bitter.
You are right TPN…. no joke, it’s not fair for me to reference your work while I am anon. Won’t do it again.
I still think you and a lot of your peers are seeing Reagan through an adolescent fog, though.
Fair enough, anon. Thanks. I admit Reagan inspired me as a youth. I also admit he made plenty of mistakes and had throwback views in many areas. But I also don’t think he is the evil overlord many portray him as. I think his basic ethos were admirable and his heart was good, even if his policies and choices had flaws. But then whose don’t? Anyhow, Peace.