We need more Reagans

clone him someone

I agree, Reagan was one of our greatest presidents.  His death was a true tragedy.

I spent all of the 80's playing video games and watching cartoons.  Not sure if anything else happened in that decade.

>>3
yeah, bringing down the berlin wall was really nothing...

his death wasn't a tragedy, it'd be a tragedy if he died when he got shot, but the man was old and feeble.  He was suffering, death was good for him.


we just need a president who isn't going to bullshit us.  Gerald Ford would get my vote right now.

Amen, more Reagans would make not just america more safer, but like it did in the past, the rest of the world.  RIP Ronnie.

Also:

Does anyone remember the movie in the 80's called "Red Dawn"?

It was about an invasion from Russia. How funny it was that teenagers were the main ones to fight against the army because the grownups, political members, etc... just blew it off as couldn't be really happening.

WELL HISTORY/ART REPEATS ITSELF, BUT THIS TIME IT IS CALLED "BROWN DAWN".

HOW SIMILAR, ALMOST WORD FOR WORD, OF HOW IT IS HAPPENING NOW.

>>5

Amen, but he is also really sick, from what I understand.

isn't there any more real men that could become a president anymore.

Ronnie was the last and every since then, America has been in trouble.



Does anyone remember the movie in the 80's called "Red Dawn"?

It was about an invasion from Russia. How funny it was that teenagers were the main ones to fight against the army because the grownups, political members, etc... just blew it off as couldn't be really happening.

WELL HISTORY/ART REPEATS ITSELF, BUT THIS TIME IT IS CALLED "BROWN DAWN".

HOW SIMILAR, ALMOST WORD FOR WORD, OF HOW IT IS HAPPENING NOW.

>>7
"isn't there any more real men that could become a president anymore.

Ronnie was the last and every since then, America has been in trouble."

Eh, yeah I know what you mean.  Its pretty disgusting, all we've had for recent presidents are really pretty shitty if you ask me..

Jesus, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton - BACK TO FUCKING BACK..

Not that I'm not happy Bush beat Kerry - he'd have been just as bad or worse. 

Just saying, Reagan seems to be the last we've had of a dieing breed in terms of presidents... all the new ones sucked.

lol, you Raegan fags are praising a retard. Dementia FTW !?

>>9

yeah, i liked it when he went retarded and kept smashing his head into the toilet, lol

Just like Cindy Sheehan is the next Hitler I will be the next Reagan, you can count on that!

JFK > All

>>12
Truth. Democrats before they decided a dictatorship of the proletariat (the most stupid ass oxymoron in history) was better than a democracy of the proletariat = the win

>>9 & >>10

Liberal fags.

>>14

hey remember when that reagan dude went retarded lol?

>>15
Retards can make good politicians. I mean those kind who do odd(but harmless ie. repealing some law no-one cares about) decisions or no decisions at all.

What's funny about this whole conversation is that Ronald Reagan was more of a figure head than anything else, he was just a face that looked good behind the desk in the oval office.  George Walker Herbert was more of the president for those 8 years than ol' Ronny was, and I bet no one here has anything good to say about him.

>>17
Lets see some substantiation.  I happen to know George H. W. Bush called Reaganomics "voodoo economics" or something along these lines, and said he wouldn't run as vice president for Reagan at first. 

Of course, Bush was wrong - Reaganomics pulled our country out of one of the biggest economic pickles we've been in since the Great Depression.

JFK > All

>>19 It's true.

>>20
Jefferson > JFK.

Pwnt.

>>21 definitely

Jesus was black, Ronald Reagan was the devil and our goverment is lieing to us about 9/11

>>23
gb2 pool blocking

yeah government controlled Darwin Economics, 


Give the rich as much money as you can, then stepping back and hoping they give some to the poor.  And if the poor can't hack it then fuck 'em.

Fuck Ronald Reagan

Reagan actually increased taxes, and increased federal spending in some areas, but I can say that Reagan was not a smart man, he didn't come up with "Reaganomics", his cabinet/lobbyists did, and he was fortunate enough that the concept worked.
Despite a similarity I draw to Keynesian econmics, as the national deficit soared during his administration, and shit was wonderful.

I'm too lazy to back up my shit with sources, someone do it for me.

All presidents are figureheads.  They are simply the face of a larger administration.  They couldn't handle it otherwise, they aren't supermen.

something-dee-oh-oh economics

Reaganomics was good and bad, but they need to be seen in a broader context. Carter assigned some treasurer (I think) that was unflappable at the economic rudder- he facilitated Reagan's realignment of the economy. I don't believe in trickle-down, however.

>>26
Reagan actually increased taxe REVENUES (oddly by lowering taxes), and increased federal spending in MILITARY DEFENCE (WITHOUT no-bid contracts), but I can say that Reagan was a smart man to realize what was fucked up, he didn't come up with "Reaganomics" but rather based that name was given by the press who couldn't figure out the basic logic of not taxing people to death, his cabinet/lobbyists did quite frequently fuck up (eg: Meese and North for starts), and he was fortunate enough that Congress was too damned gridlocked to figure out that his concept PISSED IN THEIR RICEBOWLS.
I have no idea what the hell "Keynesian econmics" is, but the rate at which the national deficit soared during his administration is nothing compared to that of all three of his successors, and, yes, shit was wonderful.

I'm too lazy to back up my shit with sources, someone do it for me too.

>>30
Tax revenues likely increased because by lowering taxes, there is more money flowing in the economy and private sector, which generates more taxes and wealth to be taxed.  There might be more to it, but this is the only explanation I can think of.  Similar stuff happened just recently.  We saw the first effects of Bush's tax cuts just recently.. the economy took an upturn, and tax revenues skyrocketed.  Quite a predictable result.  I agree with the op, we need more Reagans.

>>30
Check your history, stop believing "common knowledge"
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_12/005340.php

>>31
The only problem with the "Lower taxes = healthier economy" formula is that, as with all things, there is a limit.  If we interpreted this naively, it would mean that the government should never have ANY taxes, because the economy would be so stimulated, wealth production would be infinite.

My point is that there's a happy medium somewhere between lowering taxes to stimulate the economy and raising taxes to relieve a budget deficit--and yes, our national debt DOES matter.

>>33
Sure.  Apparently, Reagan hit that happy medium.  We need moar Reagans and less liberals.

>>34
Seconded.

Fuck Reagan.

We need more George Washingtons.

>>33
>>34
>>35
So we need a balance? I have a better idea, why not just do everything logically and fuck stupid superstitions such as the idea that there is a left-right/liberal-conservative scale along with the "Lower taxes = healthier economy" formula.

If you think it is too hard to be logical and prefer using ignorant fallacies to solve problems, at least have the common courtesy to admit you are stupid before you start fucking with things more important than your pseudo-ego.

>>36
Truth told.

>>36 & >>37 = same person


>>37
"So we need a balance? I have a better idea, why not just do everything logically and fuck stupid superstitions such as the idea that there is a left-right/liberal-conservative scale"

http://www.quiz2d.com/

"along with the "Lower taxes = healthier economy" formula."

Lower taxes do = healthier economy. 

"If you think it is too hard to be logical and prefer using ignorant fallacies to solve problems, at least have the common courtesy to admit you are stupid before you start fucking with things more important than your pseudo-ego."

If you think it is too hard to be logical and prefer calling people stupid and acting like you are a tough little shit on the internet to actually refuting what they are saying, at least have the common courtesy to admit we shouldn't listen to a word you say.

>>38 Yes, nice test.

>>38
The left-right scale or personal and economic freedom scale doesn't tell you what a person's fundamental political principles are. It is an approximation which is so loosely correlated to the facts only someone of very low intelligence would be fooled into thinking it should be the core of their political beliefs. Just like a person of very low intelligence would be fooled into believing the "Lower taxes = healthier economy" without taking into account the hundreds of other and usually more influential factors that affect the economy.

I forgot you were of low intelligence and could not figure this out for yourself, I apologise for this alone.

We need more Schwarzeneggers to stabilize the economy, screw the socialist girly-men and tell the christianists where to stick it.

>>41
Well he is an actor like Reagan was...

We need more Adolf Hitlers.

>>43
We need more Adolf Hitlers to stabilize the economy, screw the socialist girly-men and tell the christianists where to stick it.*

fix'd

God dammit, what 32 was meaning to say is that virtually every person here was just throwing out "Lower taxes = Better Economy", and the link was to show that the periods of prosperity were accompanied by HIGHER TAXES, which is to say, not that high taxes make prosperity, but that cutting taxes willy-nilly is not the best way to go, and that Reagan probably used a tax cut to stimulate the growth, then taxed the growth to keep the deficit from burrowing into hell.
When you say shit like "lower taxes = better economy" you oversimplfy something that is incredibly complex, and it makes you sound like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Besides, we really don't know if tax cuts really effect growth in the manner that we think it does. Correlation does not prove causation, and the economy is something with an infinite amount of variables effecting it, to the extent that it could never be scientifically tested to prove this hypothesis right.  Hell, people today still dispute whether Keynesian economics works, using the same reason, although "common sense" dictates that Keynesian economics works, and that "Reaganomics" works (I hate that moniker, it sounds so damn childish) they have not, and can not, be scientifically tested.

Hell, I've heard of something called "Elliot Wave Theory" that explains many bizzare correlations between the economy and other shit, like how the stock market rises when horror flicks come out. The theory also proposes that the market is less affected by human action than we think it is, and it follows a repeating fractal wave, and sort of implies that the Great Depression, Stagflation, and the Dot com boom were just parts of the up/down cycle of the US market.

>>41
Arnold Governator is one of the best damn politicians I've seen in quite a while.

>>45
Correlation doesn't = causation, yes, but it does warrant further investigation.  Lower taxes do seem to be better for the economy, and since we have that correlation, I think it would be... stupid not to delve into this mystery further.

Reagan was the best damn president we've had in quite a while.

>>48 I want Ahnuld for prez. He puts his foot down on both the hippies and the christians. I'd change the constitution for him; he's more of an american than 25 congressmen put together.

"I'm for gun control; I'm a peace-loving guy."  -Arnold Schwarzenegger

"I support the Brady bill, I support the current assault weapons ban and I believe that guns must have safety devices or be stored as to prevent accidental discharge."  -Arnold Schwarzenegger

"Q: Do you support the death penalty?

A: Yes. I believe it is a necessary and effective deterrent to capital crimes."  -Arnold Schwarzenegger

"The actor also said he does not support the legalization of drugs, except for the medicinal use of marijuana."

"The actor said he supports allowing schools to decide whether prayer will be part of their day."

Arnold fails.

"Yes. I believe it is a necessary and effective deterrent to capital crimes" Deplorable, but he is not the governor of Texas. The states with DP have higher crime rates and they haven't done any good, and Schwarzenegger should learn.
"The actor also said he does not support the legalization of drugs, except for the medicinal use of marijuana." Have you seen California lately? Accepting drugs would be political suicide. Medical marijuana is a start few republicans have the intelligence to accept.
"The actor said he supports allowing schools to decide whether prayer will be part of their day." That is more consistent with liberty than a ban, as the decision to pray is up to the students. I wouldn't mind sending my kid to a christian school as long as he/she informed me of what they told him.

>>51
You seem to be confused about the prayer thing.  The idiot christians in this country would like you to believe that prayer is banned in school, but it is not.  All that is banned is teacher-led prayer.  The decision to pray is already up to the students.  I can tell you at my high school every single morning there was a group of christians that would gather around and pray right before class.  No one stopped them because it was their right to do so.  The thing about the schools deciding if they will take time out of the day for prayer is basically wasting the time of all the students who don't pray.  The schools, its teachers, and its facult have no business in leading or sanctioning prayer time.  The students have always found their own way and time to pray.

>>52 Ah. I stand back.

>>51
"The actor also said he does not support the legalization of drugs, except for the medicinal use of marijuana."

"Have you seen California lately?"

Have you?  No, I haven't.

"Accepting drugs would be political suicide. Medical marijuana is a start few republicans have the intelligence to accept."

I suppose so.  It might be a step in the right direction, but honestly, I don't give a fuck if it can be used medicinally - I want it totally legal for recreational use.  Yeah sure, I guess its good that he's for medicinal use, but he is still taking the typical draconian 'drug$ r b@d' position.

"The actor said he supports allowing schools to decide whether prayer will be part of their day."

'That is more consistent with liberty than a ban, as the decision to pray is up to the students.'

I don't think that means leaving the decision up to students (but correct me if I'm wrong here), I interpreted that to mean it would be inserted into school schedule, and institutionalized.  I would be against *any* institutionalization of prayer in schools, but yeah I agree with you, children should be allowed to pray in schools on an *individual* basis.

You also didn't address his shitty position & comments on gun control.

"I'm for gun control; I'm a peace-loving guy."  This is bad for my principles, but I don't live in California. Arnold has put the economy in its place and he constantly resists the christianist clique of the right, making him important. I think that each state should try what is best, because since reality is by nature utterly propabilistic I approve of different approaches. Arnold is popular, George is not. People get what they deserve and if the Californians want him they'll get him. He really should deal with youth prisons first if you ask me.

>>55
"Arnold is popular, George is not."

Bush was more popular than Kerry. Also, I doubt Arnold would be able to win a national election.  He can win in California, but not the USA as a whole.. I don't think anyway. 

>>56
Arnold has name recognition and lots of it.  Easily the most important part of getting elected.  That puts him at a major advantage to the vast majority of candidates.

>>57
You might be right, but it doesn't change the fact that >>56 was right in saying that Bush was indeed more popular than Kerry.

2004 Election Popular Vote: 

Bush     159,2 million
Kerry     130.9 million

>>59 We know that. Consensus has no objective value. The US ranked after Georgia (the Yurp one) in voter facilities, after Kazakhstan in the availability of voting centrals and after Mexico in reliability and incorruptibility of *actual* results. Ohio has Blackwell, that is dubious enough. Oh and: http://www.guerrillanews.com/headlines/10754/Programmer_Finally_Testifies_U_S_Elections_Rigged

>>60
Old news.  Also, I agree that consensus has no objective value, but you were saying Bush is unpopular.  Assuming you were saying he was unpopular in relation to his opponent, this would be false.

However.. regarding vote scam:

http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/11/10/voting/index.html
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,65665-0.html?tw=wn_story_page_prev2
The irregularities in certain communities in rural Florida that many democrats speak of are hyped up to say the least.  These said irregularities are easilly explained away by looking at past voter trends.. see article.

>>61 Florida. Blackwell is in Ohio.

>>62
Until you show me incriminating evidence regarding Blackwell, I don't see why I should be the least bit concerned.  Link me up if you have something and wish to change my mind.

Americans tend to have a very perculiar voting mentality, the handsome fellows get elected.