I agree, Reagan was one of our greatest presidents. His death was a true tragedy.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-27 12:45
I spent all of the 80's playing video games and watching cartoons. Not sure if anything else happened in that decade.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-27 13:09
>>3
yeah, bringing down the berlin wall was really nothing...
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-27 14:07
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.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-27 15:38
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.
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.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-27 16:19
>>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.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-27 19:43
lol, you Raegan fags are praising a retard. Dementia FTW !?
yeah, i liked it when he went retarded and kept smashing his head into the toilet, lol
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-27 20:39
Just like Cindy Sheehan is the next Hitler I will be the next Reagan, you can count on that!
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-27 22:18
JFK > All
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-28 0:22
>>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
hey remember when that reagan dude went retarded lol?
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-28 3:20
>>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.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-28 4:17
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.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-28 4:28
>>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.
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
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-29 22:56
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.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-29 23:24
All presidents are figureheads. They are simply the face of a larger administration. They couldn't handle it otherwise, they aren't supermen.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-30 0:57
something-dee-oh-oh economics
Name:
Xel2006-08-30 2:20
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.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-30 2:34
>>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.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-30 6:36
>>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.
>>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.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-30 23:29
>>33
Sure. Apparently, Reagan hit that happy medium. We need moar Reagans and less liberals.
>>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.
>>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"
"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
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.