The Death of Ronald Reagan

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Crix-Madine, Jun 5, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Alderaan_Viceroy Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jan 13, 2004
    star 1
    Gee Gonk

    I Love my country and don't really feel the need to critize other nations and their leaders.

    So in the spirit of Ronald Reagan I will take a nap while you argue against his merits....
  2. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    I Love my country and don't really feel the need to critize other nations and their leaders.

    So in the spirit of Ronald Reagan I will take a nap while you argue against his merits....


    Considering the leaders of a nation of 30 million compared to the leaders of a nation of 300 million are pretty insignificant, its nice to have that luxury of indifference.

    So hey, take your nap. If you think that's the way of getting to the truth, so be it.
  3. anakin_girl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2000
    star 6
    Kennedy acted cowardly IMO, he should have flexed the United States nuclear muscle. We severely "outgunned" the Russians.

    Gonk: Even better--he just promoted nuclear war. If it were up to him, none of us would have ever been born, because Kennedy would have sent missiles over and then the Russians would have bombed us back.

    Yes, let him take his nap after he states how much he'd like all of us dead.

    I Love my country and don't really feel the need to critize other nations and their leaders.

    You mean like you criticized Great Britain at the beginning of this thread and basically insulted all English people by telling them they didn't deserve to exist? [face_plain]
  4. Guinastasia Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 9, 2002
    star 6
    Well, LBJ, and to a lesser extent, JFK, help usher in the civil rights era.

    Bush the Elder would have been a decent president, but he had a lot of problems-the no taxes thing, the war, Noriega (who we supported initially, btw-hell, we TRAINED him at teh School of the Assasins) etc.

    Nixon would have been great if not for the fact that he was so freaking paranoid. (And of course, Chile and Cambodia).

    Truman was pretty cool. He had his flaws-a hot temper, for example, but he didn't take crap from anyone. The whole, "The buck stops here", "Give 'em hell, Harry!" and threatening to punch out the guy who made fun of his daughter (a professional singer) all of them great.

    Polk-the Manifest Destiny kinda brings him down. Same with McKinley and the Spanish-American War.

    Teddy Roosevelt is an interesting guy-on one hand he's a hothead and a racist, but he also was big on anti-trust, preservation of the environment, and he hated corruption.

    Clinton-I think he was a pretty decent president, pretty okay-I'd vote for him again. I don't think he was as great as some people try to paint him, nor as horrid as others believe. (For one thing, he was NOT a far leftist-quite the opposite!)

  5. anakin_girl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2000
    star 6
    For one thing, he was NOT a far leftist-quite the opposite!

    No kidding--DMA anyone? [face_plain]

    That is the only subject in which discussion I will bring up the subject of Clinton's sexual exploits (in other cases I think they have absolutely no relevance): whose marriage was he trying to "defend"? His own? Was he afraid a homosexual couple might actually get married and not cheat on each other?

    And the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was just bloody hypocritical. Stop trying to pretend you're accepting of homosexuals, Bill. You might as well say, "I'll accept people with big noses as long as they all have plastic surgery to make them smaller."

    Clinton also royally screwed over the military by cutting their funding and benefits. For this I also dislike him.

    I do, however, think it's sad when people bring up Clinton's lack of ability to keep his pants zipped as what makes him a bad President. We have a hell of a lot of bad Presidents if that's the case--Kennedy anyone? FDR? Warren Harding, who had an illegitimate child while in office? The only person who got creamed for his exploits was Clinton, and that was for two reasons: one, Bimbo Numero Uno got exploited by a bunch of lawyer vultures ("Pssssstt...sue him while he's in office, distract him from running the country for awhile, and you'll get your face all over the papers--maybe you'll even get some plastic surgery out of it!"), and two, the media, the second set of vultures, was all over it.
  6. Vezner Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 29, 2001
    star 5
    A_G, I pretty much agree with everything you said there. Were it not for your hatred of Bush and the Iraq war, I think we would actually be allies in many issues. :eek: :D
  7. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    Well yeah, but ag, some of those presidents you mentioned with Clinton were mediocre.

    Harding?! And Kennedy was way overrated. He also got us in Vietnam.

    And true, Clinton was not a leftist. In many ways, he was more conservative than Nixon and closer to Reagan than McGovern, 60's-70's liberals, etc.

    Without Reagan there would have been no Clinton.

    Clinton finished the Reagan agenda in these areas:

    Capital gains tax cut.
    Line item veto.
    Welfare reform.
    Signed NAFTA.

    He, along with the Republicans in Congress, finished the Reagan economic revolution.
  8. anakin_girl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2000
    star 6
    Were it not for your hatred of Bush and the Iraq war, I think we would actually be allies in many issues.

    Well, I don't hate Bush--more of a profound dislike. :p

    Then again there are really very few politicians I like, if any--they're all ass-kissers and you never know what any of them really think. And far too many are Clinton-esque fence-straddlers. (Hell, my husband has a term for trying to kiss up to both sides in an argument: "Doing a Bill Clinton.")

    Bush's problem is, IMHO, that he doesn't have any respect for other countries and cultures (and I'm not referring to Iraq--I'm referring to European countries who have been our allies), and he tries to force his religious beliefs on the nation.

    As far as the Iraq war--I just think we should have been a bit more cautious, made sure Saddam really did have WMDs. Or, on the other hand, if we're going to take out Saddam because he's a ******* (which isn't necessarily a bad thing--taking him out, that is), we should also take out a whole lot more dictators.

    And I still want to know where the bloody hell Osama Bin Laden is. I'll tell you what would really make me lose any remaining respect I have for Bush (which is this--I respect him as a human being, but not as a politician): if we find Bin Laden in October.
  9. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    Well, in some areas, Reagan and Clinton were similar, but in others, clearly they were not.

    For example, Reagan was responsible for bringing religious conservatives into the party, whereas the democrats have been seen as steadily more secular as the 90s progressed.

    Just an example.

    Peace,

    V-03
  10. Uruk-hai Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 26, 2000
    star 5
    Has the guy been buried yet? Seems like his funeral has been going for months.
  11. Alderaan_Viceroy Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jan 13, 2004
    star 1
    You mean like you criticized Great Britain at the beginning of this thread and basically insulted all English people by telling them they didn't deserve to exist

    When did I say The British didn't have the right to exist?

    I thought this thread was about Reagan anyway.

    The fact of the matter is in 1961 we had a 12 to 1 advantage of nuclear weapons on the Soviets. They would have hurt us a little, but the Russians would have had it. Instead Kennedy weakened our standing in the World by caving to Soviet demands that we should not invade Cuba.

    I was very proud of President Bush saying he would use Nuclear Weapons if someone used a WMD on the United States. Nuclear Weapons keep the peace boys and girls. Reagan understood this, so does President Bush.



  12. MaceWinducannotdie Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 31, 2001
    star 4
    Hurt us "a little," huh? How many American cities would you sacrifice? And how many Russians (keep in mind they're real people, not just foot soldiers for the Evil Empire) would you be willing to kill just to prove how macho the US is?

    As for "weakening our standing," I repeat: read some history.
  13. TacoAvenger Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Can't argue with the top three:

    1 George Washington
    He was numero uno. For the first few years in which he resided the USA was chaotic and they wanted to make him King, to heck with democracy. He held the country together while resisting the Dark Side.


    2 Abraham Lincoln
    Regardless of whether you think of him as Hero or Conqueror, he did hold the Union together in her time of greatest internal crisis. Even though he did not originally set out to free the slaves, he did free the slaves and got rid of an evil system

    3 Franklin Roosevelt
    Got us through the Great Depression. Got us through the greatest conflict this planet ever saw (for most of it at least). Restored faith in our country. Remember that after WWI the Greatest Generation grew up in an anti-war, anti-patriotic, isolationist era---Roosevelt woke them up.




    8 Ronald Reagan
    IMHO I actually think he should be in the top five, maybe 5 overall. Like Lincoln and FDR, he brought the USA out of a serious economic and political decline that was supposedly "inevitable" (going against the grain embedded in the system for 30+ years). He restored patriotism and pride in the Military and the country overall. With the help of the Pope and others he helped to free the 'slaves' of Communism.

    I believe that historians of the future will look back at the 20th Century and see a 'Century of Warfare' between Liberal Democratic principles and Totalitarianism that started in 1914, followed by a cease fire period with hostilites resumed in 1939, and a loooong conclusion which could have resulted in the decline of the West (Don't forget which side the USSR first started WWII on). The fact that Ronald Reagan helped put the bookend to that period gets him major props IMHO.

    Also, in the struggle against totalitarianism, we were starting to incorporate some of its aspects politically. His 'revolution' re-introduced what were in fact 18th Century Classical Liberal principles of the Founding Fathers back into the American consciousness--very important in my opinion. Just my opinion.



    "Here that Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability approaching....Goodbye, Mr. Anderson!"

    "My name is....RONALD REAGAN!!!"
  14. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    I believe that historians of the future will look back at the 20th Century and see a 'Century of Warfare' between Liberal Democratic principles and Totalitarianism that started in 1914

    You realize of course, that in 1914, the most tolitarian state in WWI was Russia, and it fought on the side of the allies. Germany was comparable to Britain in general freedoms before the advent of Hitler.
  15. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    For example, Reagan was responsible for bringing religious conservatives into the party, whereas the democrats have been seen as steadily more secular as the 90s progressed.

    I'm not sure that part about Reagan is accurate.

    For a man such as that to rarely attend Church, there'd have to be some severe ideological compromise.

    Reagan was at heart a social libertarian who didn't like forcing his views down the throats of others.

    If anything, his "people" were adept at keeping the ultra-right in check; and it's Dubya, who thinks he's a natural heir to Reagan, who courts the religious right. After all, when Reagan was governor of Cali, he did pass some fairly liberal abortion laws...

    E_S

  16. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    Actually Ender, it wasn't about 'forcing beliefs down the throats of others', it was about building a republican majority.

    To that end, his overtures to religious conservatives helped build the party's base. He may not have necessarily believed everything they believed, but he helped secure a much larger base for the GOP.

    Interesting what you said about abortion laws in california, as he not only tried to have Roe v Wade overturned, but a recent article by one of his former cabinet members in the New York Times spoke of his frustration in being unable to pass a "Human Life Amendment" banning abortion altogether.

    Overall though, I would agree with you that he was much more centrist than Bush Jr. has been.

    Peace,

    V-03
  17. anakin_girl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2000
    star 6
    Nuclear Weapons keep the peace boys and girls.

    True. When the entire population of the world has been wiped out, there will no longer be any wars. [face_plain]

    How many American cities would you sacrifice? And how many Russians (keep in mind they're real people, not just foot soldiers for the Evil Empire) would you be willing to kill just to prove how macho the US is?

    Very well put, Mace.

    Personally I'm not willing to sacrifice anyone--because, in the words of George Bailey, people are human beings to me, not cattle--in order to bully other countries into submission. It frightens me that some people are.

    I'd rather be a Luke, not a Palpatine or a Tarkin.
  18. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    I'd rather be a Luke, not a Palpatine or a Tarkin.

    But-Exactly how many people were aboard the Death Star when Luke blew it up?

    To co-opt a famous movie, I think that the danger the Death Star represented more than justified the fact that a couple of Imperial plumbers got caught up in the blast.

  19. Alderaan_Viceroy Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jan 13, 2004
    star 1
    It is amazing how many leftists have took up posting in a thread that honors the passing of a right wing President. Isn't there a John Kerry thread for that?

  20. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Well, to be honest, it is a debate thread..
  21. DeathStar1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2003
    star 4
    Mr44 -

    To co-opt a famous movie, I think that the danger the Death Star represented more than justified the fact that a couple of Imperial plumbers got caught up in the blast.

    Well, they did know the risks when they signed up. ;)

    AV -

    It is amazing how many leftists have took up posting in a thread that honors the passing of a right wing President. Isn't there a John Kerry thread for that?

    We can honor a President even if we don't agree with his politics. As I often say, I'm a liberal Democrat, but above that, I'm an American.

    Regarding Presidential rankings, for another perspective...

    The following is from 'Rating The Presidents', a book that polled more than 719 historians and political scientists from all over the country and political spectrum, and includes a few from outside the US. They rate the Presidents in five categories (Leadership, Accomplishments and Crisis Management, Political Skill, Appointments, Character and Integrity) and compile the totals. Anyway, the following are the results:

    Lincoln
    FDR
    Washington
    Jefferson
    Teddy R
    Wilson
    Truman
    Jackson
    Eisenhower
    Madison
    Polk
    LBJ
    Monroe
    J. Adams
    JFK
    Cleveland
    McKinley
    JQ Adams
    Carter
    Taft
    Van Buren
    Bush 41
    Clinton
    Hoover
    Hayes
    Reagan
    Ford
    Arthur
    Taylor
    Garfield
    B. Harrison
    Nixon
    Coolidge
    Tyler
    W. Harrison
    Fillmore
    Pierce
    Grant
    A. Johnson
    Buchanen
    Harding



  22. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    Reagan not in the top ten in that poll? Huh. I have seen that poll, I remember Clinton being in a couple of catagories for among the top ten best Presidents, like his stewardship of the economy, but then he was also among the worst ten in areas like moral authority.

    Also, the Drudgereport is now reporting that the LA Times poll I had just posted a few pages back was skewed because there was a disproportionate amount of Democrats v. Republicans included in the poll.
  23. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    Yep. I told you OWM the internals of the poll did not match the result. Now we know why. ;)

    This came from Roll Call:

    The LA Times poll was weighted overwhelmingly in favor of the democrats.

    38% of democrats were questioned.
    25% of Republicans were questioned.

    Such a skewered poll is unheard of in national polling.

    Seems the LA crap-paper set out to get the result they wanted.
  24. JediSmuggler Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
    star 5
    anakin_girl

    Bin Laden will be caught when he is caught. The only folks claiming this is could be timed for political advantage are Democrats, and I find their claims on that front to lack credibility.

    They are running a cottage industry around the outright lie that Max Cleland's patriotism was questioned (all Saxby Chambliss questioned was Cleland's voting record on Homeland Security and judicial nominations). But it's being milked, to the point that Cleland has called people like Sam Johnson (a former POW in Vietnam) and Duke Cunningham (a fighter ace in Vietnam and the victor in what is - to my knowledge - the only best-vs.-best matchup in the history of aerial combat, when he took down a Vietnamese ace called Colonel Tomb) "chickenhawks" after they dared to criticize Kerry's record.

    I have to question their veracity on this whole patriotism issue over Claland alone. The fact that Cleland called men like Congressmen Johnson and Cunningham "chickenhawks" despite the fact he probably knew they were nothing close to that.
  25. Vezner Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 29, 2001
    star 5
    You also have to think about it this way. If Osama were captured by the USA, do you really think that Al Queda would keep it a secret so that Bush could use it as a political tool for reelection? Heck no! They would be making all kinds of threats against the USA in retaliation for their leader's capture.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.