It's amusing to read all the news stories on Reagan recently, you would think Reagan is a moderate republican!  Try naming any issues on which Reagan is moderate on, abortion? gay rights? religion? fiscal policies? military?  

Liberals must think that because he's so popular, he just has to be a moderate!

but then again, you know the far Left: what they can't beat with reason or sophomoric disparagement, they have to misrepresent.

The fact is, Reagan displayed a sense of pragmatism and rationality that Bush has absolutely NOT displayed, especially in these two areas.

When Reagan's tax cuts combined with high defense spending drove the deficit to extremely high levels, he agreed to increase taxes again (although not symetric with his prior reductions) in order to regain some level of fiscal responsibility.

Also, Reagan was KNOWN to hate war, and other than a minor mop up in Grenada, that bore little risk to U.S. forces, he never engaged in any.  His defense buildup was explicitly for the purpose of deterrance, and it was successful in this regard.

While, IN PRINCIPLES, Reagan was an extreme Conservative, in ACTUAL PRACTICE, he was a moderate Conservative who was always willing to compromise around the edges to get the main focus of his agenda accomplished.  This, BTW, is known as LEADERSHIP SKILLS, for the purpose of unifying the nation, something that the present occupant of the White House has no concept of.

Since EVERYTHING that liberals are saying about Bush, they said about Reagan, AND they were wrong about every single issue, they want to make people believe that Bush is way to the right of Reagan, which he is not.

Almost impossible to villainize Reagan at this point, with the outpouring of love for him this past week, so the next best thing is to attempt to re-write who he actually was.  Won't work, mainly because Bush is leading, not reacting to the pressures of the left and their media., a very Reaganesque trait.

I contest the whole context of your final sentence.  

It is obvious and a well known fact that Liberals do not think, they feel!

-- Modified on 6/17/2004 4:07:42 PM

Things that were considered very conservative when he took
office were considered less so when he left office and in
subsequent years.

As an example, look at Clinton's welfare reform years later.
That kind of stuff could have never have taken place, under a
democrat no less, without Reagan preceding him.

Most people agree with this no matter where they fall in the
political spectrum.

fr

You mean the one he vetoed three times?

That finally had the votes to override his veto?  So he signed rather than lose?

And now you give him credit for?  That's rich even for a liberal!

What you are searching for in describing Ronald Reagan is "The Courage of His Convictions!"

Legislate like a Fascist- Communicate like a Game Show Host!

Americans are as dumb a group of citizens as you will find.  Perhaps more so on the political side of life as we tend to know that it does not make that much difference in our immediate lives...

...then one day you wake up to find Choice or public schooling gutted- and its usually too late.  Both parties like to lull people to sleep with oratory- and then do what they are paid the most to do.

Like the "tax cut". sounds great and very political.  Now we discover that only the really wealthy got real money, and the deficit is higher than ever!  We OUGHT to know a cut into the deficit IS the best tax cut- but we go for the lie EVERY TIME!

Reagan was master of the simple rationale. Made everything sound good even if it was totally bunk. Supply Side?  Trickle down?   Made fucking the poor and the working class so cool!

Anyone who can't tell the difference between George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan in terms of leadership ability and character is pretty clearly sufferring from impaired faculties.

-- Modified on 6/17/2004 5:25:00 PM

Yeah - like no arms to Iran.  No support for states that use Gas in warfare.  No arms for hostages. No negotiations with terrorists.  Must reduce budget. Must reduce budget deficit.

I feel he had the courage to try to quash his friends' convictions- the ones that happened in and after his second term.

Reagan was a pretty typical politician- do whatever is expediant and will benefit me and my party.  

He was just way better at acting like he cared or had a moral compass.  And guys like you fell for it!  Hell I fell for it-THEN!

And kicking in the rotten door to Eastern Europe does NOT absolve him!  Especially since he was falling for Fascists in his own hemisphere!

Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it... or something like that.

Have you ever met someone from the far left?  I would think not!  You are probalby like so many americans who think that Dan Rather is  a lefty.

There are plenty of real radicals in this and every country.  They believe in true -redistribution of wealth.  Collectivization.  Perhaps the massacre of the rich.  The end to the NFL.  The total destruction of all things religious.  Cradle to grave social programs.

They are also pretty far down the road from the types you THINK are radical.  One of Reagan's legacies is this total misunderstanding of the size of the spectrum.  To Europeans, who actually have parties in all parts of the spctrum, our little fight between GOP and Dems is silly.  They often ask why we do it as the parties policies are so much in the center.

In fact, the Dem party is quite conservative.  The GOP is a little reactionary.  But we love to label as if the chasm was huge.

That your bitterness notwithstanding the the great majority of American's loved what Reagan did!

I don't know what happed to you,  or what, but America loved Reagan and would have easily reelected him if it weren't unconstitutional.

I know you think  you are smarter than just about everyone else, have a clearer, more concise understanding of history, generally have the "inside poop" on current and historical events, and I would fight for your right to live on your planet.

However, I don't really understand how anything in your post has to do with frankie's statement of credit to Clinton for "Clinton's welfare reform"?  Much to your chagrin I'm sure, Reagan never backed down!  Now I admit that I am earth bound, sober and not filled with hatred, which probably clouds my ability to understand these correlation's you tend to make.  

-- Modified on 6/17/2004 7:33:34 PM

  for his principles were the embodiment of sincere contemplation, genuine love for our nation and its people, a boldness worthy of our history and a testament to the strength of the human spirit, convictions rooted deep in belief, honor, and integrity.  This man could proclaim his ideas without alienating or humiliating his opposition because he was an American first and a TRUE Republican second.  Yes he held strong positions considered far to the right such as anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, etc...  He believed in them because his soul and conscience said those were the right ideas for our society. I had to throw up when I saw Shrub at Reagans funeral claiming he is Reagan the 2nd.  That little piece of shit had the nerve to compare himslef to Reagan.  What a loser!!!
   RepubliCONS please stop trying to pretend the modern day GOP is the rightful heir to the Reagan legacy.  Its like a pirate finding a treasure then claiming to be an artistic jeweler.  Its really pathetic.  As I have said before the cronies in the modern day GOP don't have enough gravitas to carry Reagans left nut.  
    Reagan was the shining star of this shining city upon a hill.  Modern day GOP cronies are nothing more than the filth of the gutter that runs through this city.  
    Oh and I can say most the same about the modern day democratic cronies.  Please don't think for a moment that the democratic in its present form has anything to do with JFK's legacy.  Its full of a bunch of gutless, balless, spineless, and thoughtless leftovers.

-- Modified on 6/17/2004 8:10:41 PM

   Just like he didn't say in plain terms that Saddam and Bin Laden got together for dinner at a certain date and conspired in 9-11.  However he certainly was implying in no uncertain terms that he is the bold visionary, a rightful heir to the Reagan legacy in every way possible because he has taken steps Reagan took during his preisdency.  What a joke.  Shrub and the rest of the liars kept implying a link between Al-qaida and Saddam which is why 80% of the public actually bought the crap.  

but he delivered one of the finest speeches of his presidency.  Indeed, virtually all of the eulogizers were fantastic; I was a little disappointed to see that Brian Mulroney's heartfelt eulogy was given rather short shrift, though their friendship was obvious.

National Review Online did a wonderful article on Reagan's eulogies, which were almost uniformly wonderful.

Yes, plenty.  And Dan Rather is a lefty.

If the BushHaters insist upon using the rhetoric of the far Left (see emeraldvodka's latest "No Blood for Oil" crap, above), then don't be surprised if someone categorizes them as they are.

You remind me a little of the old joke about the difference between and Communist and a Democrat being that the former knows what he is doing.

And anyone who calls the Dem Party "conservative" hasn't been paying attention.  To be sure, it is the party of reactionary liberalism.

You follow the comment "There are plenty of real radicals in this and every country" with a number of observations designed to, I presume, exemplify "real radicals."  I offer my observations interlineated.

"They believe in true -redistribution of wealth."  This describes modern congressional Democrats

"Collectivization."  Ever hear of HillaryCare?  A "right to health care"?  Bitching and moaning about the "uninsured"?  It is a mainstream modern Democrat view that health care should be collectized.

"Perhaps the massacre of the rich."  OK, OK.  But even Stalin didn't advertise it.

"The end to the NFL."  Modern feminists, part of the Democrat Party, clearly hate pro football.  Remember the nonsense a few years ago about an increase in domestic violence on Super Bowl Sunday?  IS NOTHING HOLY?!?!?

"The total destruction of all things religious."  Uhhhh, Michael Newdow?  The Ninth Circus?  Many posters to this board, who dismiss religion as little more than myth, custom, and fable.  Of course, your suggestion is a little inaccurate, since those who would destroy all reference to God do so in order to elevate Man and their God: Government.

"Cradle to grave social programs."  Again, HillaryCare?  Socialized medicine?  Head Start?  Social[ist] Security?  Medicare?  What is it that you think the modern Dems stand for?

And the GOP is hardly "reactionary" in any meaningful sense of that term, any more than it is monarchist.

I dunno dude- do you remember what an opportunistic guy he was as governor?  The damage he did to the UC system?  The Parks?   The city of Berkeley?

Reagan was a politician- a really good one.  I bought into the nod and wink and thought his heart was in the right place- he just wants to streamline things.

Then I became familiar with the damage.  A good friend's roomie getting set on fire by Chilean police.  REad a little bit about Central America- our support of Samoza, etc.  Reagan was very helpful to Mobutu in Congo with his rip off of his country.

Maybe you ought to see Salvador.  It may be Ollie stone's best film - least heavy handed.

He was just a guy. A liar, a shill for thieves, an actor who got people to believe in him.  That he is a hero to so many says way more about them than it does about him.  Stalin was loved by the vast Majority of soviets too.  They are not in the same league of villainy, but they are in the same league of bamboozling their flock.

No amount of saying he's a hero will ever actually make him a real hero- with the exception of his donning the mantle of the fight over Alzheimer's.

And I don't know more than a lot of people. I learn things from people every day.  I just often seem to know a little bit more than YOU on the topics you choose to contest.  Like I said, I like your moxie and fervor- it's the assertions based on discredited interpretations and false facts that we can all do without.

from your previous post, then you tell me I have to listen more carefully (as in "pay more attention to detail"?  What causes you lefties to say these things that aren't true, then get so upset when someone calls you on it?  Sheesh

snafu929, I'll grant you the Republicans have been masters of word manipulation . . .

Like they can now go back and say we NEVER said Iraq was an "immanent" threat, however Cheney did say immediate or some such, another poster had a video link about it several days back, (link below to site he linked.)

They are playing a masterful game of word manipulation and getting people to infer much of what is implied between the lines, do they ACTUALLY "SAY" it, NO, do they mean it in a round about way, some would say most definitely. But I guess that depends on what your definition of "IS" is.

The other tactic that is working so well for them is the political mouth pieces they have on the airwaves, the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, Bill O'Reilly, Robert Novak, etc. often speak and bring up points of attack to defend the administration, so the administration doesn't later have to try and defend itself.

Now I’m not saying emeraldvodka is exactly accurate with claiming G.W. Bush pronounced he was Reagan the 2nd at Reagan’s funeral, but look back at the post I made about him using Reagan in ads, and on his web site. Come on, step back and look at the collective. Just like they lumped Saddam, Iraq, Bin Laden and 9/11 together to get the average American viewing it on TV or reading it in the papers to put them together as one. They did the same thing trying to mention Bush and Reagan, and comparing War on Terror to Cold War to WWII and Churchill and FDR, etc. It all STINKS to high heaven but they keep doing it, and many fall for it, and I tip my hat to the Republican Spin Machine, they're beating the snot out of the Democrats in this round of the boxing match.

then read "that no country poses a more immediate" threat than Iraq.  Spin away, but that's a whole lot different than Rummy saying "Iraq is an immediate threat".  Keep searching Baloney.  BTW, who in the hell runs your "small corporation" while you spend so much time on the net digging this stuff up?

"no country poses a more 'immediate' threat than Iraq"
vs.
"Iraq is an immediate threat"

hmmmmmmmmmmmm, yeah I guess that's worth the lives of 800+ U.S. service members, thousands wounded for life, a half a billion dollars per week to occupy a country of sand and rock, $87 Billion last year, forget what was the recent one another $57 Billion this year ?, and they supposedly will come back and ask for MORE.

"immediate" vs "immanent"

NO ties to Iraq vs. "well they knew each other and said hi from time to time"

If you can justify ALL that has happened, and say we're doing a great job I guess your brain and my brain just work differently.

to the link YOU offered.  It took a while on my old dog to download, but, as a courtesy to you, I suffered through it.  BTW, I had to stop downloading some other stuff that was a lot better looking than Rumsfeld.  I watched it not once, not twice, but THREE times to make sure I wasn't hearing it wrong.  I was concentrating and waiting to hear the words specifying that Iraq posed an immediate threat.  Maybe they are the Masters of wordology, but that simply means that they are better right now than the left, which you were eluding to originally I think.  Simple FACT from YOUR source.  He did NOT say what you claimed.  He implied it no doubt, but didn't SAY it.  And you had me ROTFL when you brought up the definition of "what is is" or whatever.  Let's step back to the days of Monica, when you had the President, learned in the law, under deposition spinning his own word definitions and what certain words (sex) mean.  Think back, do you remember, he admitted to the blowjob, the cigar in the pussy thing, but didn't regard that as "sex" or engaging in sexual behavior??  Same shit, different administration.  Okay, now go off on a tangent about wasted tax dollars and witchhunts to elude the point.

Certainly not conservative, either, so I used a term for the folks a little further down the pike, as Fascist seems to piss you off.

Populist-Christian Democrat?

Baptist-Leninist?

Crypto-ultra-Conservative?


With their plundering the deficit to pay for military adventures, it is almost impossible to put the "borrow and squander" party in the conservative camp.  Conservative implies a policy of gradual changes and reliance on the status quo.  The Bush party is so intent on rolling the clock bakc to pre civil rights days and the business climate of the 1870s, they can only be seen as "reactionary".  Except that 1870 folk would blanch at doing it all on credit!

And it IS cute to try to paint the Dems as godless commies, intent of destroying the american way of life-but totally intelectually dishonest.  They ARE close to the Progressives, though.  Call them that. Or social democrats, like the rest of the world does.

BTW- given the outpouring of blather about your worm-food late leader?  THE GOP sounded awfully monarchist...."Reagan is dead- long live Reagan"

No matter what-Lincoln must be spinning in his grave to see what has been done to his party of honesty and equality!