Reagan - Class Act

[CrusaderFrank]

Was Reagan perfect? No, he had a Democrat controlled Congress so he had to negotiate and compromise to get his agenda passed

Did Reagan change the USA and the world for the better? Absolutely!

He freed tens of millions form the horrible, dehumanizing political economic system known as "Progressive State" and people in the USA and Eastern Bloc who were not invested in the success of the USSR admire him for this

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Was Reagan perfect? No, he had a Democrat controlled Congress so he had to negotiate and compromise to get his agenda passed

Did Reagan change the USA and the world for the better? Absolutely!

He freed tens of millions form the horrible, dehumanizing political economic system known as "Progressive State" and people in the USA and Eastern Bloc who were not invested in the success of the USSR admire him for this

we're paying for Reagan's change today. The bills came due

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The USSR collapsed not because of two Reagan terms, but because of decades of the cold war and more. Reagan gets some credit but nuts try and give him all or the majority

 

[regent]

Gorbachev was a new breed of communist and he offered Reagan a deal that Reagan couldn't refuse. If Stalin had still been in power the Cold War would still be percolating. I think any American president would have taken Gorby up on the deal. So in the end it took two men to end the cold war and for that Reagan should get some credit he did grab the opportunity, but the offer was made by Gorbachev.

 

[Meathead]

Gorbachov did not seek to end the Soviet Union. That was Reagan's goal. The rest is history. Get over it.

 

[regent]

Gorbachov did not seek to end the Soviet Union. That was Reagan's goal. The rest is history. Get over it.

Speaking of history, it seems Gorbachev did indeed want to restructure the Soviet system, remember it was Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika that led to the vast changes. And it was Gorbachev that made the first moves for peace.
Add to that, it was Gorbachev that led the the Soviet parliament to vote for other vast changes in the political structure of the Soviet Union.
Gorbachev wanted peace and offered Reagan the opportunity and Reagan was smart to grab the opportunity. Reagan was also smart enough to try and take credit for the whole Gorby thing. Historians didn't buy it, however.

 

[Meathead]

Gorbachov did not seek to end the Soviet Union. That was Reagan's goal. The rest is history. Get over it.

Speaking of history, it seems Gorbachev did indeed want to restructure the Soviet system, remember it was Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika that led to the vast changes. And it was Gorbachev that made the first moves for peace.
Add to that, it was Gorbachev that led the the Soviet parliament to vote for other vast changes in the political structure of the Soviet Union.
Gorbachev wanted peace and offered Reagan the opportunity and Reagan was smart to grab the opportunity. Reagan was also smart enough to try and take credit for the whole Gorby thing. Historians didn't buy it, however.

An amazing grasp of the obvious except for one small oversight. Gorbachov failed. His intention was, as you said, the restructuring of the Soviet Union but certainly not its unraveling. The latter being of course Reagan's goal.

Besides that, you might ask yourself why Gorbachov was brought into the politburo by Andropov who had been head of the KGB and why he was elevated to chairman on the death of Chernenko.. It was exactly because the west was hard line with Thatcher and Reagan and they desperately needed a younger and more moderate man to deal with them.

 

[regent]

Gorbachov did not seek to end the Soviet Union. That was Reagan's goal. The rest is history. Get over it.

Speaking of history, it seems Gorbachev did indeed want to restructure the Soviet system, remember it was Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika that led to the vast changes. And it was Gorbachev that made the first moves for peace.
Add to that, it was Gorbachev that led the the Soviet parliament to vote for other vast changes in the political structure of the Soviet Union.
Gorbachev wanted peace and offered Reagan the opportunity and Reagan was smart to grab the opportunity. Reagan was also smart enough to try and take credit for the whole Gorby thing. Historians didn't buy it, however.

An amazing grasp of the obvious except for one small oversight. Gorbachov failed. His intention was, as you said, the restructuring of the Soviet Union but certainly not its unraveling. The latter being of course Reagan's goal.

Besides that, you might ask yourself why Gorbachov was brought into the politburo by Andropov who had been head of the KGB and why he was elevated to chairman on the death of Chernenko.. It was exactly because the west was hard line with Thatcher and Reagan and they desperately needed a younger and more moderate man to deal with them.

Gorbachev and Andropov had worked together on other projects, but in reading some USSR tracts from that period I told myself that the reason was not Thatcher or Reagan but economic. The USSR economy had never worked, and Gorbachev recognized that.
As for restructuringl not wholesale change, that is exactly what happens to politicians at times. They throw the whole mess out rather than try to improve it. An example of that is America in 1787 when the framers met at Philadelphia to change the Articles and ended up throwing them out and writing a new constitution. Sometimes better to start over.

 

[Meathead]

Speaking of history, it seems Gorbachev did indeed want to restructure the Soviet system, remember it was Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika that led to the vast changes. And it was Gorbachev that made the first moves for peace.
Add to that, it was Gorbachev that led the the Soviet parliament to vote for other vast changes in the political structure of the Soviet Union.
Gorbachev wanted peace and offered Reagan the opportunity and Reagan was smart to grab the opportunity. Reagan was also smart enough to try and take credit for the whole Gorby thing. Historians didn't buy it, however.

An amazing grasp of the obvious except for one small oversight. Gorbachov failed. His intention was, as you said, the restructuring of the Soviet Union but certainly not its unraveling. The latter being of course Reagan's goal.

Besides that, you might ask yourself why Gorbachov was brought into the politburo by Andropov who had been head of the KGB and why he was elevated to chairman on the death of Chernenko.. It was exactly because the west was hard line with Thatcher and Reagan and they desperately needed a younger and more moderate man to deal with them.

Gorbachev and Andropov had worked together on other projects, but in reading some USSR tracts from that period I told myself that the reason was not Thatcher or Reagan but economic. The USSR economy had never worked, and Gorbachev recognized that.
As for restructuringl not wholesale change, that is exactly what happens to politicians at times. They throw the whole mess out rather than try to improve it. An example of that is America in 1787 when the framers met at Philadelphia to change the Articles and ended up throwing them out and writing a new constitution. Sometimes better to start over.

Doubtless, there was a myriad of reasons for the downfall of the USSR, but among the primary causes was in fact an unusually strong period of western leadership in the 1980s. The desperate attempt by rank leftist amateurs to re-write history in anyway conceivable in order to diminish the roles of Reagan and Thatcher fall flat, except of course to others as dogmatically inclined as themselves.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

First the whiny Leftists said Reagan was stupid for calling their home team an "Evil Empire", then once it collapsed they said "Oh, Gorby wanted it that way"

They derided Reagan for "Star Wars", and that worked now too.

Sucks to be a "Progressive"

 

[regent]

An amazing grasp of the obvious except for one small oversight. Gorbachov failed. His intention was, as you said, the restructuring of the Soviet Union but certainly not its unraveling. The latter being of course Reagan's goal.

Besides that, you might ask yourself why Gorbachov was brought into the politburo by Andropov who had been head of the KGB and why he was elevated to chairman on the death of Chernenko.. It was exactly because the west was hard line with Thatcher and Reagan and they desperately needed a younger and more moderate man to deal with them.

Gorbachev and Andropov had worked together on other projects, but in reading some USSR tracts from that period I told myself that the reason was not Thatcher or Reagan but economic. The USSR economy had never worked, and Gorbachev recognized that.
As for restructuringl not wholesale change, that is exactly what happens to politicians at times. They throw the whole mess out rather than try to improve it. An example of that is America in 1787 when the framers met at Philadelphia to change the Articles and ended up throwing them out and writing a new constitution. Sometimes better to start over.

Doubtless, there was a myriad of reasons for the downfall of the USSR, but among the primary causes was in fact an unusually strong period of western leadership in the 1980s. The desperate attempt by rank leftist amateurs to re-write history in anyway conceivable in order to diminish the roles of Reagan and Thatcher fall flat, except of course to others as dogmatically inclined as themselves.

Yes there was a variety of reasons for the downfall but the primary one is that two leaders agreed to end the cold war, each for their own reason. Gorbachev wanted to end it because of the Soviet economy, Reagan because of his fear of a war. Gorbachev began the process with his offers, and Reagan grabbed the opportunity and they had a deal.
How did strong western leadership change Gorbachev's need to reform the USSR economy? Can you cite the historians that cite that as the primary reason Gorbachev suggested arms reduction?

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Was Reagan perfect? No, he had a Democrat controlled Congress so he had to negotiate and compromise to get his agenda passed

Did Reagan change the USA and the world for the better? Absolutely!

He freed tens of millions form the horrible, dehumanizing political economic system known as "Progressive State" and people in the USA and Eastern Bloc who were not invested in the success of the USSR admire him for this

An excuse followed by a lie.

Does anyone else sense a rhythm to nutball rhetoric? If you read it out loud at the right speed you can Virginia Reel to it.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Reagan was one of our worst presidents, didn't actually DO much but run up the debt.

But, its probably not fair to blame him for what he did. More accurate to blame Nancy cuz she was running things. He just did what she told him to do.

 

[Meathead]

It all comes off as whining. Whining cannot change history. As I said before, give it a rest.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Reagan at Brandenburg Gate - "tear down this wall" - YouTube

Reagan at Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin, Germany. June 12, 1987.

"Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall."

Then the wall magically came down, not because of Reagan, right? Gorby wanted the wall down, right?

Only the Wall was in Berlin, not Russia.

ReagaNUTs are about as stupid as it gets, Dante. Unable to do research, they prefer the tit-like soft security of fantasy (which for most of them the tit is another fantasy). It tickles the hell out of me that by 1980 Russia was trying to figure out how to stop supporting the parasites it created on its western border and White Trash America's halfwit windmill tilter, Dawn Peyote Reagan spent a trillion speeding it up by six months.

Fucking pathetic.

Reagan was one of our worst presidents, didn't actually DO much but run up the debt.

But, its probably not fair to blame him for what he did. More accurate to blame Nancy cuz she was running things. He just did what she told him to do.

amen to that.

History repeated itself when Clinton became president.thats why there were many bumper stickers out at that time that said rightly so-Impeach Clinton,and her husband to.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

The USSR collapsed not because of two Reagan terms, but because of decades of the cold war and more. Reagan gets some credit but nuts try and give him all or the majority

No matter how many times you spell it out to them like this,they ignore it.

they just cant comprehend it that it would have happened no matter who was president.as i said before,even Gorbachev was flabbergasted when he was asked if Reagan had anything to do with the collapse replying-are you serious? His pal Nixon even said he had nothing to do with it as well.


Gorbachev and Andropov had worked together on other projects, but in reading some USSR tracts from that period I told myself that the reason was not Thatcher or Reagan but economic. The USSR economy had never worked, and Gorbachev recognized that.
As for restructuringl not wholesale change, that is exactly what happens to politicians at times. They throw the whole mess out rather than try to improve it. An example of that is America in 1787 when the framers met at Philadelphia to change the Articles and ended up throwing them out and writing a new constitution. Sometimes better to start over.


well said.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Only the Wall was in Berlin, not Russia.

ReagaNUTs are about as stupid as it gets, Dante. Unable to do research, they prefer the tit-like soft security of fantasy (which for most of them the tit is another fantasy). It tickles the hell out of me that by 1980 Russia was trying to figure out how to stop supporting the parasites it created on its western border and White Trash America's halfwit windmill tilter, Dawn Peyote Reagan spent a trillion speeding it up by six months.

Fucking pathetic.

I agree 100% Reagan left us with the idea Cheney and others celebrated 'Reagan,' Vice President Dick Cheney famously declared in 2002, 'proved deficits don't matter.' Unless, that is, a Democrat is in the White House.

Reagan Proved Deficits Don't Matter* | Crooks and Liars

you took them to school on this link in that old thread of yours you made sometime back and just like they did with my link on this thread that I have posted many times,they are playing dodgeball with this link of yours as well which is no surprise since again,they did the samr thing back then,played dodgeball with this link and acted like your link never got posted eiter.no surprise since they have acted like I never posted my link either.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Was Reagan perfect? No, he had a Democrat controlled Congress so he had to negotiate and compromise to get his agenda passed

Did Reagan change the USA and the world for the better? Absolutely!

He freed tens of millions form the horrible, dehumanizing political economic system known as "Progressive State" and people in the USA and Eastern Bloc who were not invested in the success of the USSR admire him for this

An excuse followed by a lie.

Does anyone else sense a rhythm to nutball rhetoric? If you read it out loud at the right speed you can Virginia Reel to it.

I have nothing to defend and am bored by the Progressive rewrite of history

Reagan called the USSR an "Evil Empire" and made their collapse one of his top two priorities.

You want to imagine it was different, that's your problem.

 

[Meathead]

Was Reagan perfect? No, he had a Democrat controlled Congress so he had to negotiate and compromise to get his agenda passed

Did Reagan change the USA and the world for the better? Absolutely!

He freed tens of millions form the horrible, dehumanizing political economic system known as "Progressive State" and people in the USA and Eastern Bloc who were not invested in the success of the USSR admire him for this

An excuse followed by a lie.

Does anyone else sense a rhythm to nutball rhetoric? If you read it out loud at the right speed you can Virginia Reel to it.

I have nothing to defend and am bored by the Progressive rewrite of history

Reagan called the USSR an "Evil Empire" and made their collapse one of his top two priorities.

You want to imagine it was different, that's your problem.

Amen

 

[Political Junky]

Does man make history, or does history make the man? Not a simple question, and one not easily comprehended by partisan hacks (a shout-out to warrior and crusaderfrank, among other hacks).

RR was a great communicator and was able to make a personal connection with conservatives, liberals, Democrats, fellow Republicans and world leaders. These were his greatest strengths; foresight was not.

He was also lucky; he didn't have buffoons like McConnell and Boehner in Congress; no one in the other party was so brazen as McConnell to make bringing down the President his one priority and stonewalling every effort by him to govern.

Freddo, RR had a short "to-do" list

1. Defeat Soviet Communism

2. Hand the US economy back to US entrepreneurs

If your FDR is "Great" for 7 years of 20% Unemployment, RR is a God

Reagan voted for FDR.