The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan

[CrusaderFrank]

Notice these anti-Reagan posts always are completely devoid of the actual events and context of the Reagan era - that's because if they were included, the anti-Reagan defamation would be seen for what it is.

What devoid?

Reagan made a deal with an enemy to win an election. You dispute that? Go on. Do it man. Dare to dream.

The CIA is putting Crazy Pills in your drinking water.

 

[Sallow]

Notice these anti-Reagan posts always are completely devoid of the actual events and context of the Reagan era - that's because if they were included, the anti-Reagan defamation would be seen for what it is.

What devoid?

Reagan made a deal with an enemy to win an election. You dispute that? Go on. Do it man. Dare to dream.

The CIA is putting Crazy Pills in your drinking water.

Maybe.

Or is it Reagan's very OWN WORDS.

I think this is more the case..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BJRUcX8pBo]‪Fight scene from "They Live"‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ShackledNation]

Reagan was great except he never had a Conservative Congress to work with.

There, I said it

The case can be made the Congress foiled Reagan's efforts. But we must realize that if Reagan did intend to curtail government spending, taxation, and power, for whatever reasons he did not. This is not to say he is a bad president. The president can only do so much. But conservatives propagate the idea that Reagan did accomplish these goals, and liberals use such incorrect views to dismiss conservative and libertarian economic policy. The values of small government and liberty that are vital to economic growth and well-being, which is why we must recognize when such values were not implemented, even if the man in charge desperately desired them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reagan was great except he never had a Conservative Congress to work with.

There, I said it

The case can be made the Congress foiled Reagan's efforts. But we must realize that if Reagan did intend to curtail government spending, taxation, and power, for whatever reasons he did not. This is not to say he is a bad president. The president can only do so much. But conservatives propagate the idea that Reagan did accomplish these goals, and liberals use such incorrect views to dismiss conservative and libertarian economic policy. The values of small government and liberty that are vital to economic growth and well-being, which is why we must recognize when such values were not implemented, even if the man in charge desperately desired them.

The last time we had a Conservative Presidency and Congress was back in the 1920's; they ended a Depression in 18 months.

Reagan did not curtail government spending because he knew he had to work with American Jihadist known as "Democrats" who controlled Congress and I'm so sick and fucking tired of stupid fucking morons pretending they don't know that Dems Controlled Congress during the Reagan years.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What devoid?

Reagan made a deal with an enemy to win an election. You dispute that? Go on. Do it man. Dare to dream.

The CIA is putting Crazy Pills in your drinking water.

Maybe.

Or is it Reagan's very OWN WORDS.

I think this is more the case..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BJRUcX8pBo]‪Fight scene from "They Live"‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

No, really. Get you water checked.

 

[Patrick2]

Notice these anti-Reagan posts always are completely devoid of the actual events and context of the Reagan era - that's because if they were included, the anti-Reagan defamation would be seen for what it is.

What devoid?

Reagan made a deal with an enemy to win an election. You dispute that? Go on. Do it man. Dare to dream.

That is false, but what if it were true? What great conservative things would he do as president if he weren't president?

 

[ShackledNation]

Reagan was great except he never had a Conservative Congress to work with.

There, I said it

The case can be made the Congress foiled Reagan's efforts. But we must realize that if Reagan did intend to curtail government spending, taxation, and power, for whatever reasons he did not. This is not to say he is a bad president. The president can only do so much. But conservatives propagate the idea that Reagan did accomplish these goals, and liberals use such incorrect views to dismiss conservative and libertarian economic policy. The values of small government and liberty that are vital to economic growth and well-being, which is why we must recognize when such values were not implemented, even if the man in charge desperately desired them.

The last time we had a Conservative Presidency and Congress was back in the 1920's; they ended a Depression in 18 months.

Reagan did not curtail government spending because he knew he had to work with American Jihadist known as "Democrats" who controlled Congress and I'm so sick and fucking tired of stupid fucking morons pretending they don't know that Dems Controlled Congress during the Reagan years.

The OP was not ignorant of that fact, nor am I. The source in the OP comes from a libertarian institute, which is incredibly pro-free market, as am I. The point trying to be made is not that Reagan is some evil terrible president, the point is that government did not decrease under Reagan's presidency. Whether he wanted it to or not is irrelevant to that point.

Conservatives hail Reagan as the man who decreased government, spending, and taxes. They say his policies caused a period of economic growth unprecedented in history. Liberals point out that what actually happened in the 80s was an expansion of government, and say that is why there was growth. That too is wrong. The growth was caused by a complete reversal of Federal Reserve Policy. Money was destroyed, not created, and interest rates were allowed to rise to levels closer to the natural rate.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The case can be made the Congress foiled Reagan's efforts. But we must realize that if Reagan did intend to curtail government spending, taxation, and power, for whatever reasons he did not. This is not to say he is a bad president. The president can only do so much. But conservatives propagate the idea that Reagan did accomplish these goals, and liberals use such incorrect views to dismiss conservative and libertarian economic policy. The values of small government and liberty that are vital to economic growth and well-being, which is why we must recognize when such values were not implemented, even if the man in charge desperately desired them.

The last time we had a Conservative Presidency and Congress was back in the 1920's; they ended a Depression in 18 months.

Reagan did not curtail government spending because he knew he had to work with American Jihadist known as "Democrats" who controlled Congress and I'm so sick and fucking tired of stupid fucking morons pretending they don't know that Dems Controlled Congress during the Reagan years.

The OP was not ignorant of that fact, nor am I. The source in the OP comes from a libertarian institute, which is incredibly pro-free market, as am I. The point trying to be made is not that Reagan is some evil terrible president, the point is that government did not decrease under Reagan's presidency. Whether he wanted it to or not is irrelevant to that point.

Conservatives hail Reagan as the man who decreased government, spending, and taxes. They say his policies caused a period of economic growth unprecedented in history. Liberals point out that what actually happened in the 80s was an expansion of government, and say that is why there was growth. That too is wrong. The growth was caused by a complete reversal of Federal Reserve Policy. Money was destroyed, not created, and interest rates were allowed to rise to levels closer to the natural rate.

Wrong again, Bucko. "Conservatives hail Reagan as the man who decreased government, spending, and taxes." could have been written by TruthMatter or Rdean because it is the polar opposite of reality.

Do you want to take another whack at it?

 

[Antiderivative]

Notice these anti-Reagan posts always are completely devoid of the actual events and context of the Reagan era - that's because if they were included, the anti-Reagan defamation would be seen for what it is.

What devoid?

Reagan made a deal with an enemy to win an election. You dispute that? Go on. Do it man. Dare to dream.

That is false, but what if it were true? What great conservative things would he do as president if he weren't president?

No, its not. He wanted the Iranians to release the hostage after he was elected, yet kooks think that was being very American.

I hate to break this to your, but political opportunists are not American.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What devoid?

Reagan made a deal with an enemy to win an election. You dispute that? Go on. Do it man. Dare to dream.

That is false, but what if it were true? What great conservative things would he do as president if he weren't president?

No, its not. He wanted the Iranians to release the hostage after he was elected, yet kooks think that was being very American.

I hate to break this to your, but political opportunists are not American.

How did releasing the hostage AFTER he was elected help him win the election, can you explain that to the rest of us?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What devoid?

Reagan made a deal with an enemy to win an election. You dispute that? Go on. Do it man. Dare to dream.

That is false, but what if it were true? What great conservative things would he do as president if he weren't president?

No, its not. He wanted the Iranians to release the hostage after he was elected, yet kooks think that was being very American.

I hate to break this to your, but political opportunists are not American.

Bush was on the SR-71? LOL!

Are you worried about chemtrails?

 

[Sallow]

Notice these anti-Reagan posts always are completely devoid of the actual events and context of the Reagan era - that's because if they were included, the anti-Reagan defamation would be seen for what it is.

What devoid?

Reagan made a deal with an enemy to win an election. You dispute that? Go on. Do it man. Dare to dream.

That is false, but what if it were true? What great conservative things would he do as president if he weren't president?

False?

Heh.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHXq8TRejow]‪Telling Lies‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Sallow]

That is false, but what if it were true? What great conservative things would he do as president if he weren't president?

No, its not. He wanted the Iranians to release the hostage after he was elected, yet kooks think that was being very American.

I hate to break this to your, but political opportunists are not American.

How did releasing the hostage AFTER he was elected help him win the election, can you explain that to the rest of us?

They released them 20 minutes after he was sworn in..

But heck..how did it help?

It showed that Carter was ineffective.

 

[Sallow]

Oh by the way.

That's fucking treason.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No, its not. He wanted the Iranians to release the hostage after he was elected, yet kooks think that was being very American.

I hate to break this to your, but political opportunists are not American.

How did releasing the hostage AFTER he was elected help him win the election, can you explain that to the rest of us?

They released them 20 minutes after he was sworn in..

But heck..how did it help?

It showed that Carter was ineffective.

Um, I'm sorry, you have to explain this to me again.

The hostages were released AFTER he was elected. What do you think the word "after" means in this context?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, its not. He wanted the Iranians to release the hostage after he was elected, yet kooks think that was being very American.

I hate to break this to your, but political opportunists are not American.

How did releasing the hostage AFTER he was elected help him win the election, can you explain that to the rest of us?

They released them 20 minutes after he was sworn in..

But heck..how did it help?

It showed that Carter was ineffective.

Carter was ineffective.
I wonder if they were released because they were afraid of Reagan?
It's obvious they didn't fear Carter.

 

[ShackledNation]

The last time we had a Conservative Presidency and Congress was back in the 1920's; they ended a Depression in 18 months.

Reagan did not curtail government spending because he knew he had to work with American Jihadist known as "Democrats" who controlled Congress and I'm so sick and fucking tired of stupid fucking morons pretending they don't know that Dems Controlled Congress during the Reagan years.

The OP was not ignorant of that fact, nor am I. The source in the OP comes from a libertarian institute, which is incredibly pro-free market, as am I. The point trying to be made is not that Reagan is some evil terrible president, the point is that government did not decrease under Reagan's presidency. Whether he wanted it to or not is irrelevant to that point.

Conservatives hail Reagan as the man who decreased government, spending, and taxes. They say his policies caused a period of economic growth unprecedented in history. Liberals point out that what actually happened in the 80s was an expansion of government, and say that is why there was growth. That too is wrong. The growth was caused by a complete reversal of Federal Reserve Policy. Money was destroyed, not created, and interest rates were allowed to rise to levels closer to the natural rate.

Wrong again, Bucko. "Conservatives hail Reagan as the man who decreased government, spending, and taxes." could have been written by TruthMatter or Rdean because it is the polar opposite of reality.

Do you want to take another whack at it?

Opposite of reality? Everything I hear from conservatives says otherwise. Hannity is one example of a conservative who points to reagan and his policies that never occured as the example we must follow.

Not all conservatives buy the reagan myth. But a substantial amount do. Claiming otherwise is a bit dishonest.

 

[Patrick2]

Without puncturing the leftwing lies about Reagan yet again (eight times is enough) the fact that Reagan set off a great wave of prosperity with the huge 1981 tax cuts and deregulation is beyond question. Eg, as one metric, look at the DJ average for the 1980s:

Dow Jones Industrial Average (1980 - 2000 Daily) - Charting Tools - StockCharts.com

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The OP was not ignorant of that fact, nor am I. The source in the OP comes from a libertarian institute, which is incredibly pro-free market, as am I. The point trying to be made is not that Reagan is some evil terrible president, the point is that government did not decrease under Reagan's presidency. Whether he wanted it to or not is irrelevant to that point.

Conservatives hail Reagan as the man who decreased government, spending, and taxes. They say his policies caused a period of economic growth unprecedented in history. Liberals point out that what actually happened in the 80s was an expansion of government, and say that is why there was growth. That too is wrong. The growth was caused by a complete reversal of Federal Reserve Policy. Money was destroyed, not created, and interest rates were allowed to rise to levels closer to the natural rate.

Wrong again, Bucko. "Conservatives hail Reagan as the man who decreased government, spending, and taxes." could have been written by TruthMatter or Rdean because it is the polar opposite of reality.

Do you want to take another whack at it?

Opposite of reality? Everything I hear from conservatives says otherwise. Hannity is one example of a conservative who points to reagan and his policies that never occured as the example we must follow.

Not all conservatives buy the reagan myth. But a substantial amount do. Claiming otherwise is a bit dishonest.

Who wrote this for you? "Conservatives hail Reagan as the man who decreased government, spending, and taxes."

 

[Political Junky]

Reagan was the puppet of a group known as his "kitchen cabinet". He did their will and was rewarded handsomely.