OT great quote from soviet spy on
- Thread starter coach66
- Start date
I'll try, Reagan was an actor and used his skill to become the best communicator
president we have ever had. He was able to reach across the isle and make friends with powerful democrats like Tip Oneal which allowed him to get things done. He took over one of the worst economies in our nations history after Carter and he and Volker absoulutely broke the back on inflation and lowered interest rates to where people starting taking risks again and buying homes, starting businesses and the economy boomed. The theory was things would trickle down because of the massive expansion. If you were willing to work then yea they trickled down because the 80's and 90's were full of opportunity and I started with nothing and have done pretty well. Reagan loved his country and inspired others to love it to. He hated communism and made it his mission to destroy it. He did. Reagan probably had one of the lowest IQ's of any President in History but his EQ was off the charts. When they wheeled him into the operating room to try and save his life after he was shot he looked at all the doctors and said "I hope you are all Republicans".\
HWB and Clinton were probably two of the most intelligent presidents we ever had and were pretty similar. The both moved to the middle in order to govern. It cost Bush his job and Clinton thrived once he moved to the middle. They were both pro business, less regulation type of guys and Clinton actually balanced the budget with a great deal of help from a Republican House and Senate. He had no choice. I would rate them both as good presidents that made smart choices except Bill who sometimes let his little head do too much thinking but I like him.
president we have ever had. He was able to reach across the isle and make friends with powerful democrats like Tip Oneal which allowed him to get things done. He took over one of the worst economies in our nations history after Carter and he and Volker absoulutely broke the back on inflation and lowered interest rates to where people starting taking risks again and buying homes, starting businesses and the economy boomed. The theory was things would trickle down because of the massive expansion. If you were willing to work then yea they trickled down because the 80's and 90's were full of opportunity and I started with nothing and have done pretty well. Reagan loved his country and inspired others to love it to. He hated communism and made it his mission to destroy it. He did. Reagan probably had one of the lowest IQ's of any President in History but his EQ was off the charts. When they wheeled him into the operating room to try and save his life after he was shot he looked at all the doctors and said "I hope you are all Republicans".\
HWB and Clinton were probably two of the most intelligent presidents we ever had and were pretty similar. The both moved to the middle in order to govern. It cost Bush his job and Clinton thrived once he moved to the middle. They were both pro business, less regulation type of guys and Clinton actually balanced the budget with a great deal of help from a Republican House and Senate. He had no choice. I would rate them both as good presidents that made smart choices except Bill who sometimes let his little head do too much thinking but I like him.
I'm thinking if George W Bush (remember "compassionate conservatism" i.e., big gov't conservatism), McCain (the 1st amendment is great as long as it doesn't help people challenge my position), and Romney (of Romneycare note) could get the Republican nomination, I'm thinking Reagan could have figured it out. I'm not so sure about George H Bush just because I'm not sure he could have won without riding Reagan's coattails. Not saying he definitely relied on Reagan's coattails, just don't remember how he was as a campaigner.
That Sumbitch LBJ tried to kill my dad.
Dad did 2 tours in Vietnam. They weren't allowed to win.
identity politics has destroyed the president's and congresses ability to govern
Imagine a world where debating ideas didn't automatically lead one side or another to declare the opposition anti-American, a dirty traitor, a communist, a fascist, etc. That went on, absolutely in previous decades (do a little research on Nixon and the southern strategy) but it wasn't the ONLY thing going on. As somebody noted, Reagan and O'Neil were famously friendly enemies, and each one took some chances of working across the aisle when they saw it as in their country's interest. Those tables have flipped, in my opinion, pretty much from Newt's arrival on. He didn't create the notion of a purity test for party affiliation, but man did he work the hell out of it - think contract with America, etc. I think the extreme ends of each party have much greater pull on policy than they used to because they've learned to work the primary system so well, so you have congress critters who might want to act independently, but know if they get out of line the extremists in their party will put big national money in their next primary and get them out. That's happened in both parties, but particularly in the Republican party, probably because they have more national money willing to come in to those small races. Add to that the last two decades of Fox News and the Liberal equivalents echo chambers, the huge influx of corporate cash into elections, and you have two parties that have gone from accepting that both are starting from the same core philosophy and are arguing about the details, two each being convinced the other must really deep down inside hate America. Makes me sad. If you want to see how much things have changed in the last 30 years, look up Mississippi national politicians in the last 100 years, and then look at party affiliation. Mississippi didn't get a modern era republican governor until 92.
Imagine a world where debating ideas didn't automatically lead one side or another to declare the opposition anti-American, a dirty traitor, a communist, a fascist, etc. That went on, absolutely in previous decades (do a little research on Nixon and the southern strategy) but it wasn't the ONLY thing going on. As somebody noted, Reagan and O'Neil were famously friendly enemies, and each one took some chances of working across the aisle when they saw it as in their country's interest. Those tables have flipped, in my opinion, pretty much from Newt's arrival on. He didn't create the notion of a purity test for party affiliation, but man did he work the hell out of it - think contract with America, etc. I think the extreme ends of each party have much greater pull on policy than they used to because they've learned to work the primary system so well, so you have congress critters who might want to act independently, but know if they get out of line the extremists in their party will put big national money in their next primary and get them out. That's happened in both parties, but particularly in the Republican party, probably because they have more national money willing to come in to those small races. Add to that the last two decades of Fox News and the Liberal equivalents echo chambers, the huge influx of corporate cash into elections, and you have two parties that have gone from accepting that both are starting from the same core philosophy and are arguing about the details, two each being convinced the other must really deep down inside hate America. Makes me sad. If you want to see how much things have changed in the last 30 years, look up Mississippi national politicians in the last 100 years, and then look at party affiliation. Mississippi didn't get a modern era republican governor until 92.
What did Hoover do to get him on the list that FDR didn't? He was basically FDR light on the economy; huge expansion of gov't spending in response to a downturn (that in hindsight I think is generally agreed to be mostly a monetary phenomenon) with horrible results. Granted FDR had WWII so there were other significant areas for him to redeem himself, but unless I'm missing a scandal, it seems Hoover gets hammered for acting in the same way we do today, except he had the excuse of having a lot less data and information to work with.
Yeah, there's a definition of treason in U.S. law. Even if he violated the law, it wouldn't constitute treason. And if the definition of treason was stretched to apply, then Obama probably also committed treason in performing the Bergdhal swap.
I would say that's about as accurate as a novice
Could hope to find. I had never heard of the low IQ but that doesn't make it untrue. I will never forget his tv appearance after the shuttle disaster. "Today they touched the face of God." No one could put into words what the nation or world needed to hear with the elegance that he could.
Could hope to find. I had never heard of the low IQ but that doesn't make it untrue. I will never forget his tv appearance after the shuttle disaster. "Today they touched the face of God." No one could put into words what the nation or world needed to hear with the elegance that he could.
Boom!
Pretty spot on. Bill and Newt were pretty great allies, but you wouldn't know that nowadays with the way Newt and Co. spew hate towards the other side (and vice versa). Bill has for all intensive purposes become non-political since leaving office. Imagine anyone in the Republican Party meeting with Obama to discuss an economic model.
Where Reagan spearheaded trickle down, JFK did the opposite. Both thrived there in their place, which again is evidence that a 2 party solution and one being right 100% of the time is completely impractical.
Pretty spot on. Bill and Newt were pretty great allies, but you wouldn't know that nowadays with the way Newt and Co. spew hate towards the other side (and vice versa). Bill has for all intensive purposes become non-political since leaving office. Imagine anyone in the Republican Party meeting with Obama to discuss an economic model.
Where Reagan spearheaded trickle down, JFK did the opposite. Both thrived there in their place, which again is evidence that a 2 party solution and one being right 100% of the time is completely impractical.
Last edited:
I think I did. Just because he is your #1 obviously doesn't make my opinion that he isn't the worst funny.
Last edited:
He was a horrible communicator who refused to use any relief to help the Depression. Even if you discount that, the tariff he put in place created a huge trade war that drug us even further down economically.
That did not hurt them nearly as bad as their extended war in Afghanistan...
that they could NOT win.
that they could NOT win.
Teddy and Reagan were bad asses!
Brings a tear to the eye that since 91 the best we can do is Clinton,Bush and Obama!
Brings a tear to the eye that since 91 the best we can do is Clinton,Bush and Obama!
I'll never forget it either. I always appreciated how he took a moment to specifically talk to the kids about what happened. Pretty much every kid that went to school that day across the country witnessed that event.
I agree with your points and also the other poster who
commented on CNN/Fox News. I have never seen the country so divided and unwilling to work with each other for the betterment of the whole. It is really bad and we need a leader that can bring people together.
commented on CNN/Fox News. I have never seen the country so divided and unwilling to work with each other for the betterment of the whole. It is really bad and we need a leader that can bring people together.
Last edited:
Carter's ineptitude in reaction to foreign events sealed his fate.
Domestically, he wan't that all bad, but the Iranian Revolution and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan were events he bungled. The Three Mile Island incident also struck a blow to his energy policies. Then he went and led the boycott of the Olympics and any popularity had eroded completely. I will say, he found his perfect role post presidency and has almost erased his legacy as a poor president and become a world wide respected advocate for human rights and treatment of disease. Not to mention Habitat for Humanity.
I'll also say that in time, when viewed outside the toxicity of the current political environment, Obama's presidency will be viewed in a much more positive light. Yeah, there will be that whole Bin Laden thing, but that's just blue meat fodder that the red meat eaters should love as well. I think his drone policy, inaction on mass data collection of citizens, and inaction on pressing the issue on the torture findings will be stains. The ACA, while imperfect, will eventually be viewed as a necessary first step toward a more complete healthcare reform (should have happened with Slick Willy and Newt when both sides could hold their noses and actually work together on some stuff). In terms of LGBT rights, he should have pushed it sooner, but he will be the president that was in office when a huge leap was taken. Jobs are coming back after an economic disaster, though incomes still lag. The stock market is back to all time highs. Sure, the president doesn't exactly influence that directly, but it does respond to policies pushed by the government. He will be the president that began to drag the nation into legitimate climate change awareness, which I think will be one of the currently unpopular (for half the electorate) issues that he will be respected for down the line. Also, there is a much more favorable view of America in the majority of the world as we do things like open up to Cuba and attempt negotiation first with countries like Iran instead of shooting first. Three or four presidents down the line, I think he'll be viewed as a general middle of the pack president. Did some good things, did some not so good things, but overall an ok president, with the historical significance of being the first black president. It's just really hard to judge a president through current political climate shaded lenses.
Also... color me surprised by the tone of this discussion. Well done SPS.
Domestically, he wan't that all bad, but the Iranian Revolution and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan were events he bungled. The Three Mile Island incident also struck a blow to his energy policies. Then he went and led the boycott of the Olympics and any popularity had eroded completely. I will say, he found his perfect role post presidency and has almost erased his legacy as a poor president and become a world wide respected advocate for human rights and treatment of disease. Not to mention Habitat for Humanity.
I'll also say that in time, when viewed outside the toxicity of the current political environment, Obama's presidency will be viewed in a much more positive light. Yeah, there will be that whole Bin Laden thing, but that's just blue meat fodder that the red meat eaters should love as well. I think his drone policy, inaction on mass data collection of citizens, and inaction on pressing the issue on the torture findings will be stains. The ACA, while imperfect, will eventually be viewed as a necessary first step toward a more complete healthcare reform (should have happened with Slick Willy and Newt when both sides could hold their noses and actually work together on some stuff). In terms of LGBT rights, he should have pushed it sooner, but he will be the president that was in office when a huge leap was taken. Jobs are coming back after an economic disaster, though incomes still lag. The stock market is back to all time highs. Sure, the president doesn't exactly influence that directly, but it does respond to policies pushed by the government. He will be the president that began to drag the nation into legitimate climate change awareness, which I think will be one of the currently unpopular (for half the electorate) issues that he will be respected for down the line. Also, there is a much more favorable view of America in the majority of the world as we do things like open up to Cuba and attempt negotiation first with countries like Iran instead of shooting first. Three or four presidents down the line, I think he'll be viewed as a general middle of the pack president. Did some good things, did some not so good things, but overall an ok president, with the historical significance of being the first black president. It's just really hard to judge a president through current political climate shaded lenses.
Also... color me surprised by the tone of this discussion. Well done SPS.
I don't disagree, but there is much to the history that people have skirted around. Actually gas prices in 85, if I recall correctly, were around $.50. Reagan, by design or luck, had a multi-pronged approach to toppling the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union's number one source of revenue is oil production. Carter was making them rich with his energy policy and the price of oil soaring. Reagan sold about 35 F14's to Saudi in exchange for them flooding the market dropping the price per barrel to $20 at one time, which cut their revenue substantially. At the same time, he ramped up our military modernization, which they tried to keep up with on a much tighter budget. On the Eastern front supporting the mujahedeen getting them bogged down in Afghanistan. On the Western front supporting Lech Welesa with Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II to cause labor unrest in the shipyards. All costing them significant time, money, and resources. It was just a matter of time after that.
As for raising taxes, he cut tax rates, but significantly raised revenue because the incentive was to produce and earn more. People to this day don't understand this and mischaracterize it as "trickle down." I hate that term. The economy grew for 8 years at an average rate of 4.5% compared to the past 8 years of about 2%. The poverty rate at the end of his administration was about 11.5 - 12% whereas today it is over 15%. The Urban Institute (no conservative outfit) said of the 80's the rich got richer, but the poor got a lot richer. The bottom quintile saw incomes rise 77% whereas the top quintile grew just under 5%. The last 7 years have seen a loss in median income of over $5,000.
BTW, my worst list is 1) Carter 2) Bush 43 3) FDR/LBJ tie and 5) Obama
As for raising taxes, he cut tax rates, but significantly raised revenue because the incentive was to produce and earn more. People to this day don't understand this and mischaracterize it as "trickle down." I hate that term. The economy grew for 8 years at an average rate of 4.5% compared to the past 8 years of about 2%. The poverty rate at the end of his administration was about 11.5 - 12% whereas today it is over 15%. The Urban Institute (no conservative outfit) said of the 80's the rich got richer, but the poor got a lot richer. The bottom quintile saw incomes rise 77% whereas the top quintile grew just under 5%. The last 7 years have seen a loss in median income of over $5,000.
BTW, my worst list is 1) Carter 2) Bush 43 3) FDR/LBJ tie and 5) Obama
A great "legend" some may have never heard
I'm sure most from US history remember "Tippacanoe and Tyler Too"
i posted this in another thread, one of my favorite wrinkles of history.
I could tell the whole story but don't wanna mess up a detail so I will let Wikipedia do the honor
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Tippecanoe
Anyway, after the curse had killed every president whom was elected in an aught year(1840,60,80,1900,1920,40,60) Nancy Reagan being into astrology, sought out help from the heavens to have Ronald time and place on earth thrown off just enough to save dear Ronnie's life. Old wives' tale? Perhaps. But the other "old wives" couldn't save Ronald's 7 predecessors.
I'm sure most from US history remember "Tippacanoe and Tyler Too"
i posted this in another thread, one of my favorite wrinkles of history.
I could tell the whole story but don't wanna mess up a detail so I will let Wikipedia do the honor
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Tippecanoe
Anyway, after the curse had killed every president whom was elected in an aught year(1840,60,80,1900,1920,40,60) Nancy Reagan being into astrology, sought out help from the heavens to have Ronald time and place on earth thrown off just enough to save dear Ronnie's life. Old wives' tale? Perhaps. But the other "old wives" couldn't save Ronald's 7 predecessors.
The ability to build rather than threaten and tear down relationships is key. Sorry- its a completely different world than 30 years ago. 24hr news cycle, instant access to information wherever you are with the internet, more information than ever on any topic- it all leads to a totally different stage.
Reagan was an actor in B movies and he would be in a blockbuster production if he were leading today. Translated- it wouldn't match.
Reagan was an actor in B movies and he would be in a blockbuster production if he were leading today. Translated- it wouldn't match.
I think the arguments for not taking out SH then, where the same as...
then as it was in 2003.
How long will the US have to occupy Iraq?
What happens when the US leaves?
If it turns into a **** storm when the US leaves, who picks up the pieces?
Can a stable Western-style Democratic government be installed in the Middle East, and can it stand the test of time?
12 years after the invasion of Iraq, we still do not have all the answers.
then as it was in 2003.
How long will the US have to occupy Iraq?
What happens when the US leaves?
If it turns into a **** storm when the US leaves, who picks up the pieces?
Can a stable Western-style Democratic government be installed in the Middle East, and can it stand the test of time?
12 years after the invasion of Iraq, we still do not have all the answers.
Have to ask yourself would he have dropped the bomb. I don't know if he would have. The fact that he let McArthur attack the Philippians when it would have been better and cost less US lives to bypass it says a lot about him. He might have been willing to invade Japan costing US lives rather than drop the bombs. ONe thing about Truman he had nuts however he lost them in 1950.
I've read many theories on why the bomb was dropped and the most common one (that I believe) was to end the war with Japan quickly to keep the soviets out of Japan. By that time (July-August 1945... 3 months after Germany surrendered), Stalin was taking whatever he could of Europe and the same would have been true of Japan. There was obviously some strategic value in taking Japan the way we did due to how much money and resources we sent them after the war. That's my opinion on why we dropped the bomb.
Latest
-
01
Maroon and White Basketball
Xavier 81-63 Mississippi State: Distance shooting hurts Bulldogs in Greenbrier defeat
-
02
Maroon and White Football
Kickoff Time Change: Mississippi State vs. Auburn
-
03
Maroon and White Football
Mississippi State Keys to Victory vs. Auburn
-
04
Rivals Basketball Recruiting
4-star center Chris Brown commits to Mississippi State
-
05
Maroon and White Football
Mississippi State Week 11 Preview: Auburn Q and A