# Ronald Reagan



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Do you remember November 9,1989? Do you remember thousands of West Berliners waiting on their side of the wall with bottles of champagne while East Germans were breaking through?

Just wondering ... but did any Democratic president ever ask the Soviet Union to tear down the wall in Berlin. *The truth is that Ronald Reagan was the president who won the Cold War. *Within just a few days the Democrats and their media myrmidons are going to be working full-bore to deny him that legacy. The Cold War, you see, was really World War III. The left isn't comfortable for all of this praise for the Republican who won World War III while they're trying to defeat the president who is presently fighting World War IV.
*You need to get on the Internet to see what the loyal Democrats are saying on Democraticunderground.com. ** :******: You'll find such postings as*:


> "The hysteric media outburst has already begun, his crimes against humanity notwithstanding. The blunt idiocy of that national self-deprecating spectacle makes me sick to my stomach. Other than that, I'll proceed to celebrate the news in private. For now. (Posted by NV1962)


*And here's another post from Democraticunderground.com. This one from "mopaul."*



> I don't care what killed him, Alzheimer's or the black plague, I'm glad he's dead and I don't care how many times I'm scolded or chastised for it. the day he took office was the most depressing day of my life, and i swore, that on the day he died, I'd drink a toast of celebration and figuratively piss on his grave and have said so to several Gingrich sucking Reagan worshipping dickheads. F--k Ronald Reagan, and i hope in some small way my f--k you counteracts all the bull**** we are going to be hammered with for a f--king month after the fall of this 'greeeeeaaaaaat human being'. F--k you Ronnie, here's to ya pal. see ya in hell


Other posters on Democraticunderground .com followed with such comments as


> : "Yup, one less Nazi terrorist in the world with the death of Ronald Reagan"


Today is a good day to take a close look into the black hearts of our compassionate liberal friends. :******: uke:

Also ... were you listening to Prairie Home Companion on National Public Radio yesterday? It's a live broadcast, you know. In the middle of that broadcast Garrison Keillor told the audience that Ronald Reagan had died. You could hear liberals in the audience cheering and clapping. *Class act, those Democrats*.

No doubt ... Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of my lifetime.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

The cold war was Korea....Viet Nam...Cuba....Central America.....etc....All these wars were fought for freedom and to secure a better future for America. I always remind my Vetern friends that although the media turned those wars into political conflicts which we seem to have lost, we did not loose any of them, and no American Soldier has died in vane. 8)

I do agree Ronald Reagan had alot of moxy.


----------



## MTPheas (Oct 8, 2003)

The firing of the air traffic controllers, winnable nuclear war, recallable nuclear missiles, trees that cause pollution, Elliott Abrams lying to Congress, ketchup as a vegetable, colluding with Guatemalan thugs, pardons for F.B.I. lawbreakers, voodoo economics, budget deficits, toasts to Ferdinand Marcos, public housing cutbacks, redbaiting the nuclear freeze movement, James Watt.

Getting cozy with Argentine fascist generals, tax credits for segregated schools, disinformation campaigns, "homeless by choice," Manuel Noriega, falling wages, the HUD scandal, air raids on Libya, "constructive engagement" with apartheid South Africa, United States Information Agency blacklists of liberal speakers, attacks on OSHA and workplace safety, the invasion of Grenada, assassination manuals, Nancy's astrologer.

Fawn Hall, female appointees (8 percent), mining harbors, the S&L scandal, 239 dead U.S. troops in Beirut, Al Haig "in control," silence on AIDS, food-stamp reductions, Debategate, White House shredding, Jonas Savimbi, tax cuts for the rich, "mistakes were made."

Michael Deaver's conviction for influence peddling, Lyn Nofziger's conviction for influence peddling, Caspar Weinberger's five-count indictment, Ed Meese ("You don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime"), Donald Regan (women don't "understand throw-weights"), education cuts, massacres in El Salvador.

"The bombing begins in five minutes," $640 Pentagon toilet seats, African-American judicial appointees (1.9 percent), Reader's Digest, C.I.A.-sponsored car-bombing in Lebanon (more than eighty civilians killed), 200 officials accused of wrongdoing, William Casey, Iran/contra. "Facts are stupid things," three-by-five cards, the MX missile, Bitburg, S.D.I., Robert Bork, naps, Teflon.

The veneer of honor and respect painted across the legacy of Ronald Reagan is itself a myth of biblical proportions. The coverage proffered today of the Reagan legacy seldom mentions impropriety until the Iran/Contra scandal appears on the administration timeline. This sin of omission is vast. By the end of his term in office, some 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, indicted or investigated for misconduct and/or criminal activities.

Some of the names on this disgraceful roll-call: Oliver North, John Poindexter, Richard Secord, Casper Weinberger, Elliott Abrams, Robert C. McFarlane, Michael Deaver, E. Bob Wallach, James Watt, Alan D. Fiers, Clair George, Duane R. Clarridge, Anne Gorscuh Burford, Rita Lavelle, Richard Allen, Richard Beggs, Guy Flake, Louis Glutfrida, Edwin Gray, Max Hugel, Carlos Campbell, John Fedders, Arthur Hayes, J. Lynn Helms, Marjory Mecklenburg, Robert Nimmo, J. William Petro, Thomas C. Reed, Emanuel Savas, Charles Wick. Many of these names are lost to history, but more than a few of them are still with us today, 'rehabilitated' by the administration of George W. Bush.

Ronald Reagan actively supported the regimes of the worst people ever to walk the earth. Names like Marcos, Duarte, Rios Mont and Duvalier reek of blood and corruption, yet were embraced by the Reagan administration with passionate intensity. The ground of many nations is salted with the bones of those murdered by brutal rulers who called Reagan a friend. Who can forget his support of those in South Africa who believed apartheid was the proper way to run a civilized society?

One dictator in particular looms large across our landscape. Saddam Hussein was a creation of Ronald Reagan. The Reagan administration supported the Hussein regime despite his incredible record of atrocity. The Reagan administration gave Hussein intelligence information which helped the Iraqi military use their chemical weapons on the battlefield against Iran to great effect. The deadly bacterial agents sent to Iraq during the Reagan administration are a laundry list of horrors.

The Reagan administration sent an emissary named Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq to shake Saddam Hussein's hand and assure him that, despite public American condemnation of the use of those chemical weapons, the Reagan administration still considered him a welcome friend and ally. This happened while the Reagan administration was selling weapons to Iran, a nation notorious for its support of international terrorism, in secret and in violation of scores of laws.

Another name on Ronald Reagan's roll call is that of Osama bin Laden. The Reagan administration believed it a bully idea to organize an army of Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union. bin Laden became the spiritual leader of this action. Throughout the entirety of Reagan's term, bin Laden and his people were armed, funded and trained by the United States. Reagan helped teach Osama bin Laden the lesson he lives by today, that it is possible to bring a superpower to its knees. bin Laden believes this because he has done it once before, thanks to the dedicated help of Ronald Reagan.

In 1998, two American embassies in Africa were blasted into rubble by Osama bin Laden, who used the Semtex sent to Afghanistan by the Reagan administration to do the job. In 2001, Osama bin Laden thrust a dagger into the heart of the United States, using men who became skilled at the art of terrorism with the help of Ronald Reagan. Today, there are 827 American soldiers and over 10,000 civilians who have died in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, a war that came to be because Reagan helped manufacture both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

How much of this can be truthfully laid at the feet of Ronald Reagan? It depends on who you ask. Those who worship Reagan see him as the man in charge, the man who defeated Soviet communism, the man whose vision and charisma made Americans feel good about themselves after Vietnam and the malaise of the 1970s. Those who despise Reagan see him as nothing more than a pitch-man for corporate raiders, the man who allowed greed to become a virtue, the man who smiled vapidly while allowing his officials to run the government for him.

In the final analysis, however, the legacy of Ronald Reagan - whether he had an active hand in its formulation, or was merely along for the ride - is beyond dispute. His famous question, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" is easy to answer. We are not better off than we were four years ago, or eight years ago, or twelve, or twenty. We are a badly damaged state, ruled today by a man who subsists off Reagan's most corrosive final gift to us all: It is the image that matters, and be damned to the truth.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Perspective is strange because I see all those things you consider his faults to be good things, Oh well I guess it takes all of us to make the world go round :lol: As for the world being worse off?? I kind of like not worring about Soviet Nukes raining down on us, you would have to talk to the people of eastern europe to see if they think they are better off without the tyranny of the soviet union running their lives.....


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

You didn't really worry about soviet nukes did you??? They used to make us hide under our little wooden desks from nuclear bombs  , I guess a guy shoulda figured something was wrong with that picture right away. In all of war never has a conquering army destroyed the people that would be feeding them if they happen to take control. Gotta look ahead a little even in war. 8)


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ask the people of Berlin that question they will probably tell a different story  You might of felt safe they probably didn't want to waste a nuke on ND they couldn't be sure they would hit anyone :lol:


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I disagreed with Reagan's politics, and would never say that he was a great (even a good) president. May recollections of the farm economy in the 80s, corporate greed, his refusal to deal with AIDs, and other things described above stick in my mind.

This being said, Reagan was a leader. I respected the fact that he stood by his convictions, even if I disagreed with them.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Big Daddy thats a commendable post and I admire you for it, and I'm serious no sarcasm meant at all :beer: 
Thanks


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

REMEMBERING REAGAN

The nation continues to mourn President Ronald Reagan's passing this week, with his casket on display at the Reagan library in California. Over 14,000 people have waited in line to pay their last respects. *People loved Reagan...perhaps that's why the left could never counter his appeal. *As the week goes on this is going to frustrate the left more and more. :lol:

Question: When is the left going to completely lose it this week? They've already gone nutso in their Democraticunderground.com website. You're also hearing some rather nasty comments from the leftist stronghold of the entertainment industry. Just wait .. my guess is that before the week is out the hatred is going to start shining through.

One big leftist fear this week is that the emotion being showed for Ronald Reagan is going to start washing over to the Bush presidency. Reagan had the resolve to fight communism when the conventional leftist wisdom was that we should merely be satisfied with a policy of containment. Bush has the resolve to fight Islamic terrorism while, again, the leftist policy is one of containment. The parallels are obvious, and sooner or later the left is going to have to step forward with the rhetoric of hatred in an attempt to keep the people from connecting any more dots.

The tribute to Ronald Reagan will last all week, culminating in his state funeral in Washington on Friday. Maybe people really do get Reagan after all. *One thing's for sure: the left still doesn't get it, and never will. *Except for the New York Times, they're just laying low for now, but you can expect them to come out of the woodwork.

DID I MENTION THE NEW YORK TIMES?

Yes, I did. And why? Because the Times is making no effort whatsoever to hide its disdain for Ronald Reagan. While other liberal newspapers like the Washington Post are running banner headlines covering the death of Ronald Reagan, the Times ran a three-column story on Sunday, and only one column on Monday. Also, we have these gems from the pages of the Times:

"It was Mr. Reagan's good fortune that during his time in office the Soviet Union was undergoing profound change, eventually to collapse ..."

and then there's this gem in a Monday editorial:

"Looking back now, we can trace some of the flaws of the current Washington mindset -- the tax-cut-driven deficits, the slogan-driven foreign policy -- to Mr. Reagan's example."

I can hardly wait to see what the times has to say as the week goes on.

*The media just wouldn't be the media without a little condescension, would it? * :******: The overwhelming amount of media coverage is positive toward Reagan, but the media is getting their digs in here and there.

The top two things mentioned are the Iran-Contra affair and the deficit spending that occurred while Reagan was in office. Now, keep in mind about Iran-Contra...the point of the whole operation was to free hostages. And stop communism spreading in South America.

The media has been trying to get Reagan with this since it happened. They really, really thought they had him on this one. Too bad for them it didn't work. Reagan left office with some of the highest approval ratings in history. :beer: 
Then there's the deficit and the national debt. While government spending propelled to new heights during the Reagan years, a few things are worth noting. *First, all of that money was authorized and spent by a Democratically-controlled House of Representatives*. If it really was that big of a deal then, why didn't the Democrats support the spending cuts necessary to balance the budget? They didn't, because just like now, they don't ever want to cut spending.

As for the Reagan administration's defense spending, it was worth every penny. *It was this spending that won the Cold War*. Reagan made it clear that he was ready to spend so much on military efforts that the Soviet Union would go bankrupt trying to keep up. *It worked*. The Cold War was won with money, not bullets. Isn't that a much-preferred scenario?  A fighting war would of been more expensive both in terms of life and money

We also have a somewhat obscure British entertainer named Morrissey who managed to get some ink yesterday. Morrissey was on stage when he got word of Reagan's death. He announced the death to the crowd, and the crowd cheered. Morrissey then said that it should have been Bush who died instead. (What a piece of feces this guy is). Crowd goes wild. I wonder if this clown knows the Dixie Chics?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Drudge is running a story quoting a source as saying President Clinton is privately expressing anger that he was left off the speakers' list for Friday's Reagan State funeral. He's got his panties in a knot because both Presidents Bush will speak, but not him or Jimmy Carter. What? 

You've got to be kidding me. If this is true (and Drudge is usually right,) this is pathetic. Can't somebody decide who they want to speak at their own funeral? Press reports say the preparations for this funeral were made as far back as 1989, right after Reagan left office. Nancy Reagan (who is almost 83) is probably making the final decision on who gets to speak and who doesn't. It is her right to decide that and nobody else's business. So what is this really about?

Clinton's probably mad because he won't get to be on TV, and won't be able to be associated with the Reagan magic. He has a book coming out, you know...and he wants publicity. Considering some of his painfully long and boring speeches, the Reagan family probably wants to prevent him from hijacking the event for his own purposes.

Unbelievable...but then considering the source, should we have expected anything less? :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bobm

I think all these people know that the nation as a whole loved Ronald Reagan, after all he took 49 states. I didn't vote for him in the first election and I didn't like his secretary of interior because in my mind he was very anti environmental. Never the less, I felt that my freedom and the freedom of America was more important and voted for him in the second election. The environment could survive longer than we could with the likes of the liberals of that day. The democrats know Reagan was popular, they want air time anyway they can get it (look at senator Wellstone's (sp) funeral ----- shameless!!!). They will talk of his many achievements as if they genuinely admired him, then at the first dark of the moon they will crawl from under their rocks to dance on his grave.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ronald Reagan's favorite patriotic song was "God Bless America." A fitting tribute to Ronald Reagan would be to get rid of that hideous takeoff on an old English drinking song we now use as a national anthem, and replace it with "God Bless America." As for those like the ACLU ect. who would object to the word "God" in that song. Two words. Screw them. :lol:


----------

