factologist

Farmington, NM

#81 Jul 24, 2013
Atomic Cafe wrote:
<quoted text>
Wouldn't YOU like to know! Muahahahahahaha!
We do know.Reagan fooled no one. Even after throwing some of his sycophants under the bus to protect his old ass.
Atomic Cafe

Albuquerque, NM

#82 Jul 24, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Popular yes. Great president no.
<quoted text>This one is a no brainer.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/artic...
<quoted text> One model...really? For sale only in China at that. Doubling down on a lie. Gotcha!
Of course Reagan was a great President. He re-election by the greatest landslide in U.S. history is proof of that. A great President does what the people he represents want him to do, and Reagan was the right man, in the right place, at the right time. I call it God's will. Now we have the opposite of Reagan, a statist liberal who thinks government solves all ills. A clearer contrast could not be had. Reagan made the nation great because he believed in the people of the nation. Obama makes the nation weak because he's an elitist to thinks government is everything.

If you think worldwide automaker Fiat is only going to sell Chinese Jeeps in China, you are nuts. They are businessmen. I predict Chinese Jeeps in the United States within the decade. Romney is a businessman, and comes from a line of automakers to boot. If you don't think Mitt Romney can't pick up the phone and get the inside scoop on what's going on in business, especially the CAR business, you are as clueless about the way the world works as Barack Obama has proven to be. It was dufus's like you who said Japan would NEVER be a threat to the American car business. You must have missed the news about Detroit filing for bankruptcy.
Atomic Cafe

Albuquerque, NM

#83 Jul 24, 2013
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan 8/15/86

“leaning left”

Since: Mar 09

local

#84 Jul 24, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Yes indeed. I've love to hear how you rewrite history. Especially the big lie ole honest Mitt let out during the 2nd debate. You know, the one that Crowley laid a gotcha on ole Mitt over."Proceed Governor".
I just can't keep from laughing. Poor old atomic has now resorted to Reagan being "God's Will". Sorta like it was God's will to shoot Trayvon Martin [Zimmerman on Hannity].

By simple deduction that means Obama must be the devil's will.

He has proven my blissful ignorance point over and over yet he keeps on digging.
Misunderestimate Me

Las Vegas, NV

#85 Jul 24, 2013
I'm left leaning but when Margaret Thatcher died a few months ago, one curious comparison that was made was between Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, as politicians. Both inherited horrible economies, failing social programs (more so for Thatcher than Reagan), a saber rattling Soviet Union, and so on.

Both shared similar political, economical, and foreign policy philosophies, and both are credited, by some, or most (I guess) with putting their countries back on track economically by greatly decreasing inflation, increased jobs, and revived economies.

http://www.dw.de/the-reagan-thatcher-revoluti...

But then again, Geofrey Wheatcroft, in his NY Times OP, says of Thatcher and Reagan,

"..achievement[s] of Thatcher and Reagan is impossible to quantify, but the rough and ready rule in politics is that if things go well on your watch, you take the credit, whether or not you really deserve it. "

Food for thought.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#86 Jul 24, 2013
Misunderestimate Me wrote:
I'm left leaning but when Margaret Thatcher died a few months ago, one curious comparison that was made was between Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, as politicians. Both inherited horrible economies, failing social programs (more so for Thatcher than Reagan), a saber rattling Soviet Union, and so on.
Both shared similar political, economical, and foreign policy philosophies, and both are credited, by some, or most (I guess) with putting their countries back on track economically by greatly decreasing inflation, increased jobs, and revived economies.
http://www.dw.de/the-reagan-thatcher-revoluti...
But then again, Geofrey Wheatcroft, in his NY Times OP, says of Thatcher and Reagan,
"..achievement[s] of Thatcher and Reagan is impossible to quantify, but the rough and ready rule in politics is that if things go well on your watch, you take the credit, whether or not you really deserve it. "
Food for thought.
How about some fries with that burger?

From an American Experience article.

"Beginning in late 1982, the nation enjoyed the longest economic peacetime expansion since World War II. By 1984, a majority of Americans were feeling better about their economic situation, and credited Reagan for making it possible. Few gave serious consideration to an exploding federal deficit, fueled by tax cuts and record spending for defense, and an increasing disparity between the rich and poor."

AND

"The economic exuberance of the mid-1980s came to an abrupt halt on October 19, 1987 when the stock market fell more than 500 points. The tumble was seen, in some quarters, as a result of fiscal recklessness encouraged by the Reagan administration. As the national deficit approached $3 trillion, the wisdom of Reaganomics was very much put into question."

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#87 Jul 24, 2013
Atomic Cafe wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course Reagan was a great President. He re-election by the greatest landslide in U.S. history is proof of that.
So popularity represents greatness?

Most popular presidents in recent history are JFK, Clinton, Reagan-- in that order.

Clinton and JFK were great presidents.
By todays standards

Albuquerque, NM

#88 Jul 24, 2013
x-and-o wrote:
<quoted text>
So popularity represents greatness?
Most popular presidents in recent history are JFK, Clinton, Reagan-- in that order.
Clinton and JFK were great presidents.
John F. Kennedy would be a Republican today which by comparison with Barck Obama, Kennedy would crucified and villified by the extreme leftist crowds and supporters.
Bill Clinton was a good President yet if not for third party candidate Ross Perot taking votes, Clinton may not be have President until 1996 (well into the Federal de-regulation (from 1980s) boom). But as Clinton demostrated, as long as you have an -D- next to your name, you can get away with just about anything and still be re-elected! Clinton did though certainly have the American people in mind and knew how to communicate unlike the current guy who was reappointed.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#89 Jul 24, 2013
By todays standards wrote:
<quoted text>
John F. Kennedy would be a Republican today which by comparison with Barck Obama, Kennedy would crucified and villified by the extreme leftist crowds and supporters.
What info do you have to back up that statement?
Bill Clinton was a good President yet if not for third party candidate Ross Perot taking votes, Clinton may not be have President until 1996 (well into the Federal de-regulation (from 1980s) boom). But as Clinton demostrated, as long as you have an -D- next to your name, you can get away with just about anything and still be re-elected! Clinton did though certainly have the American people in mind and knew how to communicate unlike the current guy who was reappointed.
No claim of him being a Republican today. Strange! Especially with his economic record. I would think you would consider his econ approach derived from "trickle down" and ergo Reaganesque. An approach that he/Clinton made work and Reagan couldn't.
Curious, what did Clinton get away with in his 1st term? In his first term he failed at getting a national health care passed and in his second term he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. So what in hell did he get away with? A great peace time economy. Shame on the bastard.
Reappointed? Of course Obama was reappointed. He won the vote-popular and electoral. What would you expect. Oh, I see, you're trying to equate his reelection to Bush's appointment over Gore by the Supreme Court. Well that won't work.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#90 Jul 24, 2013
You are a talk radio sound bite and nothing more. You have no basis for anything you say; it's just something you've heard kneeherk cons say.

Do you ever actually check facts?
By todays standards wrote:
<quoted text>
John F. Kennedy would be a Republican today which by comparison with Barck Obama, Kennedy would crucified and villified by the extreme leftist crowds and supporters.
Bill Clinton was a good President yet if not for third party candidate Ross Perot taking votes, Clinton may not be have President until 1996 (well into the Federal de-regulation (from 1980s) boom). But as Clinton demostrated, as long as you have an -D- next to your name, you can get away with just about anything and still be re-elected! Clinton did though certainly have the American people in mind and knew how to communicate unlike the current guy who was reappointed.
by any standard

Santa Fe, NM

#91 Jul 24, 2013
By todays standards wrote:
<quoted text>
.
you are full of it.
Misunderestimate Me

United States

#92 Jul 25, 2013
By todays standards wrote:
<quoted text>
John F. Kennedy would be a Republican today which by comparison with Barck Obama, Kennedy would crucified and villified by the extreme leftist crowds and supporters.
This is an interesting perspective. One has to think of this in terms of context. When JFK first took office as a representative in the latge 1940's, southern Democracts were still in their anti-black civil rights mode, while northern Demos were largely pro-civil rights, as were the majority of the Republican party. Early on as a representative, JFK had to walk a political tight rope; appeasing southern Democrats (or more correctly, Dixiecrats) by not expressly supporting civil rights but remaining true to his family's legacy.

When he did become president, he applied a common sense approach to his foreign and domestic policies, essentially borrowing from both the Democratic and Republican parties. Like Ronald Reagan, he was largely focused on anti-Soviet Union policies to the point of confronting them directly and by proxy. JFK was very ferverently pro-Israel (like Reagan), very much against establishment of communist footholds in Asia and South America (like Reagan), JFK's economic policies were largely a classical liberal and laissez-faire philosophy (similar to Reagans but without the supply side component) which resulted in going from a recession (that was there when he took office) to a rebound, GDP grew to 5.5% by '63, inflation stayed at 1%, employment rose, industrial production rose by 15%, vehicle sales rose by 40%; all culminating in a sustained growth that has yet to be repeated, although Reagan came very close.

At the end of the day, JFK was a very independent president that cannot be described as being purely Democrat or Republic by today's or yesterday's standard. I submit Reagan was similar.

“leaning left”

Since: Mar 09

local

#93 Jul 25, 2013
Misunderestimate Me wrote:
I'm left leaning but when Margaret Thatcher died a few months ago, one curious comparison that was made was between Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, as politicians. Both inherited horrible economies, failing social programs (more so for Thatcher than Reagan), a saber rattling Soviet Union, and so on.
Both shared similar political, economical, and foreign policy philosophies, and both are credited, by some, or most (I guess) with putting their countries back on track economically by greatly decreasing inflation, increased jobs, and revived economies.
http://www.dw.de/the-reagan-thatcher-revoluti...
But then again, Geofrey Wheatcroft, in his NY Times OP, says of Thatcher and Reagan,
"..achievement[s] of Thatcher and Reagan is impossible to quantify, but the rough and ready rule in politics is that if things go well on your watch, you take the credit, whether or not you really deserve it. "
Food for thought.
Interesting article. Unlike the cons I like to hear and read different opinions before I form or possibly change mine. I do not hold Reagan nor Maggie in very high regard. Being the strong longtime supporter of Labor and hard working people receiving a living wage and safe working conditions. I am against anyone breaking the unions. Both Reagan and Thatcher were responsible of doing just that. Without representation the big boss man can pay a pittance, run sweat shops hmmmm reminds me of an earlier post about [Robber Barons] the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Which brings to mind the current mindset of today's cons.
Misunderestimate Me

United States

#94 Jul 25, 2013
bleeding heart liberal wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting article. Unlike the cons I like to hear and read different opinions before I form or possibly change mine. I do not hold Reagan nor Maggie in very high regard. Being the strong longtime supporter of Labor and hard working people receiving a living wage and safe working conditions. I am against anyone breaking the unions. Both Reagan and Thatcher were responsible of doing just that. Without representation the big boss man can pay a pittance, run sweat shops hmmmm reminds me of an earlier post about [Robber Barons] the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Which brings to mind the current mindset of today's cons.
Can't argue with the negative effects of union-busting, I suppose. But something interesting about Reagan's busting of the air traffic controllers in 1981 - one of his biggest ally in busting PATCO was the AFL-CIO who refused to honor the PATCO picket line. Had the AFL-CIO supported PATCO, things may have turned out differently.

“leaning left”

Since: Mar 09

local

#95 Jul 25, 2013
Misunderestimate Me wrote:
<quoted text>

At the end of the day, JFK was a very independent president that cannot be described as being purely Democrat or Republic by today's or yesterday's standard. I submit Reagan was similar.
I somewhat resent this comparison. JFK was a thinking man and a scholar. Reagan was a puppet reading lines and being handled. I see no similarity in the two.
lolol

Albuquerque, NM

#96 Jul 25, 2013
All this blather of long gone great presidents. What difference at this point does it make since we have a moron in the oval office now ?
factologist

Farmington, NM

#97 Jul 25, 2013
lolol wrote:
All this blather of long gone great presidents. What difference at this point does it make since we have a moron in the oval office now ?
Care to elaborate or did you use up your vocabulary calling the President a moron?
wake up

Santa Fe, NM

#98 Jul 25, 2013
lolol wrote:
?
dubya been gone for a long time
factologist

Farmington, NM

#99 Jul 25, 2013
wake up wrote:
<quoted text>
dubya been gone for a long time
As Mark Anthony said, "The evil that men do lives after them;". I would hate to see the day when a junior in HS would say, "Adolf who"?
Misunderestimate Me

United States

#100 Jul 25, 2013
lolol wrote:
All this blather of long gone w ?
Those ignorant of history are condemned to repeat it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Blanco Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Who still takes global warming seriously? (Jan '10) 5 hr Earthling-1 30,790
Martinez prefers to stick to issues (Jun '10) Sat justice is just a... 6,084
Barack Obama COUNTDOWN Clock 1000 days left & c... Sat XandO 214
FPD Bored? Oct 15 MCMN 24
Farmington Police Department expects 5-year hig... Oct 14 Ted 2
Jordan Ray Thomas Miller (Nov '08) Oct 13 Ashley Schultz 9
Bloomfield woman behind Ten Commandments monume... Oct 10 Liam R 3
Blanco Dating
Find my Match

Blanco Jobs

Blanco People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Blanco News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Blanco

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]