Former Soviet satellites, republics s...

Former Soviet satellites, republics still pay homage to Ronald Reagan

There are 10 comments on the Washington Times story from Nov 29, 2011, titled Former Soviet satellites, republics still pay homage to Ronald Reagan. In it, Washington Times reports that:

SAN DIEGO , November 29, 2011 - During his time as President of the United States, Ronald Reagan became a leading anti-Communist champion alongside Great Britain's Lady Thatcher and Pope John Paul II.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Washington Times.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#1 Nov 29, 2011
Former SSR's don't know what else to think. Reagan was a horrible POTUS.
Veritas

Chula Vista, CA

#2 Nov 30, 2011
SteveKincaid wrote:
Former SSR's don't know what else to think. Reagan was a horrible POTUS.
What are you smoking? Reagan was the greatest POTUS of the Twentieth Century. He brought the Soviet Union to its knees, revitalized the U.S. economy, brought sanity back to the federal courts, and re-ignited Americans' optimism and restored faith in the presidency.

The only other president in his league was FDR, who I personally believe is greatly overrated (contrary to modern myth his economic programs were an utter failure, he greatly facilitated the creation of the welfare state in the U.S., and he and his staff brought communists into the executive branch who did tremendous damage there -- similar to what occurred in the UK, without the great notoriety).

You need to study history. Seriously. You already proved that you very little about basic European history. Now, you have proved that you know even less about modern world history -- and you lived through it!

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#3 Dec 1, 2011
Veritas wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you smoking? Reagan was the greatest POTUS of the Twentieth Century. He brought the Soviet Union to its knees, revitalized the U.S. economy, brought sanity back to the federal courts, and re-ignited Americans' optimism and restored faith in the presidency.
The only other president in his league was FDR, who I personally believe is greatly overrated (contrary to modern myth his economic programs were an utter failure, he greatly facilitated the creation of the welfare state in the U.S., and he and his staff brought communists into the executive branch who did tremendous damage there -- similar to what occurred in the UK, without the great notoriety).
You need to study history. Seriously. You already proved that you very little about basic European history. Now, you have proved that you know even less about modern world history -- and you lived through it!
This is all a matter of perspective.
Veritas

Chula Vista, CA

#4 Dec 2, 2011
SteveKincaid wrote:
<quoted text>This is all a matter of perspective.
No, it is not. It is a matter looking at history and the facts. You can say that the sky is orange. That does not make it true.

You stated that Reagan was a "horrible" president. He was not even a fair or average president. The only real debate is whether he was simply a good president or a truly great one.

Applying moral relativism is not using logic or reason. For example, some people still argue that the Soviet Union was a good thing. This does not create a debate or have anything to do with perspective, it simply identifies them as ignorant idiots. Even if the Soviet Union was good for them (e.g., as party members), it was an evil empire a matter of objective reasoning.
paul shykora arts

Calgary, Canada

#5 Dec 2, 2011
...THEY ARE ...Still under the new/old..Russia,fool....$$$.. eh yada u u

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#6 Dec 2, 2011
Veritas wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it is not. It is a matter looking at history and the facts. You can say that the sky is orange. That does not make it true.
You stated that Reagan was a "horrible" president. He was not even a fair or average president. The only real debate is whether he was simply a good president or a truly great one.
Applying moral relativism is not using logic or reason. For example, some people still argue that the Soviet Union was a good thing. This does not create a debate or have anything to do with perspective, it simply identifies them as ignorant idiots. Even if the Soviet Union was good for them (e.g., as party members), it was an evil empire a matter of objective reasoning.
You're comparing something you can look at 'The sky' to a person 'Ronald Regan'. Enjoy spreading your perspectives to someone who will accept that sort of comparison.
Veritas

Chula Vista, CA

#7 Dec 2, 2011
SteveKincaid wrote:
<quoted text>
You're comparing something you can look at 'The sky' to a person 'Ronald Regan'. Enjoy spreading your perspectives to someone who will accept that sort of comparison.
It is called an analogy. I also used a second analogy regarding the Soviet Union, which you ignored. Get some critical thinking skills.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8 Dec 3, 2011
Veritas wrote:
<quoted text>
It is called an analogy. I also used a second analogy regarding the Soviet Union, which you ignored. Get some critical thinking skills.
It's only the internet...
Veritas

Chula Vista, CA

#9 Dec 3, 2011
SteveKincaid wrote:
<quoted text>
It's only the internet...
So, your argument is that you can say anything you wish on the internet, regardless of how idiotic? That is your excuse for boorish behavior? Yes, you can certainly do that, but no one will take you seriously about anything. So, why bother lurking on this forum?

I hope that you do not run your life like that. But then again, it would explain the current state of western civilization. Unfortunately, people vote like they think -- and a constitutional government will not long survive such abuse.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10 Dec 4, 2011
Veritas wrote:
<quoted text>
So, your argument is that you can say anything you wish on the internet, regardless of how idiotic? That is your excuse for boorish behavior? Yes, you can certainly do that, but no one will take you seriously about anything. So, why bother lurking on this forum?
Yes, this forum doesn't require any standards to be met on entry, the posts found in this forum range from blatantly stupid to thoughtful, educated responses. Should it be taken seriously?
There's two reasons why I lurk round here, to read peoples posts, and to post something for conversation, although. You have kindly reinforced the closed-forum ideal on certain topics like Regan, maybe some of his policies were bad? His war on drugs, although with good intention, in my opinion, hurt medical science (MDMA).

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.

David Dreier Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Confidence in PUSD (Oct '08) Feb '17 Michael Pacer 5
News Tom DeLay, others offer support for accused chi... (Apr '16) Apr '16 Anita Bryant s Jihad 6
News Essential Politics: Bush coming to Brentwood to... (Nov '15) Dec '15 goonsquad 7
News Stung By Scandals, GOP Proposes New Ethics Rules (Mar '06) Nov '14 andet1987 11
News Dreier: Welcome China into Trans-Pacific Partne... (Jun '13) Jun '13 Andrez Lopez 1
News "Fiscal cliff" averted -- now what? (Jan '13) Jan '13 The Pelosi Knot 2
News San Gabriel Valley makes national headlines in ... (Dec '12) Jan '13 Steve 4
More from around the web