Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But crime went down when Reagan said "lock them up". Star Wars worked and it drove the Communists out of business and the left crazy. The left's answer to the war on drugs is what? What is their solution? Make all drugs legal? That will work?
Actually, most historians from the Left are rather critical of JFK, LBJ, et al. Moreover, your statement in bold represents your inability to understand what the writing of history is--it's all revision--including your statements on this thread. All of your posts represent the Right's attempt to rewrite history. One cannot write history without rewriting it or else it'd be plagiarism or merely reporting like wikipedia does.
History is naturally revisionist.
Who is critical of JFK? Where? You might see it in book, but to the MSM and the Left, JFK is their God. Rewrite history? I would just like to see honest assessments on JFK's biggest failure, Vietnam!. His "Kennedy Doctrine" was the biggest foreign policy disaster this country ever witnessed. 58,000 Americans dead but to hear the MSM talk, "It was LBJ and Nixon" when it comes to the Vietnam War. When will we see a PBS special telling the American people about the "true JFK?". The women, drugs, drinking, Vietnam, civil rights?
Who is critical of JFK? Where? You might see it in book, but to the MSM and the Left, JFK is their God. Rewrite history? I would just like to see honest assessments on JFK's biggest failure, Vietnam!. His "Kennedy Doctrine" was the biggest foreign policy disaster this country ever witnessed. 58,000 Americans dead but to hear the MSM talk, "It was LBJ and Nixon" when it comes to the Vietnam War. When will we see a PBS special telling the American people about the "true JFK?". The women, drugs, drinking, Vietnam, civil rights?
If I had a lot of time on my hands I would extrapolate on how effective a speaker and communicator Pres. Reagan was, how successful he was in taking certain political initiatives. There is much we can credit him.
The subject of AIDS is something different, however. As a volunteer for a major AIDS organization, though, I will tell you that those of us dealing with this most devastating medical crisis of the second half of the 20th Century ... Reagan was consider a VILLAIN
There was no leadership from either the White House or from most sectors of government to deal with that crisis. Tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of Americans died needlessly as a result.
For one thing it wasn't a crisis everywhere. I only knew 2 people that died of AIDS. They died in the 80's.
Too many blame Reagan when they themselves would not change their behavior. You can't say that you will do whatever you want and if something goes wrong it is someone else's fault.
As little as was known about AIDS during the Reagan years, being nowhere close to a cure, still prescribing AZT incorrectly, etc, how can you say that all of those people died as a result of Reagan not paying much attention to AIDS? What leadership from any part of government would have changed the result? When some local governments tried to do something, such as closing the bath houses, the gays would have none of it. Many could not justify more money for research when AIDS was still far down the list for cause of death? Celibacy or monagamous relationships have always been the most effective against STD's, but the gays would have none of it.
I would like someone to tell me what the gay population did to stop the spread of AIDS. They were great at caring for those that were already sick. They did get the word out, but what did they do to prevent the spread?
I am not gay, but I sure changed my behavior in those years. With all the info coming out, mostly wrong, most people that I know became much more careful, something that many gays refused to do.
I feel sorry for the gay population in those days, but I also give them a lot of the blame.
But crime went down when Reagan said "lock them up". Star Wars worked and it drove the Communists out of business and the left crazy. The left's answer to the war on drugs is what? What is their solution? Make all drugs legal? That will work?
Crime did not go down during Reagan's tenure. It went up throughout the 80's and continued going up during Bush's term. Crime peaked in the U.S. in 1992 and has steadily been in decline since then. I cannot criticize his tough on crime montra. But the facts show that his tough talk didn't do anything. He just started locking more and more people up for drug crimes. Reagan developed all of these tough new drug laws. When you create new crimes that didn't exist before, more people are going to get locked up. It doesn't necessarily mean less crime. What is the lefts answer? I don't know but I'll tell you the answer is not to spend billions on drug wars in South America to try and stop something that is inevitable. There is high demand for drugs in the U.S. and there always will be. It is no different than alcohol during the years or prohibition. Making tougher laws does nothing to deter druggies and only opens up black markets.
You say Star Wars worked and drove communists out of business and the left crazy. That sounds like a bunch of political nonsense you hear on talk shows and doesn't make any sense. It sounds like you attribute any American who votes Democrat to being a leftist, and leftist is synonymous with communist. You really need to learn more about history, governments, and political ideologies. That would be the equivalent of me saying you're against Obama, so you're a rightist, so that means you're a Nazi.
The Soviets went broke due to many factors over a long period of time. There was nothing Reagan did specifically that made them go broke. Spending billions on Star Wars doesn't make another country go broke. It makes yourself go broke. The War in Afghanistan greatly bankrupted the Soviets too. And guess what? The same thing is happening to the U.S. today.
The simple fact is that Reagan was a big spender, raised taxes, and was a liberal actor from Hollywood. He only switched to being a Republican to run for office. When you way these simple facts, they go against everything that conservatives claim to stand for. When we look at the Iran-Contra Affair, it is easy to see that Reagan is a sleezy politician just like the rest. When we examine his overall presidency, wages declined during Reagan's tenure and the gap between rich and poor widened. His policies were bad for average working Americans and were more beneficial to wealthy Americans. He was pro big-business, which is anti-small business. By the end of Reagan's tenure, the U.S. went from being the world's largest creditor nation to being a debtor. I can go on and on.
Did Reagan leave the country in better shape than when he took office? Probably, but not by a huge margin. He also set in motion many policies that remain in effect today or that later policies were tailored after that have been destructive to our economy and have resulted in us having huge budget deficits. The modern Republican Party is still practicing supply side economics as if it was a religion, yet it has never proven to work and has quite frankly not worked. Its funny that Reagan's policies would even be considered too liberal for the modern day Republicans and he would not be nominated if he ran.
Crime did not go down during Reagan's tenure. It went up throughout the 80's and continued going up during Bush's term. Crime peaked in the U.S. in 1992 and has steadily been in decline since then. I cannot criticize his tough on crime montra. But the facts show that his tough talk didn't do anything. He just started locking more and more people up for drug crimes. Reagan developed all of these tough new drug laws. When you create new crimes that didn't exist before, more people are going to get locked up. It doesn't necessarily mean less crime. What is the lefts answer? I don't know but I'll tell you the answer is not to spend billions on drug wars in South America to try and stop something that is inevitable. There is high demand for drugs in the U.S. and there always will be. It is no different than alcohol during the years or prohibition. Making tougher laws does nothing to deter druggies and only opens up black markets.
Not talking about any specific crime crime rates dropped from a high (1980 Crime rate peaks at 5,950) and by the mid 1980's it started to rise again when it peaked again in 1991. Crack kills.
You say Star Wars worked and drove communists out of business and the left crazy. That sounds like a bunch of political nonsense you hear on talk shows and doesn't make any sense.
Russian transcript of Reagan-Gorbachev Summit in Reykjavik, 12 October 1986 (afternoon), published in FBIS-USR-93-121, 20 September 1993, 7 pp.
Quote:
For Reagan, SDI was the ultimate insurance policy against a madman blackmailing the world with nuclear-tipped missiles in a future where all the superpowers' missiles and nuclear weapons had been destroyed.
For Gorbachev, SDI was a U.S. attempt to take the arms race into space and potentially launch a first-strike attack on the Soviet Union - the ultimate nightmare for Soviet leaders seared into their consciousnesses by Hitler's blitzkrieg. But Gorbachev's scientists had already told him that missile defenses could be easily and cheaply countered with multiple warheads and decoys even if the defenses ever worked (which was unlikely).
Russian transcript of Negotiations in the Working Group on Military Issues, headed by Nitze and Akhromeev, 11-12 October 1986, 52 pp.
Quote:
Responding to U.S. proposals on allowing development of SDI while proceeding with deep cuts in strategic weapons, member of the Soviet delegation Georgy Arbatov comments "what you are offering requires an exceptional level of trust. We cannot accept your position," directly implying that the necessary level of trust was not there. This document, prepared as a result of the all-night discussion, outlined the disagreements but failed to integrate the understandings achieved by the two leaders on October 11 or approached again on October 12.
USSR CC CPSU Politburo session. Reykjavik assessment and instructions for Soviet delegation for negotiations in Geneva, 30 October 1986, 5 pp.
Quote:
At this Politburo session Gorbachev and Shevardnadze discuss whether and when to reveal the new Soviet position on SDI testing, which would allow "testing in the air, on the test sites on the ground, but not in space." This is a significant step in the direction of the U.S. position and is seen as a serious concession on the Soviet part by Foreign Minister Gromyko. Gorbachev is very concerned that the U.S. administration is "perverting and revising Reykjavik, retreating from it." He places a great deal of hope in Shevardnadze-Shultz talks in terms of returning to and expanding the Reykjavik agenda.
It sounds like you attribute any American who votes Democrat to being a leftist, and leftist is synonymous with communist. You really need to learn more about history, governments, and political ideologies. That would be the equivalent of me saying you're against Obama, so you're a rightist, so that means you're a Nazi.
Seeing as how the Nazis were National Socialist they were a far-left organization also. Anyone who reads their 25 point memo would fully understand that...
The Soviets went broke due to many factors over a long period of time. There was nothing Reagan did specifically that made them go broke. Spending billions on Star Wars doesn't make another country go broke. It makes yourself go broke.
Quote:
January 17, 1983
1. To contain and over time reverse Soviet expansionism by competing effectively on a sustained basis with the Soviet Union in all international arenas -- particularly in the overall military balance and in geographical regions of priority concern to the United States. This will remain the primary focus of U.S. policy toward the USSR.
2. To promote, within the narrow limits available to us, the process of change in the Soviet Union toward a more pluralistic political and economic system in which the power of the privileged ruling elite is gradually reduced. The U.S. recognizes that Soviet aggressiveness has deep roots in the internal system, and that relations with the USSR should therefore take into account whether or not they help to strengthen this system and its capacity to engage in aggression.
3. To engage the Soviet Union in negotiations to attempt to reach agreements which protect and enhance U.S. interests and which are consistent with the principle of strict reciprocity and mutual interest. This is important when the Soviet Union is in the midst of a process of political succession.
Quote:
1. Military Strategy: The U.S. must modernize its military forces -- both nuclear and conventional -- so that Soviet leaders perceive that the U.S. is determined never to accept a second place or a deteriorating military posture. 'Soviet calculations of possible war outcomes under any contingency must always result in outcomes so unfavorable to the USSR that there would be no incentive for Soviet leaders to initiate an attack
Above all, to ensure that East-West economic relations do not facilitate the Soviet military buildup. This requires prevention of the transfer of technology and equipment that would make a substantial contribution directly or indirectly to Soviet military power. -- To avoid subsidizing the Soviet economy or unduly easing the burden of Soviet resource allocation decisions, so as not to dilute pressures for structural change in the Soviet system.
-- To seek to minimize the potential for Soviet exercise of reverse leverage on Western countries based on trade, energy supply, and financial relationships. To permit mutual beneficial trade -- without Western subsidization or the creation of Western dependence -- with the USSR in non-strategic areas, such as grains.
You can read the rest but frankly if you're like all the others who continually assert that the US had no role in the dissolution of the Soviet Union we all know you won't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nolefan34
The War in Afghanistan greatly bankrupted the Soviets too. And guess what? The same thing is happening to the U.S. today.
Oh really? And I suppose that had nothing to do with the program that Carter started, and Reagan greatly increased, with funneling weapons and intelligence to the Afghans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nolefan34
The simple fact is that Reagan was a big spender, raised taxes, and was a liberal actor from Hollywood. He only switched to being a Republican to run for office.
This is revisionism at its worst. Now you expect us to believe it was insanely popular to become a conservative republican in the mid-60's in California ta boot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nolefan34
When you way these simple facts, they go against everything that conservatives claim to stand for. When we look at the Iran-Contra Affair, it is easy to see that Reagan is a sleezy politician just like the rest. When we examine his overall presidency, wages declined during Reagan's tenure and the gap between rich and poor widened. His policies were bad for average working Americans and were more beneficial to wealthy Americans. He was pro big-business, which is anti-small business. By the end of Reagan's tenure, the U.S. went from being the world's largest creditor nation to being a debtor. I can go on and on.
The nation was already on that path. Its citizens were on that path and the government was on that path. Just because the government was trying to monetize American decline instead of put it on the credit card doesn't mean it wasn't still occurring. Reagan helped put people back to work and get inflation back in check with the help of numerous people the main ones being Volker, Casey and King Fahd.
Quote:
Hume Horan, a former United States ambassador to Saudi Arabia, wrote in a 2004 article for the American Enterprise Institute that William J. Casey, then director of central intelligence, visited the king in 1987.The American brought a shiny, detailed Kalashnikov rifle. Its stock featured a brass plaque saying that the weapon had been taken from the body of a Russian officer.
"Mr. Casey might as well have been giving the keys to the Kingdom of God itself," Mr. Horan wrote. "The king rose, flourished the weapon, and struck a martial pose."
That respect, of course, came from another one of those nonexistent programs to cripple the Soviets and create an economic boom in the West from a massive increase in oil production from SA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nolefan34
Did Reagan leave the country in better shape than when he took office? Probably, but not by a huge margin. He also set in motion many policies that remain in effect today or that later policies were tailored after that have been destructive to our economy and have resulted in us having huge budget deficits. The modern Republican Party is still practicing supply side economics as if it was a religion, yet it has never proven to work and has quite frankly not worked. Its funny that Reagan's policies would even be considered too liberal for the modern day Republicans and he would not be nominated if he ran.
Maybe you should try sticking to one position and strengthen that because being all over the place isn't too pretty on you.
I hate when people do line by line dissections of posts rather than having a discussion, so I'm not going to respond to each item. Too much time required. I'll just say this. I think Reagan was overall a solid president simply because he was a good leader. However, I think his economic policies were disastrous. Again, Reagan:
-was a liberal politician from California originally
-ran up huge budget deficits 10-20 times what his predecessor Jimmy Carter did.
-participated in the Iran-Contra Affair to have the hostages released the day he took office
-began the process of outsourcing manufacturing jobs overseas
-wages declined during his presidency for average Americans
-crime rose during his presidency
-created an economic recession known as the "Reagan Recession" his first few years in office
-raised taxes during his presidency
-deregulated various industries such as air traffic controllers and the trucking industry which was disastrous
I can go on and on, but these are just some examples of why I do not think Reagan was a great president. I'm sure you'll disagree and you probably think tax breaks for rich people are wonderful. But go ahead.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
