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.
BS. Reagan's primary goals were to revive America's passion and spirit, fix the American economy and win the Cold War. He got the economy going which invigorated the American people and then began the process to win the Cold War. Notice the date on NSDD 75.
That is, if you'll even read it. I don't really expect you'll have the guts to do so.
I've read that document before; it's nothing new.
But the Cold War was already over before he took office; in fact it was over by the 1970s. Communism had been proven once and for all to be a failure, and Reagan had little to nothing to do with it.
Reagan sure liked to pal around with terrorists, though:
Well that's pretty freaking radical. What, you think National Defense is going to come from the states alone? We would have lost the Revolutionary War and the country had we taken your position.
Each state should be responsible for its own destiny. The Articles of Confederation--arguably the greatest document ever written--spelled that out. Unfortunately, the will of the people was usurped by the Federalists, who instead wrote the Constitution and consolidated power into a centralized government.
Quote:
I'm all for State's Rights and I completely understand the theory behind laboratories of innovation. But the Federal Government does have a legitimate purpose even if that's been woefully distorted over the past century.
States don't have rights; only people have rights.
The federal government serves no purpose whatsoever. What happens in Mississippi is no business of Oregon. What happens in Vermont is no business of Arizona. And so on.
Buckley may have been actually conservative on many issues, but with regards to abortion, what I said about governmental intrusion into the private lives of people (for example, legislating reproductive rights) is as UN-conservative as you can get.
This is part of the reason, along with fiscal policy and many other things, we can know that the GOP abandoned conservativism decades ago.
Quote:
Some conservative activists bristled at the compromises he made, at one point labeling Reagan a turncoat for cutting a deal that raised taxes.
"I can't tell you how many times I would be sitting there in the Oval with him, discussing where we were on some issue, and he'd say, 'I'd rather get 80% of what I want rather than go over the cliff with my flag flying,' " Baker said in an interview. "He was so pragmatic."
...
"American conservatism was constructed like an atom," says author Richard Reeves, who will deliver a paper on Reagan's legacy at a February academic symposium co-sponsored by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Library and the University of Southern California, where he teaches.
"You had all of these energetic electrons, as it were, spinning wildly around — the religious conservatives, the financial conservatives, the nationalistic conservatives, the old-fashioned New York banker conservatives and what not — and often despising each other. The New York banker didn't want to have anything to do with Jerry Falwell. But the one thing they could agree on, the nucleus of that atom, was Ronald Reagan," he said.
But the Cold War was already over before he took office; in fact it was over by the 1970s. Communism had been proven once and for all to be a failure, and Reagan had little to nothing to do with it.
Reagan sure liked to pal around with terrorists, though:
No one agrees with you on that lame assessment. No one with any intellectual honesty would be taking your stance and they certainly wouldn't be so stupid as to post something like you did in your last sentence.
I bet you're sitting there all full of yourself thinking you scored the final blow with that one...
You make Homo Habilis look like an intellectual. You're not doing yourself any favors.
No one agrees with you on that lame assessment. No one with any intellectual honesty would be taking your stance and they certainly wouldn't be so stupid as to post something like you did in your last sentence.
I bet you're sitting there all full of yourself thinking you scored the final blow with that one...
You make Homo Habilis look like an intellectual. You're not doing yourself any favors.
Plenty of people huh? Do I need to remind you that the Soviet Union collapsed in Dec. of 1991? Apparently I do because your first four links are written before that date...
The one that was written after that date has absolutely nothing to do with the Cold War or the Soviet Union.
You might be able to fool idiots who will take the fact that you can post a lot of links as some sort of superior position. Not me, and in fact it looks like you didn't even read any of them before you tried to use them as a basis for "PLENTY of people agree with me on that 100% accurate assessment."
Apparently you don't even know what you're trying to assess.
I forgot Reagan also did a god job at making wall street rich.
OMG! Not that....well guess what? We as American's were beginning to do quite well..can't say for much now can you?? Before you start spewing "I'm doing just fine." I mean "us" as a whole.
Plenty of people huh? Do I need to remind you that the Soviet Union collapsed in Dec. of 1991? Apparently I do because your first four links are written before that date...
The one that was written after that date has absolutely nothing to do with the Cold War or the Soviet Union.
You might be able to fool idiots who will take the fact that you can post a lot of links as some sort of superior position. Not me, and in fact it looks like you didn't even read any of them before you tried to use them as a basis for "PLENTY of people agree with me on that 100% accurate assessment."
Apparently you don't even know what you're trying to assess.
The USSR had been on the verge of collapse for 20 years prior, as the communist system had proven itself once and for all to be unsustainable. Afghanistan is what finally pushed the barrel over the falls--kind of what it's doing to this country.
My links are from intellectuals of the Austrian school of economics--something which people like you Keynesians fail to comprehend.
Reagan was a left-wing, Keynesian statist. His policies were ones of capitulation, compromise, and abandonment of fiscal responsibility.
Apparently you don't know what you're trying to defend.
The USSR had been on the verge of collapse for 20 years prior, as the communist system had proven itself once and for all to be unsustainable. Afghanistan is what finally pushed the barrel over the falls--kind of what it's doing to this country.
My links are from intellectuals of the Austrian school of economics--something which people like you Keynesians fail to comprehend.
Reagan was a left-wing, Keynesian statist. His policies were ones of capitulation, compromise, and abandonment of fiscal responsibility.
Apparently you don't know what you're trying to defend.
Quote:
These three Reagan intelligence myths are consistent with
the old interpretation of Reagan the insubstantial president
but directly conflict with the more recent evidence that
indicates Reagan was a capable and engaged Chief Executive.
In any case, these myths persist, probably from a lack of
published evidence specifically covering Reagan’s use of
intelligence combined with a partisanship that blinds some
intelligence writers to the facts that have come to light.
This paper will present new intelligence-specific findings
on Reagan that will refute these myths.
Note that the directive says ‘‘impress upon the Soviet
leadership [emphasis added]’’—meaning that the U.S.
leadership expected the Soviet regime to remain in place
as the directive was implemented. The Reagan administra-
tion’s view was different, as expressed in President Reagan’s
address to the British Parliament on 8 June 1982:
I have discussed on other occasions . . . the
elements of Western policies toward the Soviet
Union to safeguard our interests and protect the
peace. What I am describing now is a plan and a
hope for the long term—the march of freedom and
democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the
ash-heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which
stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of
the people.
18
In other words, the Reagan administration might not have
sought the collapse of the Soviet regime, but it envisioned
that the regime would fall, and thus would have been less
surprised by the collapse. Significantly, the Reagan policy
was adopted before Gorbachev rose to power and provided,
in the words of Great Britain’s then–Prime Minister, Margaret
Thatcher, someone with whom ‘‘we can do business.’’ Had
there been a third Reagan administration, it might have
come to resemble the Bush administration as it adjusted
to changes in Soviet realities.
Like I said, the USSR had been on the verge of collapse since Nixon's presidency. Afghanistan just accelerated it. His speeches were just empty talking points, just like Obama's.
Reagan just happened to be at the right place at the right time.
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.
