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.
granted amnesty to 3 million illegals (most right wing folks don't like that sort of thing)
It wasn't a blanket amnesty. There were requirements. And Congress was supposed to clamp down on illegal immigration, but didn't. (Most left wing folks don't like that sort of thing.)
IMHO, Reagan is overrated, possibly way overrated. He might have been a charmer, handsome, and a decent or good actor, but he was probably not a very good U.S. President.
IMHO, Reagan is overrated, possibly way overrated. He might have been a charmer, handsome, and a decent or good actor, but he was probably not a very good U.S. President.
Thus, outcomes and the well being of the US public means nothing to you. That is why you are a liberal, as universal misery of the populace is "acceptable" for implementation of party dogma. In the past, this is what we used to call "idiots" or"fanatics". Now we call them "party loyalists"?
What was the average inflation rated income of US citizen under Reagan?
What was the average, inflation rated, net wealth of Americans under Reagan?
What was the unemployment rate under Reagan?
What was the perception of US international power under Reagan?
IF one assumes that the purpose of government is to deliver economic misery and lower standards of living to its people, then Reagan is a failure. One would , then suggest that Obama is a tremendous success.
Have you liberals lost your mind? The purpose of a government is to allow people to pursue their goals, live free, and to prosper. The purpose of a government is not for the populace to endure economic misery and hardship for abstract ideological goals. WTF are you thinking????:sm ack:
Thus, outcomes and the well being of the US public means nothing to you. That is why you are a liberal, as universal misery of the populace is "acceptable" for implementation of party dogma. In the past, this is what we used to call "idiots" or"fanatics". Now we call them "party loyalists"?
What was the average inflation rated income of US citizen under Reagan?
What was the average, inflation rated, net wealth of Americans under Reagan?
What was the unemployment rate under Reagan?
What was the perception of US international power under Reagan?
IF one assumes that the purpose of government is to deliver economic misery and lower standards of living to its people, then Reagan is a failure. One would , then suggest that Obama is a tremendous success.
Have you liberals lost your mind? The purpose of a government is to allow people to pursue their goals, live free, and to prosper. The purpose of a government is not for the populace to endure economic misery and hardship for abstract ideological goals. WTF are you thinking????:sm ack:
Answer- Liberals rarely think
You keep smacking yourself and you won't be able to think either.
Thus, outcomes and the well being of the US public means nothing to you. That is why you are a liberal, as universal misery of the populace is "acceptable" for implementation of party dogma. In the past, this is what we used to call "idiots" or"fanatics". Now we call them "party loyalists"?
What was the average inflation rated income of US citizen under Reagan?
What was the average, inflation rated, net wealth of Americans under Reagan?
What was the unemployment rate under Reagan?
What was the perception of US international power under Reagan?
IF one assumes that the purpose of government is to deliver economic misery and lower standards of living to its people, then Reagan is a failure. One would , then suggest that Obama is a tremendous success.
Have you liberals lost your mind? The purpose of a government is to allow people to pursue their goals, live free, and to prosper. The purpose of a government is not for the populace to endure economic misery and hardship for abstract ideological goals. WTF are you thinking????:sm ack:
Answer- Liberals rarely think
the national debt tripling and unemployment going from 7.5 to 11 is ok with you? giving tax breaks to the rich and raising middle income taxes fine? Iran Contra bother you at all? turning a blind eye to the aids epidemic bothersome? funding "freedom fighters"? amnesty to illegals? dementia in the white house? Nancy dictating his schedule on the advise of her astrologer is a sane way to run the country. no real retaliation for the deaths of over 300 marines in Beirut sits well with you?
the national debt tripling and unemployment going from 7.5 to 11 is ok with you? giving tax breaks to the rich and raising middle income taxes fine? Iran Contra bother you at all? turning a blind eye to the aids epidemic bothersome? funding "freedom fighters"? amnesty to illegals? dementia in the white house? Nancy dictating his schedule on the advise of her astrologer is a sane way to run the country. no real retaliation for the deaths of over 300 marines in Beirut sits well with you?
Hilarious coming from someone who has never uttered a single word of criticism for our current failure of a President.
Hilarious coming from someone who has never uttered a single word of criticism for our current failure of a President.
nice deflection you want to defend Ronnie's record? as far as my criticism of Obama I have posted about it, you need to read more. besides Obama's record has nothing to do with Reagan's failures.
the national debt tripling and unemployment going from 7.5 to 11 is ok with you? giving tax breaks to the rich and raising middle income taxes fine? Iran Contra bother you at all? turning a blind eye to the aids epidemic bothersome? funding "freedom fighters"? amnesty to illegals? dementia in the white house? Nancy dictating his schedule on the advise of her astrologer is a sane way to run the country. no real retaliation for the deaths of over 300 marines in Beirut sits well with you?
In regards to the unemployment rate increases between early 1981 and late 1982, I am willing to cut Reagan and Volcker some slack in regards to this since this might have been necessary to reduce inflation. As for the "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan, the mistake wasn't so much in funding them (after all, they were anti-Soviet), but in not giving a larger proportion of the funding to the more moderate ones and in disengaging from Afghanistan too quickly after the USSR withdrew from there.
I do agree with many of your other points here, though.
Well, both Reagan and Obama stink as presidents if you ask me!
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.
That is why you are a liberal, as universal misery of the populace is "acceptable" for implementation of party dogma. In the past, this is what we used to call "idiots" or"fanatics". Now we call them "party loyalists"?
you want to defend Ronnie's record? as far as my criticism of Obama I have posted about it, you need to read more. besides Obama's record has nothing to do with Reagan's failures.