"A TIME FOR CHOOSING " -Ronald Reagan

My favorite Reagan lie was the one when he warned that Nicaragua was only two days from Brownsville, Texas, implying that the Nicaraguan army intended to attack the United States.

Any linky's to this one.
 
Reagan's choice obviously was to put temporary economic gain ahead of ny kind of environmental standards whatsoever. One of his first acts was to rip the solar panels (that Jimmy Carter had put up) off the white house and pander to the desperateness, hubris and greed of the masses.

We have well missed our chance to avert environmental & energy disaster during the last three decades. Whoever the next president is, he certainly will have his hands full recovering from the last twenty-eight years of incompetent (but mostly willfully destructive) presidents (including Clinton).
 
Because things went so well under the Carter administration... right? :lol:

Besides, I don't think cars idling at the gas station helped the environment any.
 
Cult of personality. Except Hitler wasn't reading off a TelePrompTer, so I guess he at least deserved his.

:crazyeye:

Never miss a chance to bash someone for the sake of bashing someone.

Though I'm not sure what the point of the OP is, since I don't think it's about the Reagan presidency or the Soviet Union, there's no point in bringing it up. Unless this thread is somehow about either of those. I don't know.
 
"HAWHAW CARTER IS TEH SUCK SO REAGAN IS TEH BEST PREZ EVER DOOD. REPUBLICAN PWR! :lol::lol:"
Okay, I don't see how this invalidates my point, considering that the 1980 election was between Carter and Reagan.

Unless you also count John Anderson, but you wouldn't... because you probably never heard of him, and probably never will.
 
Okay, I don't see how this invalidates my point, considering that the 1980 election was between Carter and Reagan.

Unless you also count John Anderson, but you wouldn't... because you probably never heard of him, and probably never will.

It's just whenever a neo-con is confronted with the fact Reagan sucks, they try to piggyback on Carter suckage. Some presidents do good after sucky presidents, ala Lincoln (preceded by Buchanan) and Clinton (preceded by good ole' G.B.)

And no I've not heard of John Anderson. Why should I have?
 
It's just whenever a neo-con is confronted with the fact Reagan sucks, they try to piggyback on Carter suckage. Some presidents do good after sucky presidents, ala Lincoln (preceded by Buchanan) and Clinton (preceded by good ole' G.B.)
Well, it's usually best to compare leaders in their proper historical context. Reagan wasn't President during the 40s, so it'd make no sense to compare his leadership to Harry Truman.

And no I've not heard of John Anderson. Why should I have?
Well, before Perot, Anderson was probably the most successful third party candidate for the Presidency.
 
My favorite Reagan lie was the one when he warned that Nicaragua was only two days from Brownsville, Texas, implying that the Nicaraguan army intended to attack the United States.

Or what about the one about "Trickle-Down Economics" and the Laffer curve? =P
 
Well, it's usually best to compare leaders in their proper historical context. Reagan wasn't President during the 40s, so it'd make no sense to compare his leadership to Harry Truman.

Indeed. Why is any comparison needed? Reagan still sucked.

Well, before Perot, Anderson was probably the most successful third party candidate for the Presidency.

Woot points for Anderson.
 
Okay, I don't see how this invalidates my point

It kinda makes the point that both Carter and Reagan sucked?

I mean, could Reagan have defeated Clinton in 1996, had he gone down in 1980 and come back for Nixonian second helpings? Or even had a shot in 1992?

Reagan was a great speech-giver, meaning nothing more or less than: he had great speechwriters, and he had training as an actor which Carter, Nixon, etc. sure didn't. He's remembered for that and liked for that. Whatever that's worth.

But if you ask policy wonks or historians - you know, people who care about what he DID - he was a godawful president.
 
Well, before Perot, Anderson was probably the most successful third party candidate for the Presidency.
Teddy Roosevelt got 27.4% of the popular vote and 16.5% of the electoral vote in 1920 as the Progressive Party candidate. Anderson got 6.7% percent of the popular vote and no electoral votes. I think Roosevelt was a tad bit more successful than Anderson
 
Teddy Roosevelt got 27.4% of the popular vote and 16.5% of the electoral vote in 1920 as the Progressive Party candidate. Anderson got 6.7% percent of the popular vote and no electoral votes. I think Roosevelt was a tad bit more successful than Anderson
Right. I should have added "in modern, post-war history."
 
Because things went so well under the Carter administration... right? :lol:

Besides, I don't think cars idling at the gas station helped the environment any.
So the Arab Oil embarago was Carter's fault now, huh? :crazyeye:

Basically Reagen decided to abandon any idea of US energy independence and completely sell our souls to the Arabs. For this he got a short term economic burst that is only now about to fully bust and set back alternative technology decades (with the help of the presidents who came after him).
 
Well, before Perot, Anderson was probably the most successful third party candidate for the Presidency.

I'd say TR was more successful than Anderson, but the history of third-party candidates would make an interesting topic in History.

Edit: Grr, that's already been addressed. I should probably read all the posts. :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom