Ronald Reagan: Traitor and War Criminal

[Karalysia]

Sorry, but internet sarcasm-dar has yet to be invented.

Do you contest the evidence sinner? Is 666 not the number of the Beast? Does Reagan's name not have 666? Therefore Reagan must be the Anti-Christ.

 

[LightSpectra]

Sorry, but internet sarcasm-dar has yet to be invented.

He's attempting to pull the "I was just kidding!" card after caught endorsing the entire article, but having not read great deals of it.

 

[cool3a2]

I don't know enough about american history nor about Reagans reign, so I won't really join this discussion. Still, I saw some show about Reagon not that long ago. It mentioned, and I heard that for the first time then (well, Reagon was a little before my time and I'd say that his importance for europe was limited; at least he's just not that well known like say Kennedy), that he suffered Alzheimer even during his reign. Not enough, it seems like this would have been visible for the public at least from the end of his first period on as that show showed a piece of an interview just before the elections where he stated that the current government made plain BS (note: the 'current government' was his own). Sure, he didn't used that words. Don't remember them, but their main idea was in-deed what I said. Even more, it seems like from his second period on, not he, but his advisors reigned the US actually as Reagan was simply incapable because of his desease. I find that shocking. Really. Great democrazy, guys. I would have never found this possible that someone votes for a man that suffers on Alzheimer (man, you guys have nuclear bombs!) nor that democray can be bypassed that easily... All that somehow reminds me on something very clever said around 150 years ago: "A people deserves exactly that kind of government it just has. If it wouldn't, it would uprise and then get rid of him." (again, the quotation must not need to be 100% exact in word usage questions...).

Now, as I criticized Reagon and thus made Light Spectras live even harder (it already is hard to stand ones ground against two opponents), I'll try to neutralize my post a little: Karalysias argument about satanism simply dismisses him as being not a serious partner in a discussion. Truly: I respect your religion, but you should respect that Satans existence is not even proven, although you might believe in his existence. Sure, there is no counter-evidence either. Still, saying that Reagon was the anti-christ, because his names all consist of 6 letters giving the evil number, that's not a serious argument. I mean, even if Reagan was satanist, he did not choose his own name and as Satans existence is not proofen, it can't be proofen that Satan give him his name either. Not to mention, that if I'd be Satan and send the anti-christ onto earth, I'd do much more evil things. I don't want to disrespect his victims (if there really are), but Stalin and Hitler - simply considering the count of victims - would be better candidates for the anti-christ. Seriously, Reagans importance for the world was limited - not a good anti-christ.
And cutlass... well, cutlass. I came to the conclusion that I don't like to discuss with you. I don't question your intelligence, although I don't think it is superiour to mine either, but you're one of those Reds. Reds can't be convinced. I tried it. I gave it up... You just see what you want, sometimes even say childish or illusive or pseudo-scientific things just to support your opinion. And you don't hear what you don't want to. Seriously: I don't want to insult you and I can't say that anything in this thread was wrong as regards content as I don't know enough about the matter itself nor even read the thread entirely. That's just my experience with you personally and your kind... Well, anyways, most probably I'll just get flamed for what I said. No matter how much I try to put it in the right light...

Just my two pence.

 

[LightSpectra]

He did have Alzheimer's, but it didn't affect him (at least noticeably) until after his presidency was over. This fact was attested by his personal physician and his secretaries.

Reagan's reputation rapidly deteriorated after his presidency for the exact opposite reason. Various members of his administration thought Reagan was feeble and incompetent, so they attempted to try and secure their own agenda by dominating him. They quickly realized that Reagan was in control, and thus became bitter after realizing that they weren't going to embolden their careers at his expense. Donald Regan is the most notable among these figures.

 

[Karalysia]

Now, as I criticized Reagon and thus made Light Spectras live even harder (it already is hard to stand ones ground against two opponents), I'll try to neutralize my post a little: Karalysias argument about satanism simply dismisses him as being not a serious partner in a discussion. Truly: I respect your religion, but you should respect that Satans existence is not even proven, although you might believe in his existence. Sure, there is no counter-evidence either. Still, saying that Reagon was the anti-christ, because his names all consist of 6 letters giving the evil number, that's not a serious argument. I mean, even if Reagan was satanist, he did not choose his own name and as Satans existence is not proofen, it can't be proofen that Satan give him his name either. Not to mention, that if I'd be Satan and send the anti-christ onto earth, I'd do much more evil things. I don't want to disrespect his victims (if there really are), but Stalin and Hitler - simply considering the count of victims - would be better candidates for the anti-christ. Seriously, Reagans importance for the world was limited - not a good anti-christ.

Bro I dunno how to tell you this but I'm an atheist. I'm also a "Red"

He did have Alzheimer's, but it didn't affect him (at least noticeably) until after his presidency was over. This fact was attested by his personal physician and his secretaries.

He was found watching cartoons. He would forget things he should say. Even simple things. When he went on a visit to Costa Rica he was asked how he like the country he stumbled and had to consult his notes which said "Costa Rica is a very nice and beautiful country" he was incapable of even remembering that. Indications arose in his 2nd term that Alzheimer's was affecting him. He became forgetful. He was asked about it during one of the Presidential debates but excused it away.

Reagan's reputation rapidly deteriorated after his presidency for the exact opposite reason. Various members of his administration thought Reagan was feeble and incompetent, so they attempted to try and secure their own agenda by dominating him. They quickly realized that Reagan was in control, and thus became bitter after realizing that they weren't going to embolden their careers at his expense. Donald Regan is the most notable among these figures.

Hah no. The entire fantasy of the Reagan Myth was created following his presidency. During his presidency himself he was popular as a person, but generally not very popular as President. Indeed his reputation was heavily tarnished following the Iran-Contra.

After his presidency the GOP, neo-cons, and religious wingnuts created a giant fantasy of Reagan and turned him into some sort of god with heavy use of propaganda and self-delusion. Thus Reagan is now the patron saint of the GOP and no one dares in the GOP criticize his legacy. It's all a lie and a fiction. The rest of us can recognize Reagan for what he was, a terrible president filled with foolish ideas who failed his country.

 

[xchen08]

He was found watching cartoons. He would forget things he should say. Even simple things. When he went on a visit to Costa Rica he was asked how he like the country he stumbled and had to consult his notes which said "Costa Rica is a very nice and beautiful country" he was incapable of even remembering that. Indications arose in his 2nd term that Alzheimer's was affecting him. He became forgetful. He was asked about it during one of the Presidential debates but excused it away.

[citation needed]

 

[LightSpectra]

After his presidency the GOP, neo-cons, and religious wingnuts created a giant fantasy of Reagan and turned him into some sort of god with heavy use of propaganda and self-delusion. Thus Reagan is now the patron saint of the GOP and no one dares in the GOP criticize his legacy. It's all a lie and a fiction. The rest of us can recognize Reagan for what he was, a terrible president filled with foolish ideas who failed his country.

It should be quite easy to win this debate and make a fool out of me, then. I encourage you. Just provide credible citations that prove the accusations you are making, and I will admit my error.

I'm still waiting for the citation on the Satanism, by the way.

 

[Karalysia]

Liberalism and It's Challengers (From FDR to Bush) 2nd Edition by Alonzo L. Hamby

Regarding balanced budget:

"For all his talk of a balanced budget Reagan never presented one to Congress , in large measure because he pressed hard for and received enormous increases in defense expenditure." p.364

Regarding impact of Reagan's deregulation:

"Over the next several years much of the S&L industry found itself taken over by wheeler-dealers, real estate entrepreneurs, and outright crooks. Federal regulators were neither numerous nor energetic enough to deal with them expeditiously." p.364

"By 1989 the savings and loan insurance fund depleted and much of the industry on the brink f collapse. The administration of George Bush would have to deal with the mess, the tab for which threatend to run into the hundreds of billions." p.365

"Reagan's budget director, David Stockman resigned in disillusionment and wrote an embittered memoir The Triumph of Politics." p.365

Regarding bracket creep:

"It made the federal deficit smaller than it might appear to be, but only at the cost of a steadily increasing drain on the private economy." p.366

Impacts of Reaganomics:

Carters last year (1981) defecit: $78.9 billion

Reagan's first year (1982) defecit: $127.9 billion

"pushed the cumulative national debt to over $1 trillion" p.367

Reagan last year defecit (1989): $152 billion

"with a cumulative debt surging toward $3 trillion"

(Me: Impressive eh? In 2 terms Reagan successfully increased national debt by $2 trillion. Great success.)

The debt was 56% of GNP and accounted for 20% of the budget in interest payments.

Increasing control of foreigners of the economy:

1981: $28 billion by Japan
1986: $160 billion by Japan

"the United States transformed itself from a creditor of awesome financial power to the biggest debtor nation in history in terms of net dollars owed to foreign sources."

"Reaganomics had in the end done enormous damage to the American economy by burying the country under a mountain of debt, reducing the financial flexibility and independence of the federal government, and giving foreigners considerably more economic influence over the nation's destiny than any time since World War I." p. 367

More to come shortly.

 

[LightSpectra]

The only point you've made in that entire post is that, generally, there was a deficit, which I've not only affirmed multiple times but have stated repeatedly that this was the correct course of action. The deficit was an investment that has resulted in the end of the Cold War and a net profit for the U.S. government overall.

You think FDR was a great president, so if I were a scoundrel and wanted to make an argument out of context, I would point out that FDR brought the U.S. debt to its highest level in history. Of course, unless I also mentioned that this was a result of World War II, this would be dishonest; just as it's fairly disingenuous that you're making no mention of why a deficit is bad if it results in winning a war.

Now, would you care to mention the positive benefits of "Reaganomics"? As a result of the Reagan tax cuts, there was a GDP growth of 3.4% per year after a recession in 1982 (before the cuts had taken effect), the highest it had been since the 1950s. When he took office, unemployment was at 7.6%, and when he left, it was 5.5%; 16 million jobs were a created as a result of the tax slashes. Inflation was 13.5% when Carter left the White House. When Reagan left, it was 4.1% (a 9.4% difference). (This cannot solely be attributed to the Federal Reserve, since the policies that Volcker and Greenspan enacted in order to lower inflation were directly based on the state of the economy at the time.) Real median household income rose by $4,000. [Source: Chris Frenze, "Reagan Income Growth versus Clinton Crunch," Joint Economic Committee of Congress, March 1996. Based on U.S. Census Budget Data.]

 

[holy king]

asking the president of the united states to be a saint is like asking alexander the great or edward the third to have been saints.
hierarchy and power dont work this way.

that being said, what the freaking hell is this about satanists?

 

[Plotinus]

I don't know a great deal about Reagan or economics but I do think that his policies in countries like El Salvador - which he inherited from Carter - are pretty hard to defend.

Also, I would like to point out that 666 is not the number of the Antichrist, it is the number of the Beast. There is no mention of an "Antichrist" in the book of Revelation.

 

[LightSpectra]

I don't know a great deal about Reagan or economics but I do think that his policies in countries like El Salvador - which he inherited from Carter - are pretty hard to defend.

I'm not especially acquainted with El Salvador specifically, though his general policy was to fund authoritarian figures in countries experiencing struggles against communism on the basis that dictatorships are fragile, whereas totalitarianism throws nations into a dark age. E.g., Pinochet and Franco -- while undeniably evil men -- allowed economic growth in their respective countries, and both of their nations became modern democracies after the passing of their dictators. Obviously this is preferable to Marxist or Islamist overlords like Kim il-Sung and Khomeini, whose countries are still experiencing the shock of their policies today.

Carter took the policy of refusing to support anybody but democrats, which is a respectable position but practically unfeasible. Human rights across the globe deteriorated rapidly under his administration because he didn't accept the fact that it's a matter of the lesser of two evils.

 

[Tommy Vercetti]

You liberals make me sick. What a disgusting lack of respect. Reagan was one of the greatest leaders the United States has ever had. He saved us from a terrible leader, Jimmy Carter. Most of the Kennedys are nothing more then a bunch of criminals, Joe Kennedy built much of his wealth on illegal operations during prohibition in and what do you liberals do? Act like the entire Kennedy family are Saints. Jimmy Carter made the US look weak and liberals still praise him. Yet people have a lot of guts to even DARE slander the great Ronald Reagan.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Ronald Reagan the notorious idiot?

He was a laughing stock in Europe.

 

[LightSpectra]

Ronald Reagan the notorious idiot?

He was a laughing stock in Europe.

Generalizations are fun. Many Poles keep portraits of him in their homes, because he was the primary mover in the end of the Soviets subjugating their nation. Germans of course have a special affinity for him, due to the Berlin wall speech.

Not that one should judge historical leaders based on popular opinion in the first place. That's a rather silly path to go down.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Gorbachev himself admitted that Reagan caused the end of the Cold War, and if you are denying that large economic growth happened, I will be happy to give you several sources proving it.

And everybody knows that Gobechov was not only an eminent historian who was omniscient, he also stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. <cough>

But let's see what he actually had to say about it anyway:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32927-2004Jun10.html

But if he had warm, appreciative words for Reagan, Gorbachev brusquely dismissed the suggestion that Reagan had intimidated either him or the Soviet Union, or forced them to make concessions. Was it accurate to say that Reagan won the Cold War? "That's not serious," Gorbachev said, using the same words several times. "I think we all lost the Cold War, particularly the Soviet Union. We each lost $10 trillion," he said, referring to the money Russians and Americans spent on an arms race that lasted more than four decades. "We only won when the Cold War ended."

Did Reagan's success in his first term, and the huge build-up of military power that he persuaded Congress to finance, affect the decision of the Soviet Politburo to choose a young and vigorous new leader in 1985 -- someone who could, in effect, stand up to Reagan? "No, I think there was really no connection," he replied, chuckling. He said he was chosen for purely internal reasons that had nothing to do with the United States.

"All that talk that somehow Reagan's arms race forced Gorbachev to look for some arms reductions, etc., that's not serious. The Soviet Union could have withstood any arms race. The Soviet Union could have actually decided not to build more weapons, because the weapons we had were more than enough."

Once Reagan decided to try to make peace, he found an eager partner in Moscow, Gorbachev said. "The new Soviet leadership wanted to transform the country, to modernize the country, and we needed stability, we needed cooperation with other countries. . . . And we both knew what kind of weapons we each had. There were mountains of nuclear weapons. A war could start not because of a political decision, but just because of some technical failure. . . .

"A lot of forces on both sides had an interest in prolonging the arms race," Gorbachev added, including military-industrial lobbies on both sides. His predecessors in Moscow had concluded that continuing the race was the only way they could achieve security for the Soviet Union.

But by his new calculation in 1985, the situation was ripe for change. He and his comrades concluded that it was really inconceivable that anyone in the White House actually wanted to blow up the Soviet Union, just as they ruled out the possibility of ever deliberately trying to destroy the United States. So it would make more sense "to find ways to cooperate."

But just a day and a half later, the two men signed an agreement that stated their mutual conviction that nuclear war was unthinkable. They initiated a batch of new cooperative enterprises intended to improve relations. "That was the beginning of hope," Gorbachev said.

At subsequent meetings at Reykjavik the next year, in Washington in 1987 and in Moscow in 1988, relations got better and better. By the time he came to Moscow in 1988, Gorbachev recalled with evident satisfaction, Reagan had changed his views.

"An American reporter asked President Reagan, while we were taking a walk . . . 'Mr. President, do you still regard the Soviet Union as an evil empire?' And Reagan said no."

Ironically, Reagan did have a part to play in the restructuring of the Soviet Union. But it wasn't due to his fanatical warmongering, his absurd Star Wars system, or his massive overspending on "defense" when it was clearly not needed. It was his desire to eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons. Until that impasse could be resolved, the Soviet Union really had no choice but to continue to play this absurd Cold War game the US had invented long ago back in the 50s.

The only point where I agree with you is that Reagan wasn't a Satanist. He was a fundamentalist Christian who believed in astrology. But how much difference is there really between those two forms of spiritual fanaticism?

 

[LightSpectra]

And everybody knows that Gobechov was not only an eminent historian who was omniscient, he also stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. <cough>

Apparently guys on the Internet have a better understanding of what was happening to the Soviet Union than the guy running it, but what do I know?

Let's look at what each of these blocs are saying:

#1: This is a reflection on what happened after the crash of the Soviet economy. It is not saying anything about what caused what. Nevertheless, I want to say that there's some translation issue here, because it's demonstrably true that the SDI proposal caused an uproar among the Communist Party of the U.S.S.R. Perhaps he's speaking generally when he says he wasn't intimidated, as in "whatever happens, we will not give up" sense of it.

#2: I'm not sure why Gorbachev is referring to himself in the third person. If it's not him speaking, then the context of this is very obscure. However, this statement here is true. The arms race was only the secondary cause of the difficulties the Soviets were facing in the '80s. The primary cause was the drop in oil prices. (Which is not to say of course that the military build up was irrelevant.)

#3 & #4: By March, 1985, the dissolution was almost inevitable. Therefore, the U.S. had no reason to continue the arms race, as that would only been seen as an act of intimidation. Reagan incurred the ire of interventionists in the second half of his presidency because of this, though history has clearly vindicated him on this point.

Ironically, Reagan did have a part to play in the restructuring of the Soviet Union. But it wasn't due to his fanatical warmongering, his absurd Star Wars system, or his massive overspending on "defense" when it was clearly not needed. It was his desire to eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons. Until that impasse could be resolved, the Soviet Union really had no choice but to continue to play this absurd Cold War game the US had invented long ago back in the 50s.

I've addressed the defense spending earlier in this post and this thread, but to make a point about the "absurd" SDI system: it was not entirely a serious proposal. Reagan had indeed spoken to some scientists in the USDOD and they had given some vaguely optimistic responses, but the purposes of it was to give the impression to the Kremlin that nuclear war was about to become anachronism. This succeeded.

Nevertheless, the reduction in nuclear weapons had little impact on the collapse of the economy of the Soviet Union, which was the ultimate cause for the end of the Cold War. Therefore I don't find much relevance in this point.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Apparently guys on the Internet have a better understanding of what was happening to the Soviet Union than the guy running it, but what do I know?

You mean as you were just doing?

I was merely pointing out that Gorbechev was no historian and that he personally claimed that Reagan did not directly influence any of their decisions. And you provide what to support your own contentions? Even more partisan speculation fitting of Fox News?

#1: This is a reflection on what happened after the crash of the Soviet economy. It is not saying anything about what caused what. Nevertheless, I want to say that there's some translation issue here, because it's demonstrably true that the SDI proposal caused an uproar among the Communist Party of the U.S.S.R. Perhaps he's speaking generally when he says he wasn't intimidated, as in "whatever happens, we will not give up" sense of it.

Or it simply wasn't a credible threat as you personally believe it was. After all, "Apparently guys on the Internet have a better understanding of what was happening" than the top scientists and engineers did at the time...

#The arms race was only the secondary cause of the difficulties the Soviets were facing in the '80s. (The primary cause was the drop in oil prices.)

No, their entire economy was in a state of collapse. The only thing really holding it together was the same impetus as the US economy: government spending on the massive military-industrial complex. While oil prices did play a role, they were clearly not the only problem the Soviet Union faced.

And yes, I've heard that little story about how Reagan talked to the Saudis to get them to lower the prices of oil. But that was really just to get his own administration out of hot water, not to deliberately bankrupt the Soviet Union as many Reagan apologists now try to claim long after the fact.

##3 & #4: By March, 1985, the dissolution was almost inevitable. Therefore, the U.S. had no reason to continue the arms race, as that would only been seen as an act of intimidation. Reagan incurred the ire of interventionists in the second half of his presidency because of this, though history has clearly vindicated him on this point.

No, by the late 70s, the dissolution was inevitable. That means we should give the majority of the credit to Carter, since he happened to be president at that time. Right?

 

[LightSpectra]

You mean as you were just doing?

I'm agreeing with Gorbachev's assessment. I think that as he was running the U.S.S.R. and has no motive to lie on Reagan's behalf, that therefore, he is a credible source. So, no, not just as I was doing.

Or it simply wasn't a credible threat as you personally believe it was. After all, "Apparently guys on the Internet have a better understanding of what was happening" than the top scientists and engineers did at the time...

What scientists and engineers thought didn't matter in what I'm speaking of. The leaders of the CPSU were scared by the SDI proposal, and I can provide several quotations demonstrating this.

No, their entire economy was in a state of collapse. The only thing really holding it together was the same reason as the US's economy: The massive military-industrial complex. While oil prices did play a role, they were clearly not the only problem the Soviet Union faced.

Yes, as I've just affirmed. It was the primary but not sole problem.

And yes, I've heard that little story about how Reagan talked to the Saudis to get them to lower the prices of oil. But that was really just to get his own administration out of hot water, not to deliberately bankrupt the Soviet Union as you will likely next try to claim.

I don't know how you could possibly demonstrate exactly what Reagan was thinking when he began negotiating the deal, but regardless, this is irrelevant. His intention conceivably might have been ulterior, but the result of it was clear.

No, by the late 70s, the dissolution was inevitable. That means we should give the majority of the credit to Carter, since he happened to be president at that time. Right?

The dissolution was not inevitable in the '70s. What caused the dissolution was the lifting of nationalist repressions during Gorbachev's reforms, which itself was a concession after the economic crash the Soviets faced; and the formula for that was primarily a the arms race plus the severe drop in oil revenues

 

[Camikaze]

3. Grover Cleveland

Without wanting to derail the thread, I'd be interested to know why you think Cleveland was such a bad president. Okay, so from my limited knowledge of him, I wouldn't pick him as one of the best ever, but I certainly wouldn't pick him as one of worst, either. What exactly is wrong with Cleveland?