Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Ronald Reagan
Posted by:
fused
()
Date: May 05, 2009 10:06PM
So why is Ronald Reagan so loved by "true" conservatives? Under his watch, the National Debt grew from 900B to 2.8T. How is that fiscally conservative?
Re: Ronald Reagan
Posted by:
Eagle Scout
()
Date: May 06, 2009 01:37AM
fused Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So why is Ronald Reagan so loved by "true"
> conservatives? Under his watch, the National Debt
> grew from 900B to 2.8T. How is that fiscally
> conservative?
One WOrd:
Freedom
-------------------------------------------------------
> So why is Ronald Reagan so loved by "true"
> conservatives? Under his watch, the National Debt
> grew from 900B to 2.8T. How is that fiscally
> conservative?
One WOrd:
Freedom
Re: Ronald Reagan
Posted by:
Wham
()
Date: May 06, 2009 03:56AM
Eagle Scout Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fused Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So why is Ronald Reagan so loved by "true"
> > conservatives? Under his watch, the National
> Debt
> > grew from 900B to 2.8T. How is that fiscally
> > conservative?
>
>
> One WOrd:
>
> Freedom
The George Michael song? I love that song. But what does that have to do with Reagan?
-------------------------------------------------------
> fused Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So why is Ronald Reagan so loved by "true"
> > conservatives? Under his watch, the National
> Debt
> > grew from 900B to 2.8T. How is that fiscally
> > conservative?
>
>
> One WOrd:
>
> Freedom
The George Michael song? I love that song. But what does that have to do with Reagan?
Re: Ronald Reagan
Posted by:
Return of the Living Fiscally Irresponsible
()
Date: May 06, 2009 06:36PM
.
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: Ronald Reagan
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: May 06, 2009 08:46PM
Wow...all you great Amerikans on here and you cant defend the first idiot president better then this? I guess you agree he is the patron saint of all idiot presidents.
Re: Ronald Reagan
Posted by:
ITRADE
()
Date: May 07, 2009 09:16AM
Funny, because when you look at historical approval ratings, Reagan's EOT approval rating is higher than even that of Kennedy, and on par with Clinton.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/polls/l/bl_historical_approval.htm
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/polls/l/bl_historical_approval.htm
Re: Ronald Reagan
Posted by:
JFK Terminal
()
Date: May 07, 2009 10:38AM
Approval ratings aside, Reagan was responsible for digging our country into some serious, unnecessary debt.
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: Ronald Reagan
Posted by:
fairfaxdude
()
Date: May 07, 2009 12:01PM
fused Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So why is Ronald Reagan so loved by "true"
> conservatives? Under his watch, the National Debt
> grew from 900B to 2.8T. How is that fiscally
> conservative?
yeah, that whole "trickle down" thing worked really well, huh?
At least those fiesty ATC bastards got what was coming to them...lol
Where's David Stockman now? Oh, yeah, isnt he in prison for securites fraud or something?...
Jebus.
______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.
-------------------------------------------------------
> So why is Ronald Reagan so loved by "true"
> conservatives? Under his watch, the National Debt
> grew from 900B to 2.8T. How is that fiscally
> conservative?
yeah, that whole "trickle down" thing worked really well, huh?
At least those fiesty ATC bastards got what was coming to them...lol
Where's David Stockman now? Oh, yeah, isnt he in prison for securites fraud or something?...
Jebus.
______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.
Re: Ronald Reagan
Posted by:
Final Word
()
Date: May 21, 2009 09:34AM
Reagan would probably go down as a great president. I don't think there's any doubt that Ronald Reagan had a profound effect on our economy, on our politics, on our culture.
Re: Ronald Reagan
Posted by:
WashingTone Locian
()
Date: May 21, 2009 09:42AM
fused Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So why is Ronald Reagan so loved by "true"
> conservatives? Under his watch, the National Debt
> grew from 900B to 2.8T. How is that fiscally
> conservative?
Reagan is "beloved" to Conservatives because he didn't cave to the "Great Society" thinking the way Nixon did. However, Reagan had the advantage of coming into office after the remnants of Great Society thinking pretty much collapsed under the hapless Carter Administration.
I'm sure 20 years from now liberals will admire Barack Obama for being the counter-point to the failed "Republican Revolution," which collapsed under the Bush 43 Administration.
-------------------------------------------------------
> So why is Ronald Reagan so loved by "true"
> conservatives? Under his watch, the National Debt
> grew from 900B to 2.8T. How is that fiscally
> conservative?
Reagan is "beloved" to Conservatives because he didn't cave to the "Great Society" thinking the way Nixon did. However, Reagan had the advantage of coming into office after the remnants of Great Society thinking pretty much collapsed under the hapless Carter Administration.
I'm sure 20 years from now liberals will admire Barack Obama for being the counter-point to the failed "Republican Revolution," which collapsed under the Bush 43 Administration.
Re: Ronald Reagan
Posted by:
WashingTone Locian
()
Date: May 21, 2009 09:47AM
Final Word Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reagan would probably go down as a great
> president. I don't think there's any doubt that
> Ronald Reagan had a profound effect on our
> economy, on our politics, on our culture.
He won't be seen as a great President the way FDR, Lincoln, Washington are because he didn't fight a major war, address a major economic crisis, etc, on his watch. The end of the Cold War, etc, is going to be seen as less relevant over time because future generations aren't really going to get what The Cold War was all about because it was such a unique event.
Not to say he won't be in the Top 10 or Top 20. But his ranking is gradually going to slide with time. In all fairness, the same thing is going to happen to Clinton.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reagan would probably go down as a great
> president. I don't think there's any doubt that
> Ronald Reagan had a profound effect on our
> economy, on our politics, on our culture.
He won't be seen as a great President the way FDR, Lincoln, Washington are because he didn't fight a major war, address a major economic crisis, etc, on his watch. The end of the Cold War, etc, is going to be seen as less relevant over time because future generations aren't really going to get what The Cold War was all about because it was such a unique event.
Not to say he won't be in the Top 10 or Top 20. But his ranking is gradually going to slide with time. In all fairness, the same thing is going to happen to Clinton.
Re: Ronald Reagan
Posted by:
Dissatisfied
()
Date: May 21, 2009 09:53AM
WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> I'm sure 20 years from now liberals will admire
> Barack Obama for being the counter-point to the
> failed "Republican Revolution," which collapsed
> under the Bush 43 Administration.
Only if liberals can get past the fact that Obama continued to support Bush's military tribunals, refused to prosecute perpetrators and enablers of torture, reneged on his promises of open government, continued unrestrained rampant bombings of civilians, lengthened the time he said troops would be out of Iraq, passed the buck on don't ask don't tell, and abandoned countless other progressive reforms - then, you might be right. Simply put, being better than the alternative is not being good.
-------------------------------------------------------
>> I'm sure 20 years from now liberals will admire
> Barack Obama for being the counter-point to the
> failed "Republican Revolution," which collapsed
> under the Bush 43 Administration.
Only if liberals can get past the fact that Obama continued to support Bush's military tribunals, refused to prosecute perpetrators and enablers of torture, reneged on his promises of open government, continued unrestrained rampant bombings of civilians, lengthened the time he said troops would be out of Iraq, passed the buck on don't ask don't tell, and abandoned countless other progressive reforms - then, you might be right. Simply put, being better than the alternative is not being good.
Re: Ronald Reagan
Posted by:
WashingTone Locian
()
Date: May 21, 2009 09:59AM
Dissatisfied Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only if liberals can get past the fact that Obama
> continued to support Bush's military tribunals,
> refused to prosecute perpetrators and enablers of
> torture, reneged on his promises of open
> government, continued unrestrained rampant
> bombings of civilians, lengthened the time he said
> troops would be out of Iraq, passed the buck on
> don't ask don't tell, and abandoned countless
> other progressive reforms - then, you might be
> right. Simply put, being better than the
> alternative is not being good.
You need to wait and see what comes out of this. If you are truly dissatisfied, then vote for the Green Party in 2012. I have no problem with the Military Tribunals if they follow the standards used in the past for these kinds of things (they were used in WWII, for instance). As for open government, the government is a hell of a lot more open now than under Bush. Also, setting MPG standards to match California's is pretty damn progressive.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only if liberals can get past the fact that Obama
> continued to support Bush's military tribunals,
> refused to prosecute perpetrators and enablers of
> torture, reneged on his promises of open
> government, continued unrestrained rampant
> bombings of civilians, lengthened the time he said
> troops would be out of Iraq, passed the buck on
> don't ask don't tell, and abandoned countless
> other progressive reforms - then, you might be
> right. Simply put, being better than the
> alternative is not being good.
You need to wait and see what comes out of this. If you are truly dissatisfied, then vote for the Green Party in 2012. I have no problem with the Military Tribunals if they follow the standards used in the past for these kinds of things (they were used in WWII, for instance). As for open government, the government is a hell of a lot more open now than under Bush. Also, setting MPG standards to match California's is pretty damn progressive.
Re: Ronald Reagan
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: May 21, 2009 12:54PM
Final Word Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reagan would probably go down as a great
> president. I don't think there's any doubt that
> Ronald Reagan had a profound effect on our
> economy, on our politics, on our culture.
Yes he turned this country into an offensive military power...drianing us of any moral righteousness we may ever had.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reagan would probably go down as a great
> president. I don't think there's any doubt that
> Ronald Reagan had a profound effect on our
> economy, on our politics, on our culture.
Yes he turned this country into an offensive military power...drianing us of any moral righteousness we may ever had.
Re: Ronald Reagan
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: May 21, 2009 01:01PM
I would rather the world be scared of us than us scared of the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Re: Ronald Reagan
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: May 21, 2009 01:10PM
MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would rather the world be scared of us than us
> scared of the world.
Interesting philosophy but completely unsustainable for an economy.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would rather the world be scared of us than us
> scared of the world.
Interesting philosophy but completely unsustainable for an economy.
Re: Ronald Reagan
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: May 21, 2009 01:20PM
Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I would rather the world be scared of us than
> us
> > scared of the world.
>
> Interesting philosophy but completely
> unsustainable for an economy.
Right, but the people running the show dictate how the economy goes, and America is not the "way out in front" superpower that it used to be.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I would rather the world be scared of us than
> us
> > scared of the world.
>
> Interesting philosophy but completely
> unsustainable for an economy.
Right, but the people running the show dictate how the economy goes, and America is not the "way out in front" superpower that it used to be.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Re: Ronald Reagan
Posted by:
Dissatisfied
()
Date: May 21, 2009 02:20PM
WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You need to wait and see what comes out of this.
> If you are truly dissatisfied, then vote for the
> Green Party in 2012. I have no problem with the
> Military Tribunals if they follow the standards
> used in the past for these kinds of things (they
> were used in WWII, for instance).
In February 2008, Obama criticized the prosecution of six Guantanamo detainees charged with involvement in the 9/11 attacks. He said the trials are "too important to be held in a flawed military commission system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9/11 attacks and that has been embroiled in legal challenges." Instead, Obama said, the men should be tried in a U.S. criminal court or by a military court-martial.
Obama voted against the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
Fast forward to 2009......
I know he wanted to reach across the aisle and work with Republicans, but he didn't have to go lockstep with the Bush Administration on the tribunals in order to achieve bipartisanship.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You need to wait and see what comes out of this.
> If you are truly dissatisfied, then vote for the
> Green Party in 2012. I have no problem with the
> Military Tribunals if they follow the standards
> used in the past for these kinds of things (they
> were used in WWII, for instance).
In February 2008, Obama criticized the prosecution of six Guantanamo detainees charged with involvement in the 9/11 attacks. He said the trials are "too important to be held in a flawed military commission system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9/11 attacks and that has been embroiled in legal challenges." Instead, Obama said, the men should be tried in a U.S. criminal court or by a military court-martial.
Obama voted against the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
Fast forward to 2009......
I know he wanted to reach across the aisle and work with Republicans, but he didn't have to go lockstep with the Bush Administration on the tribunals in order to achieve bipartisanship.
Re: Ronald Reagan
Posted by:
britdrnva
()
Date: May 21, 2009 03:06PM
It's interesting to me what constitutes liberal/conservative in this country vs other countries (namely where I came from - England).
Most Americans would label Obama at least somewhat left of centre.
Me, I see Obama as right of centre.
Clinton I contend was the best Republican (I know he was Democrat) that existed in modern times. He slashed welfare, was pro-business, shrank government and balanced the federal budget. For some reason the Republican party hated him - but he stood for everything the Republicans stand for.
Bush - I don't even want to go there, it was galling the Americans voted him in a 2nd time. The world did a collective gasp at that stupidity.
Obama is a small step back in the correct direction this country needs to head towards but I wouldn't label him liberal.
A real liberal would socialise healthcare (no more insurance making money off the sick), expand employee security, expand welfare benefits, standardise holidays (there is no requirement for time off in the US, in parts of Western Europe it is five weeks minimum), increase taxes on the rich, etc. None of these things are in the works to any great degree from Obama - he's looking at reforming some things but nothing truly liberalising from what is the status quo.
Most Americans would label Obama at least somewhat left of centre.
Me, I see Obama as right of centre.
Clinton I contend was the best Republican (I know he was Democrat) that existed in modern times. He slashed welfare, was pro-business, shrank government and balanced the federal budget. For some reason the Republican party hated him - but he stood for everything the Republicans stand for.
Bush - I don't even want to go there, it was galling the Americans voted him in a 2nd time. The world did a collective gasp at that stupidity.
Obama is a small step back in the correct direction this country needs to head towards but I wouldn't label him liberal.
A real liberal would socialise healthcare (no more insurance making money off the sick), expand employee security, expand welfare benefits, standardise holidays (there is no requirement for time off in the US, in parts of Western Europe it is five weeks minimum), increase taxes on the rich, etc. None of these things are in the works to any great degree from Obama - he's looking at reforming some things but nothing truly liberalising from what is the status quo.
Re: Ronald Reagan
Posted by:
Furfur
()
Date: May 21, 2009 03:11PM
Very true Britdrnva....the political spectrum of the USA and Europe in general is incomparable.
What we call liberal is actually considered right wing in Europe. There is no comparison for what we call conservative right wing in Europe, except for some fringe nationalistic political parties.
What we call liberal is actually considered right wing in Europe. There is no comparison for what we call conservative right wing in Europe, except for some fringe nationalistic political parties.