# Think Tank > History >  The Reagan Worship

## twomp

Being a former Democrat, I never understood why people worship Ronald Regan so much. Didn't he intervene in Panama and some other countries? Didn't he like raise taxes like 11 times or something? What did Regan do that deserves so much praise? Why do Republicans mention him like he's baby Jesus? I am honestly not trying to troll. Just curious.

----------


## CaptUSA

He spoke like a libertarian.  Governed like the rest of 'em, but he spoke like a libertarian.

People remember the rhetoric a lot more than the actual leadership.  (To be fair, though, Reagan's results weren't actually too bad.  Ended the economic cold war by defeating the Soviet Union...  the US went from malaise to prosperity...)

----------


## itshappening

They like him because he spoke like a conservative and won big.

----------


## Danke

Who is gonna break it to him?




> Being a former Democrat, I never understood why people worship Ronald Regan so much. Didn't he intervene in Panama and some other countries? Didn't he like raise taxes like 11 times or something? What did Regan do that deserves so much praise? Why do Republicans mention him like he's baby Jesus? I am honestly not trying to troll. Just curious.

----------


## acptulsa

Ronald Regan?  Never heard of him.  Heard of Donald Regan, but never heard of anyone worshipping him.

If you're talking about Ronald Reagan, this is part of it:




> He spoke like a libertarian.  Governed like the rest of 'em, but he spoke like a libertarian.
> 
> People remember the rhetoric a lot more than the actual leadership.  (To be fair, though, Reagan's results weren't actually too bad.  Ended the economic cold war by defeating the Soviet Union...  the US went from malaise to prosperity...)


Any libertarian worth his salt despises Reagan for throwing any sanity to the wind and running up the largest amount of red ink of any administration up to that time, ramping up the war on drugs, a couple of pointless 'splendid little wars', and a thousand other things.  I had an opportunity to help reelect Reagan in my first presidential election after reaching voting age, and I voted Libertarian instead.  He ended the Cold War by ramping it up recklessly, thus not only breaking the Soviet Union financially but sending us down the same road to ruin.  The whole administration was characterized by the shortest of short term thinking.

Why is he so fondly remembered?  He was funny.  Seriously.  That's a huge part of it.  He may have been a lousy actor, but he was very charismatic and did do a good job of appearing to be everything you'd want a president to appear to be.  He was lucky enough to get elected just as the economy was on the rebound from the Fed's concerted efforts to make Jimmy Carter look bad, and punish us for questioning their tool Nixon.  And, quite simply, because most people don't know enough about it to understand that most of our problems stemmed from his foolish policies.

Sorry to all of those who would rather remember him fondly if I made any sense.  But there it is.

----------


## erowe1

It's because of his speeches. That's pretty much all.

----------


## itshappening

And he told some jokes and danced with Margaret Thatcher.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> He spoke like a libertarian.  Governed like the rest of 'em, but he spoke like a libertarian.


That pretty much sums it up.  And remember, most of those who continue to worship him have no problem with his use of military force...neocon Republicans _love_ them some military!!

----------


## itshappening



----------


## itshappening



----------


## green73

> He spoke like a libertarian.  Governed like the rest of 'em, but he spoke like a libertarian.
> 
> People remember the rhetoric a lot more than the actual leadership.  (To be fair, though, Reagan's results weren't actually too bad.  Ended the economic cold war by defeating the Soviet Union...  the US went from malaise to prosperity...)


Didn't the Soviet Union implode on its own, because communism really doesn't work?

----------


## itshappening



----------


## itshappening

> Didn't the Soviet Union implode on its own, because communism really doesn't work?


The implosion, I think, happened quicker because of the Pentagon spending splurge and they felt they had to keep up and bankrupted themselves.  America didn't.

----------


## acptulsa

> The implosion, I think, happened quicker because of the Pentagon spending splurge and they felt they had to keep up and bankrupted themselves.  America didn't *implode quite so quickly*.


Fixed that for you.  And yes, I firmly believe that the U.S. didn't implode quite so quickly because capitalism is superior to socialism.  Back then, if you'll remember, we actually had less socialism and more capitalism than Russia.

My, how things change...

----------


## juleswin

To see why, just listen to all the Reagan fiscal policy record in the video below. Starts @ 4:20. You will be amazed

----------


## green73

> The implosion, I think, happened quicker because of the Pentagon spending splurge and they felt they had to keep up and bankrupted themselves.  America didn't.


Ahh. We could afford to be more Soviet than them.

----------


## Danke



----------


## itshappening

Reagan was charismatic.  American's dont care about much else if the leader is charismatic he gets a free pass.

Reagan's top rate of tax was 28%.  Art Laffer worked for him in his economic team and they also deregulated some industry like the airlines.  This lead to actual ecomonic growth and jobs, something of a rarity these days. 

Also dont forget Reagan survived Iran/Contra which he should have been impeached for .

----------


## green73



----------


## itshappening

> Ahh. We could afford to be more Soviet than them.


The difference being America was only 20% Soviet, or whatever the government spent as part of GDP whereas in the USSR all industry was owned by the state, hugely inefficient and unsustainable.

They also had a system and a leader who allowed secession.  If Lincoln was the president of the USSR it would still be around today!

An oligarchy class sprung up and bought all those state industries for pennies, financed by western banks. They then used de-regulation of the labor market and the transition period to make them more efficient (firing workers, upgrading equipment).  There's about 25 billionaires including Putin who own most of Russia now.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Reagan was charismatic.  American's dont care about much else if the leader is charismatic he gets a free pass.
> 
> Reagan's top rate of tax was 28%.  Art Laffer worked for him in his economic team and *they also deregulated some industry like the airlines*.  This lead to actual ecomonic growth and jobs, something of a rarity these days. 
> 
> Also dont forget Reagan survived Iran/Contra which he should have been impeached for .


That was Carter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_Deregulation_Act

----------


## itshappening

Didn't the air traffic controllers go on strike under Reagan?

----------


## green73

> The difference being America was only 20% Soviet, or whatever the government spent as part of GDP whereas in the USSR all industry was owned by the state, hugely inefficient and unsustainable.
> 
> They also had a system and a leader who allowed secession.  If Lincoln was the president of the USSR it would still be around today!
> 
> An oligarchy class sprung up and bought all those state industries for pennies, financed by western banks. They then used de-regulation of the labor market and the transition period to make them more efficient (firing workers, upgrading equipment).  There's about 25 billionaires including Putin who own most of Russia now.


Did you know that the rise of the USSR was funded by Western banks as well?

----------


## acptulsa

> That was Carter.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_Deregulation_Act


Believe you me, that didn't stop Reagan from taking credit for it.  The Iran hostages were released basically before Reagan was sworn in, and Reagan was happy to take credit for that, too.

But the point remains that Reagan did just enough libertarian stuff to make Republicans happy, if they didn't look too closely.  He rid us of the Interstate Commerce Commission, for example.  It was too late to save the private enterprise passenger train, and it would have been a better thing if he had rid us of Amtrak at the same time, but it was nonetheless a good thing.




> Didn't the air traffic controllers go on strike under Reagan?


Yes, they did.  And he broke their union.  Which didn't turn out nearly as badly as some people thought it would.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> The implosion, I think, happened quicker because of the Pentagon spending splurge and they felt they had to keep up and bankrupted themselves.  America didn't.


Didn't we?  We just keep kicking the can down the road, and we've been doing that as long as I can remember.  The massive military expenditures we incurred during the Reagan administration contributed in some way to the economic problems we face today.  We are a country that has never learned to live within our means.

----------


## itshappening

I'm sure it was, so was the Nazi Party etc.

But they never got their hands on the industry until it broke up and even then Russians are in control, they're just the intial money-men.  I don;t think the Russians need any more loans as their enterprises generate plenty of cash.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> He spoke like a libertarian.  Governed like the rest of 'em, but he spoke like a libertarian.


This is exactly why a lot of us here have started telling people *"Look at what they do instead of what they say."* 

What they say is worth $#@!.  Talk is cheap, etc, etc.

----------


## erowe1

> The implosion, I think, happened quicker because of the Pentagon spending splurge and they felt they had to keep up and bankrupted themselves.  America didn't.


I don't buy that. When Reagan took office the USA and USSR each already had more nukes than were necessary to be the maximum possible threat. Both parties were acting against the best interest of their own people, and neither was forcing the other to.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Also dont forget Reagan survived Iran/Contra which he should have been impeached for .


Everyone swooned at the sight of Ollie North, who was willing to take the fall for his boss...like I said, America loves its military men!

----------


## dillo

Reagan was probably a libertarian at heart, but HW Bush scared him into neo conservatism after he tried to have him killed

----------


## itshappening

So what happened?> They just decided to give up and allow the satellite states to secceed. 

I think they were broke and there was just too much suffering so they said meh, lets just give all these industries to a group of our well connected friends and bring in capitalism

----------


## cajuncocoa

> This is exactly why a lot of us here have started telling people *"Look at what they do instead of what they say."* 
> 
> What they say is worth $#@!.  Talk is cheap, etc, etc.


Actions *DO* speak louder than words, but I prefer someone who will tell me the truth and act accordingly.  That's why I admire Ron Paul.

----------


## erowe1

> So what happened?> They just decided to give up and allow the satellite states to secceed. 
> 
> I think they were broke and there was just too much suffering so they said meh, lets just give all these industries to a group of our well connected friends and bring in capitalism


They were broke. Communism doesn't work. All Reagan did was help us go broke right along with them.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Reagan was probably a libertarian at heart, but HW Bush scared him into neo conservatism after he tried to have him killed


Yep.  I should have mentioned that as well.  I completely agree with this...it's beyond coincidental that the young man who tried to assassinate Reagan was a friend of the Bush family.

----------


## acptulsa

> Both parties were acting against the best interest of their own people, and neither was forcing the other to.


You underestimate how good the military industrial complex and their media pets of the time (Luce back then, Murdoch now) are at convincing people unnecessary things are necessary.  Carter, for example, was right about the B-1 bomber, but that didn't keep 'conservatives' from lambasting him for dropping it.




Yeah, missiles have taken over.  But we still have a bomber gap!  Woe is us!

----------


## Henry Rogue

Ron Paul supported Ronald Reagan too until Dr. Paul found out Reagan didn't practice what he preached.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Reagan was probably a libertarian at heart, but HW Bush scared him into neo conservatism after he tried to have him killed


Nope. Reagan absolutely sucked as governor of California, too. Raised taxes and spending at record rates.

The dude was an actor.




> This is exactly why a lot of us here have started telling people *"Look at what they do instead of what they say."* 
> 
> What they say is worth $#@!.  Talk is cheap, etc, etc.


I agree. But I'd like to add something to that. That is intended to be used against non-libertarians, to prove they aren't free marketeers/whatever else they're claiming. Libertarians need to be held to a higher standard than that.

----------


## green73

Alex Jones says a bullet set Reagan straight.

----------


## erowe1

> Alex Jones says a bullet set Reagan straight.


Ohhhh. I was wondering why so many people here used that line. It's because AJ told them. That makes sense.

----------


## erowe1

..

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

Reagan was also a lobbyist. For GE. Freedom!

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Reagan was also a lobbyist. For GE. Freedom!


He was a GE spokesperson, yes.  I don't know if that would be viewed the same then as it would be now.  Not so long ago the conventional wisdom was, what is good for business is good for capitalism.  I don't know if corporatism was yet as deeply rooted or as bad then as it is now.  I could be wrong, that's just my personal impression.

----------


## acptulsa

> He was a GE spokesperson, yes.  I don't know if that would be viewed the same then as it would be now.  Not so long ago the conventional wisdom was, what is good for business is good for capitalism.  I don't know if corporatism was yet as deeply rooted or as bad then as it is now.  I could be wrong, that's just my personal impression.


No, it wasn't.  But that attitude did help us get to the unhappy state we're in now.

It was Charlie Wilson who was asked in a confirmation hearing, if you had to choose between something that was good for General Motors and something that was good for the nation, which would you choose?  He replied that he couldn't conceive of such a situation.  A lot of people at the time also lacked imagination, so he was confirmed as Secretary of Defense and quit his job as CEO of GM.  The next thing anyone knew, Packard, Kaiser and Hudson were history, Nash (under the tutelidge of Mitt Romney's father George) had marginalized itself and Studebaker was well on its way to oblivion.  The man literally had an _overt_ policy of going to certain contractors for military equipment and no one called him on it.  The result hurt Americans both in terms of defense and in the automotive marketplace.  Even so, the phrase 'What's good for GM is good for the nation' remained in popular use for another twenty years or so.

Bizarre, isn't it?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> They were broke. Communism doesn't work. All Reagan did was help us go broke right along with them.


Trying to occupy Afghanistan didn't help the Soviets either.

----------


## acptulsa

> Trying to occupy Afghanistan didn't help the Soviets either.


They are garnering quite a hard-earned and well-earned reputation as The Empire Buster, aren't they?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> They are garnering quite a hard-earned and well-earned reputation as The Empire Buster, aren't they?


 Indeed!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Related:

----------


## SpreadOfLiberty

> Reagan was probably a libertarian at heart, but HW Bush scared him into neo conservatism after he tried to have him killed


We didn't have a neoconservative foreign policy until the Bush (II) administration.

Reagan's foreign policy actually shows us some good wisdom, as well as things to learn from.

I would like to see what he could have done with a Republican House those 8 years.

----------


## thequietkid10

Is it safe to say that Regan was more conservative then any of those who came after him?

Also, I think there is a historical element to this too.

In the 1960s you had the Civil Rights Movement, the Counter Culture, Vietnam, JFK, RFK, and MLK assassinations.

In the 1970s you had Vietnam, Nixon, Carter, Stagflation and the Iran Hostage Crisis.

In the 1980s you had Iran Contra (which had very little impact on 99.9999 percent of Americans) the Air Traffic Strike, and...um the rise of the dickish Wall Street Yuppie?

Not to mention this was the decade that the Cold War ended and the economy came roaring back from stagflation.  It reminds me of the Warren G. Harding return to normalcy, but without the Teapot Dome Scandal.

----------


## Mach

And let's not forget the _War On Drugs_.......

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> And let's not forget the _War On Drugs_.......


+rep

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> He spoke like a libertarian.  Governed like the rest of 'em, but he spoke like a libertarian.
> 
> People remember the rhetoric a lot more than the actual leadership.  (To be fair, though, Reagan's results weren't actually too bad.  Ended the economic cold war by defeating the Soviet Union...  the US went from malaise to prosperity...)


Reagan didn't defeat anything. The Global Elite simply decided to move on to a new dog and pony show.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Reagan didn't defeat anything. The Global Elite simply decided to move on to a new dog and pony show.


 Yup.

----------


## Pericles

> They are garnering quite a hard-earned and well-earned reputation as The Empire Buster, aren't they?


I was in the room when Ted Heath (former Prime Minister of the UK) said: "We British have fought three wars in Afghanistan and lost each of them. I would hate to think that the Russians will win on their first attempt."

Now, it is our turn.

----------


## Pericles

> We didn't have a neoconservative foreign policy until the Bush (II) administration.
> 
> Reagan's foreign policy actually shows us some good wisdom, as well as things to learn from.
> 
> I would like to see what he could have done with a Republican House those 8 years.


It is popular in liberal and in some libertarian circles to consider Reagan a dottering old fool. Consider this story from a CIA guy:

*The CIAs Biggest Failure* The greatest intelligence failure of  the Cold Warwhich, oddly, no blue-ribbon commission has ever been  created to investigatewas the CIAs failure to grasp that by the late  1970s the Soviet economy had stopped growing and had begun to implode.  The reason this was the biggest failurevastly more important than any  miscalculation about Soviet missiles or nuclear subswas that if the  Soviet economy were in fact imploding, the Cold War itself was no longer  stable because the Soviet Union wouldnt be able to sustain its  decades-long, global struggle for supremacy. Either the Soviet Union  would collapse quietlyrather like a business that goes bankrupt and  shuts its doorsor it would become dangerously aggressive. The CIA calculated that in the late 1970s and early 1980s the Soviet  economy was growing at an annual rate of more than three percent.  President Reagan didnt believe it, and neither did Casey. (In the early  1980s, our own economy was struggling to reach a 3 percent annual  growth rate: If we couldnt do it, how could they?) But they needed to  know for sure, so Casey made it a top CIA priority to take a hard look  at the Soviet economy and to figure out what was really going on.
 We started off by literally making a list of all the things we would  expect to find if in fact the Soviet economy were in trouble: shortages  of consumer goods, late payment of bills, slowdown of new non-military  construction projects, and so forth.
 The next step was to take the finished list wed made to the  collectors. Casey sent me to the CIAs operations directorate, the  various branches of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the super-secret  National Security Agency, and to a few other places we still dont talk  about. At each stop I met with the collectors, explained our hypothesis,  and gave them the list of indicators wed compiled. These were more  like seminars than meetings, because the more clearly collectors  understand what you want, why you want it, and how you think, the better  able they are to do their jobs. Collectors hate it when you ignore them  and say, in effect, Just go collect stuff and maybe what you collect  is what I want to know about. You must bring them into your confidence  and let them know where you are goingor hope to go.
 Moreover, you must be sure the collectors know what to do with  whatever information they may find. Each meeting ended with one last  instruction from me: If you find any of these indicators, dont just  throw your report or your memo into the pile. Jump the system and send  it directly to meand if anybody squawks let me know and Mr. Casey will  cover you. And if you find something that isnt on our list but you  think may be relevant, send me that too or, if you prefer, just give me a  call and Ill come back for a cup of coffee and we can go over it  together. And when these rounds of meetings in Washington were  completed, Casey sent me overseas to repeat this process with collectors  at those among our allied intelligence services that kept a sharp eye  on the Soviet Union.
*It Just Didnt Fit* Literally within days, collectors  were sending me astonishing reports. One of them told of a growing  number of strikesstrikes!at Soviet factories. I asked why this  information hadnt surfaced before and the collector replied, No one  was interested. It just didnt fit. That report was on Caseys desk in  five minutes, and on the presidents desk later that same afternoon.  Likewise with an equally astonishing report recounting an episode in  which Soviet workers had stopped and surrounded a train that was  carrying meat. Troops arrived and surrounded the workers, and the  standoff had to be resolved by the Politburo itselfwhich decided to  allow the workers to offload and take the meat rather than risk a  shootout. Casey delivered this knockout report to the president in  person. Over time, we compiled enough information to be sure the Soviet  economy was starting to implode. And that gave President Reagan the hard  intelligence he needed to be confident that his strategy of pushing the  Soviet Union to its breaking point would work. (The CIA bureaucracy  dragged its feet all the way, and it took years to get the official  estimates of Soviet economic growth revised downward. But the correct  intelligence was far too important to remain hostage to a bureaucratic  dogfight, so Casey jumped the system by allowing me to write a series of  memos to him that outlined the Soviet economys growing crisis, and he  made sure those memos reached the president. By the time the CIA  bureaucracy finally got it right, the Reagan policies were already in  place.)
 Had the CIA used this methodology in the years before 9/11, those  attacks might well have been prevented. But the CIA never clearly  formulated a hypothesis that al Qaeda was steadily gaining strength and  sophistication, that attacks within the U.S. were increasingly likely,  and that the terrorists liked to use bombs and airplanes. And it failed  to develop a detailed list of indicators based on this hypothesis, to  distribute the list to collectors throughout the various agencies, and  to give them the name and telephone number of a specific individual to  contact when they found something. So when an FBI agent in Minneapolis  learned that a bunch of single men from the Mideast were paying cash for  flying lessons and telling their instructors that they werent  interested in learning how to land, the agent had no specific official  close enough to the top to send it to.
 Of course, there are dangers in developing a hypothesis and telling  the collectors what you want. They can try to please you by providing  whatever bits and pieces they can find, even though these bits and  pieces arent an accurate reflection of the truth. Or, if the collectors  cannot find the indicators you are seeking, you can cling to your  beloved hypothesis and blame the collectors for their inability to find  what you know is really thererather than admit that your hypothesis is  just plain wrong. Its always a judgment call, which is why its so  important that the individual in charge has not only brains, but  intellectual integrity.
 And sometimes, everything depends on a director who has all this, and  also the courage to go with his instinctthat un-quantifiable gut feel  for where the big payoff lies. One of Caseys great predecessors was  John McCone, whom President Kennedy made DCI after the 1961 Bay of Pigs  fiasco. McCone was an older version of Caseysavvy, street-smart,  knowledgeable about the world and Washington, deeply religious,  seriously rich. The two men liked each other a lot, and from time to  time McConefrail but razor-sharpwould stop by for a chat. One day  after the two had finished their private conversation and Casey had left  the building for a Cabinet meeting, McCone had some time to spare and  he very kindly stopped to talk with me. Our conversation turned to the  1962 Cuban missile crisis, and McCone told me a story Id never heard  before.
*Sending the U-2s* As the crisis built and as members of  Congress were warning that Khrushchev was placing nuclear missiles in  Cuba that could reach the U.S., the CIA bureaucracy insisted that there  were, in fact, no Soviet missiles in Cuba. McCone ordered that a U-2  flight be sent over the island to find out, one way or the other. It  would be a dangerous missionobviously dangerous to the pilot, less  obviously a potential _causus belli_ if the spy plane got shot down  and Congress demanded that the U.S. retaliateand opposition to sending  the U-2 was strong at the CIA and the Pentagon. McCone insisted, the  U-2 flew, and when the film it took was developed and studied by the  experts, there were no missiles. McCone ordered a second U-2 flight, and  the opposition was even more ferocious. But he insisted, the mission  was flown andagain, no missiles. I asked McCone what happened next.  Oh, my, he said. Im afraid I wasnt very popular in Washington that  week, because I ordered a third flight. And when the film from that  third flight showed no missiles, McCone ordered a fourth, and then a  fifth. It was the sixth U-2 flight that found the missiles, and the rest  is history. McCone was grinning as he finished his storyhe was enjoying himself  enormouslyso I asked the question he was so obviously waiting to be  asked: Sir, what made you keep sending U-2s? There was a long pause,  and it seemed that McCone was thinking back to something that had  happened a long time ago and struggling to get it just right. When he  finally spoke his voice was so low I had to lean forward in my chair to  hear him. You know, thats just the question President Kennedy asked me  after it was all over. Mr. President, I told him, I kept sending U-2s  because I knewI just _knew_those damn missiles were there.
 Intelligence isnt org charts. Its people. Put the wrong people in  charge and they will screw up no matter how perfectly our intelligence  community is structured. Put the right people in charge and they will  overcome whatever structural flaws there may be and get the job done.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> We didn't have a neoconservative foreign policy until the Bush (II) administration.
> 
> Reagan's foreign policy actually shows us some good wisdom, as well as things to learn from.
> 
> I would like to see what he could have done with a Republican House those 8 years.


Nonsense.  Reagan was never anti-interventionist.  He was a hawk during the Vietnam War while conducting a liberal economic agenda as governor of California.  Having a Democratic congress was probably the only thing keeping him from expanding his CIA coups in Latin America to full blown ground wars.

Just because Reagan said a couple of nice things about Ron Paul is no reason for libertarians and paleoconservatives to apologize for him.

----------


## osan

> Being a former Democrat, I never understood why people worship Ronald Regan so much.


It is called "political theater", AKA propaganda.




> Didn't he intervene in Panama and some other countries?


I highly doubt it was his idea.  No doubt his esteemed "advisers", all of whom were picked _for_ him by persons unidentified, made the case and Reagan gavce it the green. 

Reagan appears to have been a decent man, but let us just say he was not the brightest drawer in the knife.  By his second term he was visibly doddering.  By the end, he was a vegetable-like entity and it was clear to anyone with an IQ above the single digits that he was most definitely not running the show.

In any event, he was either never terribly bright or he had made the decision to believe the great body of nonsense he spewed, much of which appears to have evolved in his mind as the byproducts of his years as just another clown on the big Hollywood screen.  Do not get me wrong, he also made some rather impressive statements about freedom and proper government as well, but actions speak more truthfully than do words and his actions were almost universally in diametric opposition to his words.  Was it because he was stupid?  Possibly.   Because he was evil?  I doubt it.  Let us recall that he has been shot.  Go back and look at what had been going on at that time.  Was he expressing his will to act in ways contrary to the now well identifiable agenda of globalism?  Honestly, I no longer recall and will defer to others with a mind to research this.  But if he was threatening some crucial agenda item by taking some action and after having been "advised" not to, perhaps the wounding shot he suffered brought him to a different understanding of the way things worked.  Just conjecture here... not claiming any conspiracy there, but one never knows and you have to admit that the Hinckley thing had a lot of strange odors associated with it.




> What did Regan do that deserves so much praise? Why do Republicans mention him like he's baby Jesus? I am honestly not trying to troll. Just curious.


He talked a talk that a great many people liked a lot.  He acted in manners opposite his words, but as you can now see, that really does not matter very much in politics.  It also _deeply_ underscores the great power of words - greater power than that of most action.  People believe what they want to believe and the primary channel of belief for the human animal is the spoken word.  Reagan went on like the Great Oz about smaller government as he jacked up its size to unprecedented proportions... and barely a word of mention was made of it because he had been raised up as an icon and woe be unto anyone profaning.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..."

Yup.

----------


## acptulsa

> We didn't have a neoconservative foreign policy until the Bush (II) administration.


Dubya himself admitted that the second Iraq War was merely a continuation of Desert Storm.  How is that a different policy from his father's?




> Reagan's foreign policy actually shows us some good wisdom, as well as things to learn from.
> 
> I would like to see what he could have done with a Republican House those 8 years.


Great wisdom?  That's about like someone comparing him to Harding without the Teapot Dome scandal.  Firstly, Harding did actually appreciably reduce government interference, and never passed an unbalanced budget.  Reagan could make neither boast with a straight face.  Secondly, Teapot Dome did not trace directly back to the White House in the way Iran-Contra did.

----------


## klamath

Reagan had his failing as does Ron Paul. I don't bow to the alter of Reagan any more than I do to the alter of Ron Paul. I think their pluses out weigh their minuses

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> *thequietkid* In the 1980s you had Iran Contra (which had very little impact on 99.9999 percent of Americans) the Air Traffic Strike, and...um the rise of the dickish Wall Street Yuppie?


Yes, the flooding of cocaine into the streets of America only affected .0001 percent of the population.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Reagan had his failing as does Ron Paul. I don't bow to the alter of Reagan any more than I do to the alter of Ron Paul. I think their pluses out weigh their minuses


Exactly.  I had been involved since Goldwater and Reagan winning in 80 was a culmination of years of hard work by conservative activists for many years.  Reagan was the closest thing to a true conservative in the White House since Coolidge.  Things, surely did not work out as well during his term though as the neo-cons gained more and more power within the party and we all know what happened from that point on.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> Reagan was the closest thing to a true conservative in the White House since Coolidge.


Still no reason to accept mediocrity.  Hell, that's putting it mildly.  He was never a "conservative" while governor of California so there is no reason to believe that he had every intention of enacting a "small government-esque" administration as president.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> Reagan had his failing as does Ron Paul. I don't bow to the alter of Reagan any more than I do to the alter of Ron Paul. I think their pluses out weigh their minuses


Except there's a difference: Paul walked the walk while Reagan only talked the talk.

----------


## klamath

> Except there's a difference: Paul walked the walk while Reagan only talked the talk.


Except you can't compare them. Paul has never been an executive and has never even walked the walk.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> Except you can't compare them. Paul has never been an executive and has never even walked the walk.


Paul as a legislator for 30+ years going against the wishes of his party on a consistent basis, even when it meant jeopardizing his chances at the presidency, is in my definition "walking the walk".

----------


## klamath

> Paul as a legislator for 30+ years going against the wishes of his party on a consistent basis, even when it meant jeopardizing his chances at the presidency, is in my definition "walking the walk".


My definition of walking the walk is actually being in the position of having your decisions, decisions that 7 billion people are watching, have to stand up to scrutiny and second guessing. The buck stops at you, not just a lonely no vote on a bill. What you decide WILL effect trillion of dollars and billions of people.
When RP did have to make executive decisions he didn't do so well.

----------


## cajuncocoa

Why is it getting acceptable to put Ron Paul down on this site?

----------


## twomp

> Why is it getting acceptable to put Ron Paul down on this site?


It's not. Ron Paul did what he said he would do which was obey his oath of office. That is walking the walk. Reagan only TALKED about what Ron Paul DID. There are posters here who are providing the example of what I meant when I started this thread. Regan WORSHIP. 

They can say that the same about the people on this forum and Ron Paul but at least Ron Paul kept his oath of office for like 95% of his career.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Why is it getting acceptable to put Ron Paul down on this site?


I don't think folks are putting him down, but just putting what he did in his career in context.  You cannot compare what Reagan did or didn't do to what Paul did or didn't do since they were in completely different offices.  It's like comparing a quarterback of the Cowboys to a kicker on a Division 3 college team.  Yes, both are playing football, but they are in two different worlds.

And honestly, one is retired and the other is dead.  What we can take away from Reagan's popularity both then and now is that he was an excellent communicator who was able to explain conservative principles to average Americans in a way that they understood, and were inspired by those principles.  And he was able to do so in a positive way to a massive audience that came out in droves to vote for him.  

This can be repeated with the right man and the right message.

----------


## cbrons

> Being a former Democrat, I never understood why people worship Ronald Regan so much. Didn't he intervene in Panama and some other countries? Didn't he like raise taxes like 11 times or something? What did Regan do that deserves so much praise? Why do Republicans mention him like he's baby Jesus? I am honestly not trying to troll. Just curious.


http://youtu.be/gwyiLCWm0ug?t=8m46s

----------


## 69360

A lot of people are trying to rewrite history in this thread, but as somebody who's formative years were during Reagan's presidency (I was 9 when he took office) I can tell you that the country was prosperous, people were generally satisfied with the government and Reagan was very likeable and personable. They were good times. That's why his popularity continues.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Why is it getting acceptable to put Ron Paul down on this site?


Because this site is being flooded with mainstream republicans.

----------


## klamath

As someone that was in both the campaigns of Reagan and Ron Paul I can look and express my opinion of both historically and judge what they did in their time in government both good and bad. As I stated earlier I don't bow to the alter of either and don't look skyward in fear if I question either of them as politicians.

----------


## Antischism

-In 1986, Reagan signed a drug enforcement bill that budgeted $1.7 billion to fund the War on Drugs and specified a mandatory minimum penalty for drug offenses.
Oh, and let's not forget Iran-Contra, which he should have been impeached for.

Honestly, I couldn't tell you why there are so many Reagan apologists aside from the fact that he was an actor who talked a talk he couldn't walk.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

The Reagan worship is especially vomit worthy on RONPAULFORUMS. Reagan talked a good talk, probably especially in '76. But if Clinton/Bush Jr/Obama had done NOTHING besides BE A CARBON COPY OF REAGAN WITHOUT A SINGLE DEVIATION besides rhetoric, you'd be all over their asses instead of apologizing.

----------


## klamath

Worship of any mortal man is pretty vomit inducing.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Because this site is being flooded with mainstream republicans.


If by "mainstream Republican" you mean sitting on a county committee that is under conservative control, in a district that sent Tom Davis to the State Senate and could very well send Mark Sanford back to the House, then count me as "mainstream".  

My hope is that what has occurred here in my area is replicated elsewhere.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Why is it getting acceptable to put Ron Paul down on this site?


The only person who routinely puts down Ron Paul on this forum is klamath. I would call it unacceptable in that this is RONPAULforums. I'm not really sure why he hasn't gotten a warning from a mod to cut his $#@! out. Perhaps because the election is over I suppose.

----------


## klamath

> The only person who routinely puts down Ron Paul on this is klamath. I would call it unacceptable in that this is RONPAULforums. I'm not really sure why he hasn't gotten a warning from a mod to cut his $#@! out. Perhaps because the election is over I suppose.


Quite typical Libertarian of you. People can talk about everything from killing american children to molesting them on these forums, yet  you are wondering why I don't get a mod warning for looking at a politician's PAST career objectively? The election and RP's political career is OVER, he is not a god.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> A lot of people are trying to rewrite history in this thread, but as somebody who's formative years were during Reagan's presidency (I was 9 when he took office) I can tell you that the country was prosperous, people were generally satisfied with the government and Reagan was very likeable and personable. They were good times. That's why his popularity continues.


You were nine. What did you know about prosperity? Hell when I was nine everything was pretty bright and cheery too. I would imagine every nine year old believes it to be prosperous times. It is when you grow older and distance yourself from exceptionalist propaganda you see the true colors of our country. Reagan was a puppet.




(Former Merrill Lynch CEO Don Regan telling Reagan to hurry up)

He defied Congress circumventing the Boland Amendment which he should have been impeached for. He sold weapons to Iran. He very well knew that cocaine was being brought back on the flights from Nicarauga. He very well knew that paid CIA proxies were wholesaling narcotics around the United States to further raise funds. It isn't rewriting history. (though I'm sure history will leave out these inconvenient truths) $#@! Reagan. $#@! Bush. $#@! Clinton. $#@! Barry Seal and Ollie North. The whole lot of them should have been arrested. Dan Laseter, Don Tyson- all of them. I liken the way Republicans worship Reagan to the way Democrats worship Clinton. They get equally defensive when I point out the medicine factories that were bombed.

----------


## acptulsa

The last time a friend of mine told me about how wonderful Reagan was, he said he felt that way because before Reagan everything was fine, and since Reagan everything has been f***ed up.

I asked him to repeat that.  He got a funny look in his eyes halfway through.  Then I agreed with him, and asked him who it was that introduced into power the beginning of this Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton clusterf*** that we've suffered under ever since.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Quite typical Libertarian of you. People can talk about everything from killing american children to molesting them on these forums, yet  you are wondering why I don't get a mod warning for looking at a politician's PAST career objectively? The election and RP's political career is OVER, he is not a god.


As others have pointed out, this is private property. It is named Ron Paul forums for a reason. You want to talk $#@! about Ron Paul go to the damn Reagan forums or Democrat forums or neocon forums. You never simply debate his voting record, as I am quite sure you are unable to have an intelligent discussion, you put down and disrespect the greatest statesman of our era. And just what and the $#@! are you talking about with 'people talk about killing American babies and molesting children?' I would permaban your ass for trying to portray this forum the way you did. What the $#@! is your damage? No one talks about murdering babies and molesting children aside from you just mentioning it. I have called you out before on this. You are a disingenious troll whose only purpose is to further divide and $#@!-stir.

----------


## klamath

> As others have pointed out, this is private property. It is named Ron Paul forums for a reason. You want to talk $#@! about Ron Paul go to the damn Reagan forums or Democrat forums or neocon forums. You never simply debate his voting record, as I am quite sure you are unable to have an intelligent discussion, you put down and disrespect the greatest statesman of our era. And just what and the $#@! are you talking about with 'people talk about killing American babies and molesting children?' I would permaban your ass for trying to portray this forum the way you did. What the $#@! is your damage? No one talks about murdering babies and molesting children aside from you just mentioning it. I have called you out before on this. You are a disingenious troll whose only purpose is to further divide and $#@!-stir.


It is private property, If Josh or  Bryan bans me I am gone. 
You have no clue Mr 2012 what has been discused here Get lost.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> You were nine. What did you know about prosperity? Hell when I was nine everything was pretty bright and cheery too. I would imagine every nine year believes it to be prosperous times. It is when you grow older and distance yourself from exceptionalist propaganda you see the true colors of our country. Reagan was a puppet..


I was 41 when Reagan won in 80.  69360 is correct in his/her statement.

----------


## juleswin

> As others have pointed out, this is private property. It is named Ron Paul forums for a reason. You want to talk $#@! about Ron Paul go to the damn Reagan forums or Democrat forums or neocon forums. You never simply debate his voting record, as I am quite sure you are unable to have an intelligent discussion, you put down and disrespect the greatest statesman of our era. And just what and the $#@! are you talking about with 'people talk about killing American babies and molesting children?' I would permaban your ass for trying to portray this forum the way you did. What the $#@! is your damage? No one talks about murdering babies and molesting children aside from you just mentioning it. I have called you out before on this. You are a disingenious troll whose only purpose is to further divide and $#@!-stir.


You are not alone on this. for the record, I have been visiting this site for years now I can safely say that talks of killing american babies and molesting children not something that I have ever seen on this site. Weird a RPF member will bring it up in a thread.

Also when I was 9yrs old I though Clinton was the best president ever. I couldn't understand why anyone would hate him. We had low unemployment, budget surplus, 1 minor war in 8yrs. I guess by my experience, Clinton was just as good as Reagan

----------


## awake

Actors are the most dangerous form of politician. They can play a role at such a level they blur reality. Regan acted like a small government libertarian, but his actions simply did not reflect his act. He's a fake hero, much like Lincoln.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Actors are the most dangerous form of politician. They can play a role at such a level they blur reality. Regan acted like small government libertarian, but his actions simply did not reflect his act. He's a fake hero, much like Lincoln.


I agree.  

My transformation from Republican to libertarian took place during Reagan's term...I knew he was right in what he was _saying_, but I wanted to align myself with people who would make that happen.  

We can (and I have) pondered why he governed so differently from his rhetoric ... I tend to accept the theory that Bush 41 had something to do with it when Hinckley, friend of the Bush family, attempted to assassinate Reagan (I can imagine someone whispering in Ronnie's ear while he was still in the hospital: "_next time, we won't miss_").  Whether that theory is right or wrong, the main point is there was a disconnect between what Reagan advocated in speeches and what he actually did as POTUS.  

Remember, too...Rush Limbaugh's national syndication began right at the end of Reagan's term... people were so starved for someone who sounded like a conservative in the media they flocked to his show (yes, I listened for awhile).  Rush was a useful idiot to steer the masses from the libertarian rhetoric Reagan used to neoconservatism, while turning Reagan into a God-like figure.  He would tell them what to think, and he actually tells them this in so many words!

----------


## TheTexan

Reagan worship allows people to pretend they like freedom without having any of the baggage real freedom actually entails.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Reagan worship allows people to pretend they like freedom without having any of the baggage real freedom actually entails.


Yes, their idea of "freedom isn't free" (if I hear a neocon say that one more time I'm going to have to kick the person who says it) is to wave U.S. flags made in China while rationalizing every military conflict  ... but of course, they're own children go to expensive universities, they're never the ones who enlist in the military.  That's the duty of public school kids who can't do anything else once they get their HS diploma.

----------


## SpreadOfLiberty

> Dubya himself admitted that the second Iraq War was merely a continuation of Desert Storm.  How is that a different policy from his father's?
> 
> 
> 
> Great wisdom?  That's about like someone comparing him to Harding without the Teapot Dome scandal.  Firstly, Harding did actually appreciably reduce government interference, and never passed an unbalanced budget.  Reagan could make neither boast with a straight face.  Secondly, Teapot Dome did not trace directly back to the White House in the way Iran-Contra did.


Iraq was a continuation, but not based on the same goals thus radically different missions and outcomes.

At least Reagan left Lebanon. Look at his response to Libya. He wasn't big on big military interventions. Not perfect to be sure.

He wasn't a dictator so I can't judge him on the unbalanced budgets.

----------


## twomp

Can anyone provide some examples of how Ronald Regan was a "true conservative'? Namely some legislation he passed or some actions he took. Please don't give examples of what he SAID because that really doesn't prove anything does it? Just some hard core facts please.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Can anyone provide some examples of how Ronald Regan was a "true conservative'? Namely some legislation he passed or some actions he took. Please don't give examples of what he SAID because that really doesn't prove anything does it? Just some hard core facts please.


I guess busting the air traffic controllers union could buy him some conservative cred.  Other than that, I can't think of anything.  In his defense, he had to deal with opposition in the House all 8 years FWIW.  I guess we'll never know if having a friendlier legislative branch would have made a difference.

----------


## kahless

> I was 41 when Reagan won in 80.  69360 is correct in his/her statement.


You probably remember it that way since you were lucky enough to have a job and not to be effected by the economy. I remember it clearly. The economy was in the toilet when he took office and got much worse those first few years.  It took awhile for it to bounce back but manufacturing jobs continued to decline.

People used to be able to take a factory job and support family here in NY.  The 80s were a time of continued mass exodus of manufacturing jobs. Jobs were scarce.  I remember the media coverage calling Reagan out on unemployment and Reagan holding up newspaper showing all the available jobs.  I remember being really pissed off about it since I check the papers every day applying to the very few jobs available that all of us were competing for in my area.

I also still have not forgotten the deals Reagan made with NOW to get elected that criminalized fatherhood in America and put men a tactical disadvantage in marriage. It was Reagan who coined the phrase "Dead beat Dad".

----------


## 69360

> You were nine. What did you know about prosperity? Hell when I was nine everything was pretty bright and cheery too. I would imagine every nine year old believes it to be prosperous times. It is when you grow older and distance yourself from exceptionalist propaganda you see the true colors of our country. Reagan was a puppet.


What did I know about prosperity? My mother as a widow and single parent of 2 was able to buy her own home in a nice suburban neighborhood and support her kids in the 80's when Reagan was president. We had all we wanted growing up. 

Do you hear many stories like that now under Obama? Nope, we'd be in the projects on the gubmint dole nowadays.

FWIW I do remember how it was under Carter, waiting hours on the gas lines etc.

----------


## itshappening

If Lockerbie happened today there would be a military invasion and occupation .

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> If Lockerbie happened today there would be a military invasion and occupation .


If the drug trade was being protected while simultaneously being condemned today, heads would roll. Wait a minute....

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> You probably remember it that way since you were lucky enough to have a job and not to be effected by the economy. I remember it clearly. The economy was in the toilet when he took office and got much worse those first few years.  It took awhile for it to bounce back but manufacturing jobs continued to decline.
> 
> People used to be able to take a factory job and support family here in NY.  The 80s were a time of continued mass exodus of manufacturing jobs. Jobs were scarce.  I remember the media coverage calling Reagan out on unemployment and Reagan holding up newspaper showing all the available jobs.  I remember being really pissed off about it since I check the papers every day applying to the very few jobs available that all of us were competing for in my area.
> 
> I also still have not forgotten the deals Reagan made with NOW to get elected that criminalized fatherhood in America and put men a tactical disadvantage in marriage. It was Reagan who coined the phrase "Dead beat Dad".


I remember it very well.  I did not have a job, I owned businesses up and down the Jersey shore from Atlantic City to Wildwood and employed well over 100 people. The Carter years were very slow, and things greatly improved under Reagan.  I was in business for myself from the early 60's till about 10 years ago, and quite honestly I saw the most growth and profit during the 80's.  Business was booming, people were spending money - times were good.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> You were nine. What did you know about prosperity? Hell when I was nine everything was pretty bright and cheery too. I would imagine every nine year old believes it to be prosperous times. It is when you grow older and distance yourself from exceptionalist propaganda you see the true colors of our country. Reagan was a puppet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Former Merrill Lynch CEO Don Regan telling Reagan to hurry up)
> 
> He defied Congress circumventing the Boland Amendment which he should have been impeached for. He sold weapons to Iran. He very well knew that cocaine was being brought back on the flights from Nicarauga. He very well knew that paid CIA proxies were wholesaling narcotics around the United States to further raise funds. It isn't rewriting history. (though I'm sure history will leave out these inconvenient truths) $#@! Reagan. $#@! Bush. $#@! Clinton. $#@! Barry Seal and Ollie North. The whole lot of them should have been arrested. Dan Laseter, Don Tyson- all of them. I liken the way Republicans worship Reagan to the way Democrats worship Clinton. They get equally defensive when I point out the medicine factories that were bombed.


 You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to kcchiefs6465 again.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> If Lockerbie happened today there would be a military invasion and occupation .


Lockerbie didn't lead to that because Reagan's puppetmasters (the Global Elite) decided they didn't want to play that card at that time.

----------


## kahless

> I remember it very well.  I did not have a job, I owned businesses up and down the Jersey shore from Atlantic City to Wildwood and employed well over 100 people. The Carter years were very slow, and things greatly improved under Reagan.  I was in business for myself from the early 60's till about 10 years ago, and quite honestly I saw the most growth and profit during the 80's.  Business was booming, people were spending money - times were good.


A regional boom brought on by legalized gambling in Atlantic City and the decline of Jersey shore cities further north.  

Like I said, the early 80s were pretty bad as seen in this chart.

----------


## Occam's Banana

My favorite anagram: mother-in-law --> woman Hitler

My second favorite: Ronald Wilson Reagan --> insane Anglo warlord

----------


## Pisces

The economy in the early '80's was bad because the Federal Reserve raised interest rates in order to lower inflation. It was a necessary correction. The economy really picked up after that and Reagan won re-election by a landslide in '84.

 Reagan doesn't deserve to be worshipped but he wasn't all bad. I think people are forgetting that there was no Internet back then - there wasn't even talk radio until the end of the decade. The Congress was mostly controlled by Democrats. If you think people are asleep and unaware of what's really going on now, you would have really hated the '80's.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> My favorite anagram: mother-in-law --> woman Hitler
> 
> My second favorite: Ronald Wilson Reagan --> insane Anglo warlord


Until the Bush family came along and made Reagan look like a dove.

----------


## seraphson

Didn't look through the whole thread but you may want to take a look at this:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard60.html

Reagan worship is bupkis

----------


## Origanalist

> The economy in the early '80's was bad because the Federal Reserve raised interest rates in order to lower inflation. It was a necessary correction. The economy really picked up after that and Reagan won re-election by a landslide in '84.
> 
>  Reagan doesn't deserve to be worshipped but he wasn't all bad. I think people are forgetting that there was no Internet back then - there wasn't even talk radio until the end of the decade. The Congress was mostly controlled by Democrats. If you think people are asleep and unaware of what's really going on now, you would have really hated the '80's.


Very good description of the times. + rep

----------


## acptulsa

> Iraq was a continuation, but not based on the same goals thus radically different missions and outcomes.


You think so, eh?

Let's see.  Herbie Walker's diplomats tricked Saddam Hussein into thinking we would do nothing if he invaded Kuwait even though he was pissing the Fed off by threatening to go off the petrodollar and sell oil for other currencies and/or gold.  So, we kicked his ass, then left our old CIA puppet in power and behaving on that currency thing.  Then, ten years later, he's threatening to go off the petrodollar again and Dubya uses hijackings by a bunch of Saudis and mythical yellowcake uranium as an excuse to finish what his father started.

Whatever you say, man.

----------


## kahless

> The economy in the early '80's was bad because the Federal Reserve raised interest rates in order to lower inflation. It was a necessary correction. The economy really picked up after that and Reagan won re-election by a landslide in '84.


I started to write that in my first post and figured the next few posts someone would. Although correct, it does not provide the entire picture.  There was no reduction in spending on social programs and defense spending increased. As a result the federal reserve debt increased to 40% by 1988.

I think Ron sums it up pretty well in his 1987 letter.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ron_Pa...ter_to_the_RNC



> ...
> Since 1981, however, I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the Republican Party's efforts to reduce the size of the federal government. Since then Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt. How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together? Tip O'Neill, although part of the problem, cannot alone be blamed.
> 
> Tax revenues are up 59 percent since 1980. Because of our economic growth? No. During Carter's four years, we had growth of 37.2 percent; Reagan's five years have given us 30.7 percent. The new revenues are due to four giant Republican tax increases since 1981.
> 
> All republicans rightly chastised Carter for his $38 billion deficit. But they ignore or even defend deficits of $220 billion, as government spending has grown 10.4 percent per year since Reagan took office, while the federal payroll has zoomed by a quarter of a million bureaucrats.
> 
> Despite the Supply-Sider-Keynesian claim that "deficits don't matter," the debt presents a grave threat to our country. Thanks to the President and Republican Party, we have lost the chance to reduce the deficit and the spending in a non-crisis fashion. Even worse, big government has been legitimized in a way the Democrats never could have accomplished. It was tragic to listen to Ronald Reagan on the 1986 campaign trail bragging about his high spending on farm subsidies, welfare, warfare, etc., in his futile effort to hold on to control of the Senate.
> 
> ...





> Reagan doesn't deserve to be worshipped but he wasn't all bad. I think people are forgetting that there was no Internet back then - there wasn't even talk radio until the end of the decade. The Congress was mostly controlled by Democrats. If you think people are asleep and unaware of what's really going on now, you would have really hated the '80's.


I agree but if he were alive today and running for office I still would not vote for that statist and fraud.

Anyway, I was posting to point out that the good old days - Reagan years were not as good as people like to make them out to be.   I suspect the Reagan worship as a strategy will continue since people always need some figure to worship.

----------

