a tribute to President Ronald Reagan

[R_P_A_S]

dear president reagan. you are dead. and your wife is more miserable than ever.
may you rot in piece you fuck.

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h240/theimg/reagantribute.jpg

[ZX3]

But hey, the non-communist revlefters around here ought to be praising the man as vigorously as those on the Right. Reagan after all led the free world in politically and morally destroying the USSR, a regime many of members here have found to have been an abhorrent perversion of "true" left wing values.

Rejoice!

[la-troy]

Shit I wish he was alive right now. I would stuff my hand down his fucking throat and rip out his goddamn tongue then i would take a boulder and smash his head in. after that I would starve him to the point of death to make him know what it feels like to truly suffer. I would take his kids if he has any and shoot them in the head while hes watching and then make him clean up the blood. I would give him some deadly disease and then deny him health care. I would make him the slave of some rich aristocrat ***** to let him know what he was fighting for. god i would do so much things to that man it's impossibly to thing of them now.

[chimx]

But hey, the non-communist revlefters around here ought to be praising the man as vigorously as those on the Right. Reagan after all led the free world in politically and morally destroying the USSR, a regime many of members here have found to have been an abhorrent perversion of "true" left wing values.

Rejoice!

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

Besides, the USSR bankrupted itself. Reagan was just lucky enough to be in office when it happened.

[Dr Mindbender]

he was a madman anyways. This was the man (if the rumours are true) spent his spare time in the oval office counting his jelly beams and dreamt of the day he could send giant laser guns into space so he could shoot down russian missiles. :lol:

[Qwerty Dvorak]

But hey, the non-communist revlefters around here ought to be praising the man as vigorously as those on the Right. Reagan after all led the free world in politically and morally destroying the USSR, a regime many of members here have found to have been an abhorrent perversion of "true" left wing values.
Really, nobody cares about his foreign policies. All he did was stand around and smile for the cameras while the USSR tore itself apart. Our main problem is with his economic policies. Though they did wonders for the upper classes and for the US economy, they did nothing to help the poor. In reality, the "treacle-down" which Reagan had prophesied never materialized, the working class suffered heavily as a result of reduced government spending on social welfare and the increased affluence of the upper and middle classes ultimately overshadowed the plight of the country's less fortunate.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 06:11 pm
Besides, the USSR bankrupted itself. Reagan was just lucky enough to be in office when it happened.
In actual fact, he was already gone by that point. The USSR fell apart for a variety of reasons, primarilly bankrupting itself due to spending too much in the military. Reagan did not have anything to do with it faling apart whatever his supporters might say. Indeed had he had his way, it might even have lasted longer. He preferred dealing with conservative elements in the USSR than reformers like Gorbachev.

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+June 25, 2007 12:22 am--> (Demogorgon @ June 25, 2007 12:22 am)
[email protected] 24, 2007 06:11 pm
Besides, the USSR bankrupted itself. Reagan was just lucky enough to be in office when it happened.
In actual fact, he was already gone by that point. The USSR fell apart for a variety of reasons, primarilly bankrupting itself due to spending too much in the military. Reagan did not have anything to do with it faling apart whatever his supporters might say. Indeed had he had his way, it might even have lasted longer. He preferred dealing with conservative elements in the USSR than reformers like Gorbachev. [/b]
Among the bestsellers of 1969 was "Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984?" by a Russian.

[IcarusAngel]

Ronald Reagan was your typical corporatist president who allowed corporations to regulate the government in pursuit of private profit at the public's expense. He allowed some of the biggest mergers in US history (up to that point) to go through, further increasing corporate consolidation in the country. One of the reasons the media is in a state of such consolidation and infotainment ("corporate media") is because he repealed the 7-7-7 standards (7 am, 7 fm, 7 tv being the limit for one owner) and fair use doctrines. After the deregulation of cable the quality of programming plummeted and the news dumbed down even more (even though the founders of the US claimed that a educated populous is essential to the Republic), further proof that "privatization" is a failure. His "star wars" program was nothing more than pseudo-science, and a failure that lost the government about 40 million dollars. His claims of "small government" are shown to be false given the fact that the national debt tripled under his watch, and he was one of the biggest corporate welfare whores of all time.

On the foreign policy front he killed about about a million people directly and about 3 million indirectly by propping up failed capitalist governments and destroying democracy in several Latin American countries. He puts bin Laden to shame in terms of "terrorism" against innocent civilians. He was also a theocratic asshole who did nothing about the AIDS crisis as he bought into that bullshit that it was a disease that punishes the homosexuals and so on. Scientists could not fight AIDS the way they wanted to because of that idiot. Millions of infections could have been avoided had they worked hard at the problem. He also was theocratic only in the extreme conservative sense as he cut international aid programs to the poor.

Read this (http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1984/07/nader.html)

Definitely one of the worst presidents ever, although I will say that Bush is even worse. Bush openly declares that he will use force and engage in "preventive war" against any country that is perceived as any kind of a threat whatsoever, and he does it openly. That is a change from Reagan who engaged in more "preemptive attacks" such as when he claimed Laos was going to engage in a "sneak attack" against the United States and so he invaded (he even put tanks outside of the White House).

I like how Chomsky explains the difference:


The basic principles of the imperial grand strategy of September 2002 go back to the early days of World War II. Even before the US entered the war, high-level planners and analysts concluded that in the postwar world the US would seek "to hold unquestioned power," acting to ensure the "limitation of any exercise of sovereignty" by states that might interfere with its global designs. They recognized further that "the foremost requirement" to secure these ends was "the rapid fulfillment of a program of complete rearmament" -- then, as now, a central component of "an integrated policy to achieve military and economic supremacy for the United States." At the time, these ambitions were limited to "the non-German world," which was to be organized under the US aegis as a "Grand Area," including the Western Hemisphere, the former British Empire, and the far East. After it became fairly clear that Germany would be defeated, the plans were extended to include as much of Eurasia as possible.

...

"Nevertheless, the September 2002 unveiling of the imperial grand strategy justifiably sounded alarm bells. Acheson and Sofaer were describing policy guidelines, and within elite circles. Their stands are known only to specialists or readers of dissident literature. Other cases may be regarded as worldly-wise reiterations of the maxim of Thucydides that "large nations do what they wish, while small nations accept what they must." In contrast, Cheney-Rumsfeld-Powell and their associates are officially declaring an even more extreme policy, one aimed at permanent global hegemony by reliance on force where necessary. They intend to be heard, and took action at once to put the world on notice that they mean what they say. That is a significant difference."

Hegemony or Survival, pp. 15-16

Well put, as always.

[IcarusAngel]

Chomsky on Reagan:


The Reagan era represents a significant advance in capitalist democracy. For eight years, the U.S. government functioned virtually without a chief executive. That is an important fact. It is quite unfair to assign to Ronald Reagan, the person, much responsibility for the policies enacted in his name. Despite the efforts of the educated classes to invest the proceedings with the required dignity, it was hardly a secret that Reagan had only the vaguest conception of the policies of his administration, and if not properly programmed by his staff, regularly produced statements that would have been an embarrassment, were anyone to have taken them seriously. The question that dominated the Iran-contra hearings -- did Reagan know, or remember, what the policy of his administration had been? -- was hardly a serious one. The pretense to the contrary was simply part of the cover-up operation; and the lack of public interest over revelations that Reagan was engaged in illegal aid to the contras during a period when, he later informed Congress, he knew nothing about it, betrays a certain realism.

Reagan's duty was to smile, to read from the teleprompter in a pleasant voice, tell a few jokes, and keep the audience properly bemused. His only qualification for the presidency was that he knew how to read the lines written for him by the rich folk, who pay well for the service. Reagan had been doing that for years.


He seemed to perform to the satisfaction of the paymasters, and to enjoy the experience. By all accounts, he spent many pleasant days enjoying the pomp and trappings of power and should have a fine time in the retirement quarters that his grateful benefactors have prepared for him. It is not really his business if the bosses left mounds of mutilated corpses in death squad dumping grounds in El Salvador or hundreds of thousands of homeless in the streets. One does not blame an actor for the content of the words that come from his mouth. When we speak of the policies of the Reagan administration, then, we are not referring to the figure set up to front for them by an administration whose major strength was in public relations. The construction of a symbolic figure by the PR industry is a contribution to solving one of the critical problems that must be faced in any society that combines concentrated power with formal mechanisms that in theory allow the general public to take part in running their own affairs, thus posing a threat to privilege.

Deterring Democracy, 73-74

Bush is much the same way. Comes out and reads the teleprompter, goes on vaction, makes a few badly worded stump speeches, talks about patriotism, etc. while the people around him do the work.

[IcarusAngel]

Some funny and sad quotes on Reagan and his orwellian state.

"I don't think he's read the report in detail. It's five-and-a-half pages, double-spaced." -- Larry Speakes explaining why Ronnie didn't know about a recent truck bombing in Beirut. 5 Oct 1984

There are times when you really need him to do some work, and all he wants to do is tell stories about his movie days." -- Anonymous White House aide. 31 Aug 1980

"He knows less about the budget than any president in my lifetime. He can't even carry on a conversation about the budget. It's an absolute and utter disgrace." -- House Speaker Tip O'Neill after a meeting with Ronnie. 23 Nov 1980

"He only works three to three and a half hours a day. He doesn't do his homework. He doesn't read his briefing papers. It's sinful that this man is President of the United States." -- Tip O'Neill exasperated after meeting with Ronnie. 31 Oct 1983

"What do you do when your President ignores all the palpable, relevant facts and wanders in circles?" -- David Stockman (ex Reagan Cabinet member), explaining what briefings with Ronnie were like. 12 April 1986


"God, he's a bore. And a bad actor. Besides, he has a low order of intelligence, with a certain cunning. And not animal cunning, Human cunning. Animal cunning is too fine an expression for him. He's inflated, he's egotistical -- he's one of those people who thinks he is right, and he's not right. He's not right about anything." -- Movie director John Huston (to Rolling Stone), after a meeting with Ronnie.

"To think that the guy became President is really kind of funny." -- Viveca Lindfors (to People), talking about Ronnie.

"An amiable dunce." -- Clark Gifford (former Defense Secretary), describing Ronnie at a Georgetown dinner party.

"... that incoherent cretin." -- Andre Faulds (British Labour Party member), discussing Ronnie in Parliament.

"So shockingly dumb that by his very presence in the office he numbs an entire country." -- Columnist Jimmy Breslin offering an accurate description of Ronnie.

"Stupefyingly incredible." -- British Labour Party member Denis Healy's reaction to Ronnie's "explaining" trading weapons for hostages with Iran. 14 Nov 1986

The task of watering the arid desert between Reagan's ears is a challenging on for his aides." -- Columnist David Broder, stating the obvious.

"I was sitting there so worried about 'throw weight', and Reagan suddenly asks us if we've seen War Games." -- Anonymous Congressman after a meeting with Ronnie to discuss arms control. 7 June 1983

"His answers to any questions about young men being killed for some vague and perhaps non-existent reason in Central America has been to smile, nod, wave a hand and walk on. And America applauds, thus proving that senility is a communicable disease." -- Columnist Jimmy Breslin explaining Ronnie's ability to "get away with it".

"Since when is it considered cruel and unusual punishment to expect the President to learn the facts he needs to govern?" -- Geraldine Ferraro asking an impossible question to answer. 11 Oct 1984

"Mr. Reagan's ignorance about the Soviet Union and his air-headed rhetoric on the issues of foreign policy and arms control have reached the limit of tolerance and have become and embarrassment to the US and a danger to world peace." -- The Chicago Tribune telling the truth in endorsing (!) Ronnie for re-election. 28 Oct 1984


What's weird is now we have a president even more capitalist, even more pro-free trade, even more imperialist, and even dumber, just when you thought it couldn't be possible. For a while i was kind of in self-denial about Bush being far worse than Reagan, because you really don't want to believe it CAN get much worse. But after I read an article from a historian in the Washington Post you kind of just have to accept it.

We're living in sick, sick times.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+June 24, 2007 07:22 pm--> (Demogorgon @ June 24, 2007 07:22 pm)
[email protected] 24, 2007 06:11 pm
Besides, the USSR bankrupted itself. Reagan was just lucky enough to be in office when it happened.
In actual fact, he was already gone by that point. The USSR fell apart for a variety of reasons, primarilly bankrupting itself due to spending too much in the military. Reagan did not have anything to do with it faling apart whatever his supporters might say. Indeed had he had his way, it might even have lasted longer. He preferred dealing with conservative elements in the USSR than reformers like Gorbachev. [/b]
Reagan always declined meetings with Brezhnev, Andropov and Cherneko. He met several times with Gorbachev. With Gorbachev, he relaxed travel restrictions, negotiated nuclear arms elimination treaties with the man, commerce deals were strucjk, ect.

So much for the theory Reagan did not wish to deal with Gorby.

[Tommy-K]

Ronald Reagan is proof enough that those in the entertainment industry should not go into politics. His time in office was nearly as bad as his films (notice I said nearly, I'm still trying to decide whether being a brainless president or a shitty actor was the biggest downfall in his career!).

For other evidence that actors taking up politics is a bad idea, look at Arnold Schwarzenegger in California.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 10:29 am
[QUOTE=Demogorgon,June 24, 2007 07:22 pm]Reagan always declined meetings with Brezhnev, Andropov and Cherneko. He met several times with Gorbachev. With Gorbachev, he relaxed travel restrictions, negotiated nuclear arms elimination treaties with the man, commerce deals were strucjk, ect.

So much for the theory Reagan did not wish to deal with Gorby.
He refused to meet with Gorbachev to at first and when he eventually did simply threw inults at him causing Gorbachev to storm out. THe fact Gorbachev tried again and that Thatcher(!) had already opened relations with him eventually forced Reagan to sit down and talk to him. At which point it was Gorbachev who pushed progress.

The funny thing is you list a bunch of deals the two came to that were of great benefit to the Soviet Union while at the same time claiming Reagan brought it down. Get your story straight please.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

As a memorial to honour Ronald Reagan, I have made this statue:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v735/Calibur99/SAD.jpg

[Red Scare]

he was a facist and when he was an actor supported cigarrette corporations... bastard

[la-troy]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 25, 2007 02:39 pm
As a memorial to honour Ronald Reagan, I have made this statue:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v735/Calibur99/SAD.jpg
Beautiful! we should find a sculpture to do it. Then get one of those big trailers to transport it and unload it in Washington. Or probably beside that memorial for the victims of communism.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 07:47 am

[QUOTE=Demogorgon,June 24, 2007 07:22 pm]Reagan always declined meetings with Brezhnev, Andropov and Cherneko. He met several times with Gorbachev. With Gorbachev, he relaxed travel restrictions, negotiated nuclear arms elimination treaties with the man, commerce deals were strucjk, ect.

So much for the theory Reagan did not wish to deal with Gorby.
He refused to meet with Gorbachev to at first and when he eventually did simply threw inults at him causing Gorbachev to storm out. THe fact Gorbachev tried again and that Thatcher(!) had already opened relations with him eventually forced Reagan to sit down and talk to him. At which point it was Gorbachev who pushed progress.

The funny thing is you list a bunch of deals the two came to that were of great benefit to the Soviet Union while at the same time claiming Reagan brought it down. Get your story straight please.
Thatcher met with Gorbachev within a month of his appointment as supreme leftwing dictator.

Reagan met with Gorbachev a year later in '86. Their meeting brokeup because Reagan would not surrender on SDI.

Gorbachev's actions were reactions to the challenge posed to the USSR by the USA as directed by Reagan. The collapse of communism and the USSR was not the objective Gorbachev had. It was the objective of Reagan.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 06:50 pm
[QUOTE=Demogorgon,June 25, 2007 07:47 am] Thatcher met with Gorbachev within a month of his appointment as supreme leftwing dictator.

Reagan met with Gorbachev a year later in '86. Their meeting brokeup because Reagan would not surrender on SDI.

Gorbachev's actions were reactions to the challenge posed to the USSR by the USA as directed by Reagan. The collapse of communism and the USSR was not the objective Gorbachev had. It was the objective of Reagan.
Actually Thatcher met with him when he was first appointed to the Politburo. She thought he might be a weak link she could exploit.

Anyway saying Gorbachev's actions were a reaction to Reagan i simply showing your ignorance of what was going on. He was acting on the basis of what he had seen within the Soviet Union and his belief that reform was needed. He was implementing policies he had wanted to implement since long before Reagan was President. These along with his failure to address the underlying problems that were their in the first place caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. Reagan had nothing to do with that. It is true that Reagan wanted the Soviet Union to come apart (well in theory anyway as I will explain) but he never thought ti would fall apart. Indeed his foreign policy adivsers confidently predicted that the Soviet Union would be around for centuries and tht America should work to keep itself in as strong as possible a position in relation to it, but never actually try and detroy it or seek direct confrontation. They were certainly shocked when it came apart. Indeed they even felt it's existence was desirable as they felt a bipolar global model is the best means of achieving peace.

And lets look at the people who actually took the Soviet Union apart. People like Yeltsin. Wht basis were they acting on? Certainly nothing to dow ith Reagan. Saying that as Reagan wanted the Soviet Union to come apart he should be credited with its demise is preposterous. He never did anything to bring about its demise after all. I mean my Granny wanted the Soviet Union to come apart. Maybe we should credit her with it?

[Jesus Christ!]

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/6379/remeberingreagansf4.jpg

[RGacky3]

I would venture to say that we was the BEST president, in the sense that he did what a president is supposed to do in this system, make sure Corporations get what they want, and use tax payers money, and the military to make sure they get it, all at the same time being great PR guy and an actor, he was able to buttrape America and the third world, and have a large about of America and the world not give it a second thought, because what a nice, down to earth, christian type of guy huh?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 05:42 pm
Actually Thatcher met with him when he was first appointed to the Politburo. She thought he might be a weak link she could exploit.

Anyway saying Gorbachev's actions were a reaction to Reagan i simply showing your ignorance of what was going on. He was acting on the basis of what he had seen within the Soviet Union and his belief that reform was needed. He was implementing policies he had wanted to implement since long before Reagan was President. These along with his failure to address the underlying problems that were their in the first place caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. Reagan had nothing to do with that. It is true that Reagan wanted the Soviet Union to come apart (well in theory anyway as I will explain) but he never thought ti would fall apart. Indeed his foreign policy adivsers confidently predicted that the Soviet Union would be around for centuries and tht America should work to keep itself in as strong as possible a position in relation to it, but never actually try and detroy it or seek direct confrontation. They were certainly shocked when it came apart. Indeed they even felt it's existence was desirable as they felt a bipolar global model is the best means of achieving peace.

And lets look at the people who actually took the Soviet Union apart. People like Yeltsin. Wht basis were they acting on? Certainly nothing to dow ith Reagan. Saying that as Reagan wanted the Soviet Union to come apart he should be credited with its demise is preposterous. He never did anything to bring about its demise after all. I mean my Granny wanted the Soviet Union to come apart. Maybe we should credit her with it?
Giorbachev was elected to the Politburo in the late 70s. Perhaps Thatcher met with him then. But I would find it hard to believe that the leader of the opposition in Parliament would be meeting with an unknown memeber of the Soviet rulers upon his election. It would also be difficult to imagine a meeting after she was PM (before meeting with Brezhnev?).

In any event, her famous comments on subject came after she met with Goby a month or so after his election.

Gorbachev was definitely a known reformer, and it was because there was a recognised need for reform that Gorbachev, was elected. And that need was recognised because of the pressures Reagan was placing upon ther USSR.

There is really no doubt. Gorbachev himself has said it was reagan's insistence upon keeping SDI which broke the back of the USSR. Moscow could not compete. They were losing the economic battle (Krushchev thus proven wrong), and losing the ideological battle (Lenin, trotsky, Stalin, thus proven wrong).

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 10:43 am

Giorbachev was elected to the Politburo in the late 70s. Perhaps Thatcher met with him then. But I would find it hard to believe that the leader of the opposition in Parliament would be meeting with an unknown memeber of the Soviet rulers upon his election. It would also be difficult to imagine a meeting after she was PM (before meeting with Brezhnev?).

In any event, her famous comments on subject came after she met with Goby a month or so after his election.

Gorbachev was definitely a known reformer, and it was because there was a recognised need for reform that Gorbachev, was elected. And that need was recognised because of the pressures Reagan was placing upon ther USSR.

There is really no doubt. Gorbachev himself has said it was reagan's insistence upon keeping SDI which broke the back of the USSR. Moscow could not compete. They were losing the economic battle (Krushchev thus proven wrong), and losing the ideological battle (Lenin, trotsky, Stalin, thus proven wrong).
WHat was this pressure Reagan was putting on that forced the reform? Evidently he was using a time machine to apply this pressure as the trouble that caused the need for reform began at the very latest in the early seventies.

Of course the arms race did put economic pressure on the USSR but Reagan hardly started that.

At the end of the day the split up of the USSR came when Nationalist politicians n the various countries making up the state conspired to undermine Gorbachev and were unwittingly aided by the attempt by the hard liners to overthrow Gorbachev. Not only did all this hapen after Reagan had left office, but the underlying causes that ed to it began long before Reagan took office.

I k ow you like to think in simplistic terms and simply repeat slogans, but it is without historical merit to say Reagan broke up the USSR. Indeed if he did, it would be an example of him doing precisely what he had not intended to do, given he was surrounded by realist foreign policy advisers who believed that competition with a steady Soviet Union was ultimately in American interests

[CubaSocialista]

Originally posted by la-[email protected] 24, 2007 06:08 pm
Shit I wish he was alive right now. I would stuff my hand down his fucking throat and rip out his goddamn tongue then i would take a boulder and smash his head in. after that I would starve him to the point of death to make him know what it feels like to truly suffer. I would take his kids if he has any and shoot them in the head while hes watching and then make him clean up the blood. I would give him some deadly disease and then deny him health care. I would make him the slave of some rich aristocrat ***** to let him know what he was fighting for. god i would do so much things to that man it's impossibly to thing of them now.
You need a hug. And, a therapist.

A very good therapist.

[ECD Hollis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:01 pm
dear president reagan. you are dead. and your wife is more miserable than ever.
may you rot in piece you fuck.

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h240/theimg/reagantribute.jpg
Rest in Peace Reagan, you were a good man.

[apathy maybe]

ECD: Care to explain why Ronnie was a good president? Other folks have given good reasons to not think that Ronald Reagan was a good president. Do you dispute that these things happened? Do you think that Reagan did other good things that out weighed the bad? Do you think that the "bad" things posted weren't so bad after all?

If you are here to debate (and you say that you are interested in debate), then you should explain your statements, rather then merely making rhetorical statements.

[ECD Hollis]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 16, 2007 09:10 pm
ECD: Care to explain why Ronnie was a good president? Other folks have given good reasons to not think that Ronald Reagan was a good president. Do you dispute that these things happened? Do you think that Reagan did other good things that out weighed the bad? Do you think that the "bad" things posted weren't so bad after all?

If you are here to debate (and you say that you are interested in debate), then you should explain your statements, rather then merely making rhetorical statements.
I think his Administration speaks for itself. I don't know if you are from the US, but trust me Reagan was a good man, and a fairly decent president.

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by ECD Hollis+July 17, 2007 06:55 pm--> (ECD Hollis @ July 17, 2007 06:55 pm)
apathy [email protected] 16, 2007 09:10 pm
ECD: Care to explain why Ronnie was a good president? Other folks have given good reasons to not think that Ronald Reagan was a good president. Do you dispute that these things happened? Do you think that Reagan did other good things that out weighed the bad? Do you think that the "bad" things posted weren't so bad after all?

If you are here to debate (and you say that you are interested in debate), then you should explain your statements, rather then merely making rhetorical statements.
I think his Administration speaks for itself. I don't know if you are from the US, but trust me Reagan was a good man, and a fairly decent president. [/b]
[/QUOTE]I think his Administration speaks for itself. I don't know if you are from the US, but trust me Reagan was a good man, and a fairly decent president.[QUOTE]

Then please exlpain. I hate it when United Statians start political talk and they just make a statements like "oh this guy is evil" or "this guy loves freedom" or "that country is a police state" and they DON'T SAY WHY!!!!!!! If this was a school paper, you'd fail not because of your opinon, but because you just make a statement and no arguement. "Trust me" is not an argument.

[apathy maybe]

Indeed,


Originally posted by apathy maybe
Other folks have given good reasons to not think that Ronald Reagan was a good president. Do you dispute that these things happened? Do you think that Reagan did other good things that out weighed the bad? Do you think that the "bad" things posted weren't so bad after all?

If you are here to debate (and you say that you are interested in debate), then you should explain your statements, rather then merely making rhetorical statements.

Did Reagan really not do all those "bad" things he was said to have done? Or weren't they so bad after all...