I miss Ronald Reagan...

[Chucktshoes]

The deification of RR annoys the crap out of me. He wasn't a very good president, he was just less terrible than the ones that followed and a few of the ones prior. We haven't had anything resembling a good president who respected and followed the constitution in deed as well as words since Calvin Coolidge.


Don't get me wrong on this, Chuck. I'm not deifying anyone, but compared to who we've had as US Presidents since
Dwight Eisenhower, I'd be happy to have another Reagan, any day of the week. Kennedy, a close second, and he
would be iffy. As far as Reagan being great or not as a president is subjective, but he would be an easy choice.

Reagan was the last good choice the Republicans put up.

I can't and won't argue with any of that. He was the best president this nation has had during my lifetime, no question about it. That doesn't make him a good president. Just because one turd stinks less than the rest of the pile doesn't make it a bouquet of roses.

[dlm37015]

what we realy need is another eisenhower

[RobertNashville]

Strange how folks who do recall Reagan are so enamored with his legacy. 

 

I'm sure they've examined all his writings, speeches, etc with their own critical thinking skills instead of just remembering the flash and pizaz of a skilled politician 'good ole boy' that seemed like a savior at the time. 

I have a pretty extensive library on Reagan and yes; I've read them...I also lived through his presidency.

[Guest ThePunisher]

Well, I guess we could all reminisce about all the great progressive Marxist/socialist presidents such as Wilson, FDR, Johnson, Carter, Slick Willie, and of course the present commie-in-chief Obama!

[RobertNashville]

Lets see.  He was famous for being an actor,  that impresses me not so much.   He was mediocre in that profession.  Divorced which shows a lack of respect for promises.  Switched parties when it became politically expedient.  Was governor of the wrost state in the union,  NO doubt his years in office affected that dump of a state.  What else....  Ratted out other actors for his suspicions of them being communist, not exactly impressing me with that.  He was racist and against the advancement of civil rights.  His War on Drugs stance.
 
What did he do that was so great?  I am really wondering as well.

I don't give a #### that he was an actor...that the fact that he was and his acting career doesn't impress you I care about even less.
 
And yeah...being actively anti-communist while he was president of SAG...well, that's certainly something to abhor isn't it. I mean...we sure don't want anyone in office that's anti-communist!  :shake:
 
On civil rights....
 
 

Discrimination is still not yet a thing of the past, unfortunately; and for the last 4 1/2 years, this administration has acted vigorously to defend and extend every American 's fundamental right to equal treatment.

The Justice Department has worked energetically to end discrimination in employment, voting, housing—in all the areas covered by law. Our record on enforcing minority voting rights is at the top of the list. And we've increased to an all-time high the number of criminal civil rights cases filed. We have a proud record on civil rights.

Equal treatment and equality before the law—these are the foundations on which a just and free society is built. But there are some today who, in the name of equality, would have us practice discrimination. They have turned our civil rights laws on their head, claiming they mean exactly the opposite of what they say. These people tell us that the Government should enforce discrimination in favor of some groups through hiring quotas, under which people get or lose particular jobs or promotions solely because of their race or sex. Some bluntly assert that our civil rights laws only apply to special groups and were never intended to protect every American.

Well, they couldn't be more wrong. When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was being debated in the Congress, Senator Hubert Humphrey, one of its leading advocates, said he'd start eating the pages of the act if it contained any language which provides that an employer will have to hire on the basis of percentage or quota. But I think if Senator Humphrey saw how some people today are interpreting that act, he'd get a severe case of indigestion.

The truth is, quotas deny jobs to many who would have gotten them otherwise, but who weren't born a specified race or sex. That's discrimination pure and simple and is exactly what the civil rights laws were designed to stop. Quotas also cast a shadow on the real achievements of minorities, which makes quotas a double tragedy.

In 1980 and 1984 I ran for President and told you I was opposed to quotas. In response to your mandate, our administration has worked to return the civil rights laws to their original meaning—to prevent discrimination against any and all Americans.

Ronald Reagan; excerpt from radio address to the nation on civil rights; June 15, 1985

 
During Reagan's presidency, the black middle class grew from 2.6 million households with income of $25,000 or more in 1979 to 3.9 million in 1989. Between 1978 and 1982 the number of poor blacks rose by more than 2 million but that between 1982 and 1989 the number of poor blacks fell by 400,000.  But yeah...obviously, Reagan was against civil rights and certainly his economic policies leads one to that conclusion as well.

And yeah...being married for eight years, then divorcing, marring four yeas later and remaining married to the same woman for the next 52 years...that sure shows a real corrector flaw doesn't it.  However, since I too am divorced, as is about half of all couples who have ever been married, I guess in your mind that disqualifies me from being able to comment on any of this anyway.

Edited April 23, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Mike.357]

wow, you are wound up about this guy.

 

Hmm....  start a thread then get unexpected(?) responses, then get extremely defensive.

 

and he was just not an actor, he was a mediocre actor.  As for commies, how many lives and careers were ruined during the witch hunt in the 50's over that stuff?  And he did his tattling before becoming president of the SAG

 

Only US president who was divorced, I guess we need more of that.

 

He once said that if people wanted to discriminate against blacks by refusing to sell or rent to them it was their right to do so.  He did later reverse this statement.  But then he does have a history of flip flopping.

 

Anyway you asked, i answered and once again you are angered ( or come off as if you are) by the response.

 

Moral of this story.  Don't ask for opinions.

[RobertNashville]

wow, you are wound up about this guy.

 

Hmm....  start a thread then get unexpected(?) responses, then get extremely defensive.

 

and he was just not an actor, he was a mediocre actor.  As for commies, how many lives and careers were ruined during the witch hunt in the 50's over that stuff?  And he did his tattling before becoming president of the SAG

 

Only US president who was divorced, I guess we need more of that.

 

He once said that if people wanted to discriminate against blacks by refusing to sell or rent to them it was their right to do so.  He did later reverse this statement.  But then he does have a history of flip flopping.

 

Anyway you asked, i answered and once again you are angered ( or come off as if you are) by the response.

 

Moral of this story.  Don't ask for opinions.

And your main gripes is that he once divorced, he was anti-communist and you didn't like his acting...all really major issues to be sure!

 

As to the comment about people being able to refuse to rent or sell to blacks if they want to; he explained his basis for the statement....of course, assuming he lied about why he said it and chalking it up to racism is much more satisfying.

Edited April 23, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest ThePunisher]

Didn't Slick Willie want to be an actor, and isn't he married to a lesbian, and couldn't afford to get a divorce b/c of political consequences, and financial considerations? And how many recent 20th century Democrat presidents have had extra marital affairs? And hasn't California become a full blown communist state? So much for the Cold War when we've been infiltrated with commies in our government, and the White House!

[mikegideon]

what we realy need is another eisenhower

 

What we really need is for Obama to defect to Iran.

[Mike.357]

And your main gripes is that he once divorced, he was anti-communist and you didn't like his acting...all really major issues to be sure!

 

As to the comment about people being able to refuse to rent or sell to blacks if they want to; he explained his basis for the statement....of course, assuming he lied about why he said it and chalking it up to racism is much more satisfying.

 

 

All that and I am still waiting to read what he did that was so great.  And it reads to me he backpedaled on his civil rights housing statement, not explained it.

His commie hunting was never based on fact, He ruined lives and careers based on his opinions.  He did have a lot in common with Joe McCarthy though.

 

And I still would like to know why you act all butthurt when you get opinions that differ from yours.  It seems to be a continuing theme in your threads.  I am probably wrong about that too.

[E4 No More]

In 1999 I was privledged to spend three weeks in Beirut...walked its streets...stayed with a family that had to patch damage from shelling from the U.S. fleet...that family had a unique take on that time frame...I've been to the Bakaa valley where many of the New Jersey's shells fell.  The U.S. was there to try and keep the peace...Beirut was  BEAUTIFUL city that is only now starting to actually recover.

 

Is it really Regan's fault that Muslim terrorists attacked the barracks (the U.S. barracks was not the only one attacked you you)?

Is it GW Bush's fault that Muslim terrorists attacked the Word Trade Center?

 

I think the issues are a bit too complicated to just blame Reagan or any other single person.

I'm not blaming him for the attacks; I'm blaming him for letting them go unpunished. My unit, along with the rest of the Marine Corps, was packed and ready to go make Iran a smoldering wasteland via Syria and Lebanon the very next day, but old Ronnie Raygun stood us down. After all, only 218 Marines and some soldiers and sailors were no big deal back then, right? Does that sound harsh? After all, that was the mindset of the country towards its military after Vietnam. Today's attitude towards our military is nothing like it was in the 70's and 80's. To this day I get a little weirded-out when someone thanks me for my service. If I feel that I certainly can understand how my older brothers in arms that fought in Vietnam feel about it too.

 

I guarantee you that had we gone to war we wouldn't be having near the problems that we are having today out of those countries. Attacks like the Cole and others would probably not occurred had we done so. Saddam would not have been "installed" in Iraq to fight a proxy war and then bite us in the ass later. The Muslims only respect a decent ass-kicking.

[RobertNashville]

I'm not blaming him for the attacks; I'm blaming him for letting them go unpunished. My unit, along with the rest of the Marine Corps, was packed and ready to go make Iran a smoldering wasteland via Syria and Lebanon the very next day, but old Ronnie Raygun stood us down. After all, only 218 Marines and some soldiers and sailors were no big deal back then, right? Does that sound harsh? After all, that was the mindset of the country towards its military after Vietnam. Today's attitude towards our military is nothing like it was in the 70's and 80's. To this day I get a little weirded-out when someone thanks me for my service. If I feel that I certainly can understand how my older brothers in arms that fought in Vietnam feel about it too.

 

I guarantee you that had we gone to war we wouldn't be having near the problems that we are having today out of those countries. Attacks like the Cole and others would probably not occurred had we done so. Saddam would not have been "installed" in Iraq to fight a proxy war and then bite us in the ass later. The Muslims only respect a decent ass-kicking.

You can make all the guarantees you want but you don't know and you can't know the outcome of doing what you think should have been done. Also, no matter how much justifiable anger you have, it's not a good idea to start a ground war or drop bombs unless you are sure of the facts; who your enemy is, what the goal is and whether it can be accomplished.

 

If memory serves, Reagan and Mitterand (sp?) planned joint airstrikes on targets in Lebanon where Iran was believed to be training Hezbollah (who carried out the actual attacks) but that didn't happen because we weren't sure about Iran's involvement.

 

I'm not sure there was a right answer...that's one of the problems of dealing with terrorists...we've been in a ground war in Afghanistan for what, 11 years now...a lot of people, including people here, don't think we should have ever started that one...I guess sometimes you "lose" no matter what you do or don't do. :shrug:

 

 

 

P.S.

As to the Cole, I think it worth noting that the attack could NOT have happened at all if we (the Navy) hadn't forgotten how to refuel underway....when I was in we topped off every three to four days and we NEVER pulled into port to do it. I guess our sailors forgot how to drive after I left.

Edited April 23, 2013 by RobertNashville

[E4 No More]

You can make all the guarantees you want but you don't know and you can't know the outcome of doing what you think should have been done. Also, no matter how much justifiable anger you have, it's not a good idea to start a ground war or drop bombs unless you are sure of the facts; who your enemy is, what the goal is and whether it can be accomplished.

 

If memory serves, Reagan and Mitterand (sp?) planned joint airstrikes on targets in Lebanon where Iran was believed to be training Hezbollah (who carried out the actual attacks) but that didn't happen because we weren't sure about Iran's involvement.

 

I'm not sure there was a right answer...that's one of the problems of dealing with terrorists...we've been in a ground war in Afghanistan for what, 11 years now...a lot of people, including people here, don't think we should have ever started that one...I guess sometimes you "lose" no matter what you do or don't do. :shrug:

 

 

 

P.S.

As to the Cole, I think it worth noting that the attack could NOT have happened at all if we (the Navy) hadn't forgotten how to refuel underway....when I was in we topped off every three to four days and we NEVER pulled into port to do it. I guess our sailors forgot how to drive after I left.

What we fight today is not war, IMHO, and that includes Afghanistan. War is uncivilized by nature yet we try to civilize it. We haven't fought a war since WWII. Even Israel is trying to civilize war lately with their refusing to destroy a rocket-launching site because it was sitting atop an apartment building. You see, true innocents don't live next to a rocket-launcher. They either cause the rocket-launcher to be moved or they move away from it. If you house a combatant then you are no longer a non-combatant, and neither are your loved ones.

Edited April 23, 2013 by SWJewellTN

[RobertNashville]

What we fight today is not war, IMHO, and that includes Afghanistan. War is uncivilized by nature yet we try to civilize it. We haven't fought a war since WWII. Even Israel is trying to civilize war lately with their refusing to destroy a rocket-launching site because it was sitting atop an apartment building. You see, true innocents don't live next to a rocket-launcher. They either cause the rocket-launcher to be moved or they move away from it. If you house a combatant then you are no longer a non-combatant, and neither are your loved ones.

I doubt their choices are nearly as black and white or as easy as you seem to suggest.  I suspect more accurate is...

 

1. Don't play along with the radicals/terrorists and the terrorists slit the throats and send your kids into shops with bombs strapped to their chests, or...

 

2. Play along and maybe you get to live...or maybe you may get a cruise missile up your ass.

 

Maybe they aren't completely "innocent" but I don't know that they are as guilty as you would make them out to be and certainly their children aren't guilty of anything other than having the bad luck to have been born into that mess.

[E4 No More]

I doubt their choices are nearly as black and white or as easy as you seem to suggest.  I suspect more accurate is...

 

1. Don't play along with the radicals/terrorists and the terrorists slit the throats and send your kids into shops with bombs strapped to their chests, or...

 

2. Play along and maybe you get to live...or maybe you may get a cruise missile up your ass.

 

Maybe they aren't completely "innocent" but I don't know that they are as guilty as you would make them out to be and certainly their children aren't guilty of anything other than having the bad luck to have been born into that mess.

That defies common sense, Robert. Agreed that it's a sheep mentality, but a sheep can't complain when it suffers the consequences of a sheepish choice. Move! They are called refugees, and as you see everywhere the refugees outnumber the combatants in every case. You think they are going to use their ammo on sheep when the enemy is at the door? I doubt it.

[RobertNashville]

That defies common sense, Robert. Agreed that it's a sheep mentality, but a sheep can't complain when it suffers the consequences of a sheepish choice. Move! They are called refugees, and as you see everywhere the refugees outnumber the combatants in every case. You think they are going to use their ammo on sheep when the enemy is at the door? I doubt it.

I think you have a very myopic view of the situation colored by your anger at these people.

 

I was there, not in a uniform but just as a person...the issues you want to be black and white simply aren't..

[E4 No More]

I think you have a very myopic view of the situation colored by your anger at these people.

 

I was there, not in a uniform but just as a person...the issues you want to be black and white simply aren't..

It's not "these people" that I'm angry at. It applies anywhere to include Afghanistan. I'm not advocating the carpet bombing of every city in the country, but if you stay close to a military target then the consequences are on you. If you invite uncle Abdul the terrorist for lunch then you get a rocket up your ass too.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Robert, I think Jewell is saying blow the bastards back into the seventh century and we won't be seeing the

guys and gals with bombs strapped to them. I have to agree.

 

And, as for the innocents right next to the terrorists, or fighters, if they are stupid enough to be next to them,

they get killed, also. they can't be that innocent if they are in the line of fire.

[Mike.357]

civilized warfare is why we have not won.   Kill them all and they may hate us but they will leave us alone.

[Chucktshoes]

civilized warfare is why we have not won. Kill them all and they may hate us but they will leave us alone.

A friend of mine sums it up quite well.

"You can't fight a war with f***ing lawyers."

[RobertNashville]

It's not "these people" that I'm angry at. It applies anywhere to include Afghanistan. I'm not advocating the carpet bombing of every city in the country, but if you stay close to a military target then the consequences are on you. If you invite uncle Abdul the terrorist for lunch then you get a rocket up your ass too.

I thought we were talking mostly abut Lebanon and Reagan???

 

You are making some assumptions here I think - it might be easy to see a rocket launcher on top of a house; other "terrorist targets" may not be quite so obvious that would necessitate others in the area doing something/move.

 

We have a different viewpoint on this and mine isn't changing.  I spent time in Lebanon as a civilian...I have people I count as friends who live there still....I'm never going to support killing them just because they happen to be unlucky enough to be there.

[Mike.357]

I have a customer who is a retired Gunnery Sgt.   He was telling me about being in Beirut.  Or actually being shelled and shot at on the beach in Beirut.  He is not so much a fan of Reagan either.

 

I am still waiting to find out what St. Ronnie did.  He made lots of speeches and stuff that were good.

[RobertNashville]

I am still waiting to find out what St. Ronnie did.  He made lots of speeches and stuff that were good.

 

I doubt you are waiting for anything or that anything that could be said would matter to you.

 

You made your opinion about Reagan known with your first post in this thread...you can't even use Reagan's name without finding a way to do so insultingly (even his political enemies of the time were kinder than that).

 

And as I mentioned earlier, I'm divorced and you've made it quite clear what a low opinion you have of people who are divorced so nothing I could say would matter to you anyway.

Edited April 23, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Mike.357]

Ronny Raygun was a name I heard while listening to the Woodstock album back in about 1971 or so.

 

Do you have a statue of him in your yard?    And why can't you tell me what he did that was so great?  Aside from speeches and stuff.

[RobertNashville]

Ronny Raygun was a name I heard while listening to the Woodstock album back in about 1971 or so.

 

Do you have a statue of him in your yard?    And why can't you tell me what he did that was so great?  Aside from speeches and stuff.

Insult and denigrate all you want...have a nice day.  :rofl: