Reagan was the worst President ever

[FlyLikeAnEagle]

Has any President changed since Reagan?

Presidents still look after the rich, start useless wars, shrink the middle class, lessen freedoms every year, waste tons of tax dollars then tell the working class that they need to step it up.

Correct, but Reagan started a lot of the crap thats ruining this country today. From his trickle down make the rich richer policies to the lets make the private prison contractors rich to the forfeiture laws that planted the seed for the police state we are now in, all because of Reagan.

Reagan is the reason we have more people locked up than any other country on the planet including China, he is the reason cops plant drugs in homes and cars to allow the govt to steal peoples shit, and he is the reason the middle class is just about gone. He is the worse thing to ever happen to the United States.

 

[doc111]

Correct, but Reagan started a lot of the crap thats ruining this country today. From his trickle down make the rich richer policies to the lets make the private prison contractors rich to the forfeiture laws that planted the seed for the police state we are now in, all because of Reagan.

Reagan is the reason we have more people locked up than any other country on the planet including China, he is the reason cops plant drugs in homes and cars to allow the govt to steal peoples shit, and he is the reason the middle class is just about gone. He is the worse thing to ever happen to the United States.

lol!


I thougt Nixon was credited for starting the "War on Drugs". A lot of the things you are "blaming" on Reagan were already happening. You sure there weren't at least a few other Presidents that may have had a hand in screwing things up (besides GWB)?

 

[Justin00]

Lincoln did not start the civil war, the rednecks fired the first shot after being told they could not secede from the union. Matter of fact they were attempting to secede before Lincoln even took office.

Did you learn this version of history in a southern school?

and why were they attempting to succeed from the union? (and i really hope you can do better then because they wanted to keep there slaves considering most wealthy slave owners had already released the majority of there slaves and employed them as indentured servants, or are you saying that a few back woods hicks are what fought the union)

It is going to be really hard to have any conversation if you are unable to speak normally without copious amounts of internet insults and what not. I am more than willing to support my statement and offer any explanations i am able to.

I'm saying that this was one of the major turning points in how this country operates, fostering the transition from a United States Union with federal oversight to a large federal government with complete control over states with military and political force to maintain order and prevent disruption even when justified. I feel the leaders at the time came to the wrong conclusion about how to deal with the differences in different parts of the nation. and i feel we are still suffering from it today (example: feds busting mmj associations even when they comply with all state laws)

 

[Justin00]

PS: i meant no disrespect to black Americans when i used 15 years as an arbitrary time frame. The number of enslaved people had already dropped drastically in the years immediately prior to the outbreak of the civil war due to the development of mechanical farming equipment as the industrial revolution gained steam. Any major plantation owners were already finding slave labor no longer cost efficient along with the growing social concern with the whole idea of slavery, and yes believe it or not most southerners were also beginning to see the problems with slavery. a more reasonable guess would be that in only 5 years the same proclamation could have been made and only a few back-woods hicks would have even been upset over it. It would have also created much less of the racial tension that has plagued our nation ever since.

and you ask would i be willing to give up 15 years? to save nearly 500,000 lives and prevent the near destruction of my nation? yeah i most likely would, just look at pictures of the Holocaust, civil war, and WWI. I'm not saying if i were the entire black population being enslaved and treated poorly by the arrogant white aristocratic land owners i would, but that is not what you ask, and it also was not black people who started or caused or had any say in the civil war, at the time they were innocent bystanders that got laden with the blame (by some, and resentment by others) for the failures of our government.

2 wrongs do not make a right, just some words of wisdom to remember. compromise and reason are the enemies of war.

also i should point out, I am not supporting Reagan, I am bashing Lincoln.

 

[blindbaby]

it depends on your view. reagan encouraged small business, which helped the economy, and helped little guys get their own business going, without the all to high b&o taxs. ohbama, on the other hand, beleives buisnesses, are no good. for one thing, we rely less on goverment handouts, which none of us deserve anyway. he refuses to give the ok on the pipelne, or natural gas, and has recently blocked all gov land lease renewals, that do this work. cool!! now we will have more familys without work! great, huh? he and the far leftl, have done a wonderfull job, however, brainwashing our young people into beleiving capatalism is bad. we are all capitalsits. its what makes us great. so. back to reagan. he did replace the airling strikers. but the media dident bother telling us, (and make sure it got edited), that the airlines contract had a "no-strike clause". so in fact, the strike was illegal. so dont blame him. blame the media, for not telling us tjhe whole truth. which they continue to do each and every day. the worst presidednt? no id say ohbama, which, most recently took the "title" from carter....how ohbama got elected is the mystery. no buisness exp, which we NEED NOW. never was a gov. never owned a buis. never was a mayor. and was a piss poor senator. BUT, HE SPEAKS EVEN BETTER THAN CASTRO DID. so there is how a good speaker looking for a job (he appied, he did not inherite it, by the way). bull shit thier way in the door. in a nutshell. those with their hands out, are going to be the end of this country. they youth arent even being taught about how this county was formed nowadays. the leftists have long had a hold on the teachers unions...and they teach .....HATE AMERICA FIRST! the liverals hate the constituiton. its been hard for them to turn this country into the socialst camp it wants. why? becasue we have a constitution! look at countries who dont! currently, the U.N is trying to take away americas right to help allys with gun/equip sales. like to isreal, our alli. and this to include PERSONAL ARMS we have at home! why? well, the only countrys that are socialist/communist, never could have got there, if their people had still been armed.....and the head of this coalition for this "small arms treaty" being signed this week in ny city, is non other than IRAN.!! now lets see. i have a nuke, and the americans now have no guns. sweeeeeeeet!!! wake up america. or leave it. dont make the rest of us suffer for what you want. dont like it here. leave.

 

[FlyLikeAnEagle]

lol!


I thougt Nixon was credited for starting the "War on Drugs". A lot of the things you are "blaming" on Reagan were already happening. You sure there weren't at least a few other Presidents that may have had a hand in screwing things up (besides GWB)?

Of course Nixon started it, but Reagan put it on steroids. While Carter called for the decriminalization of marijuana, Reagan got in there and immediately more than tripled the amount of money on the war on drugs to 1.4 billion dollars. By the time Reagan left office that number was over $5 billion a year. So it went from $400 million a year during the Carter admin to over $5 billion a year with Reagan. This is what started our police state whether the right wingers want to admit it or not.

 

[cannabineer]

That's odd, because I recall the Washington Post emphasizing the illegality of the ATCers' strike. Revisionism in the service of political creed? cn

 

[FlyLikeAnEagle]

and why were they attempting to succeed from the union? (and i really hope you can do better then because they wanted to keep there slaves considering most wealthy slave owners had already released the majority of there slaves and employed them as indentured servants, or are you saying that a few back woods hicks are what fought the union)

It is going to be really hard to have any conversation if you are unable to speak normally without copious amounts of internet insults and what not. I am more than willing to support my statement and offer any explanations i am able to.

I'm saying that this was one of the major turning points in how this country operates, fostering the transition from a United States Union with federal oversight to a large federal government with complete control over states with military and political force to maintain order and prevent disruption even when justified. I feel the leaders at the time came to the wrong conclusion about how to deal with the differences in different parts of the nation. and i feel we are still suffering from it today (example: feds busting mmj associations even when they comply with all state laws)

What are you talking about? You said Lincoln started the civil war and I argued he didnt, I have no idea what the rest of what you're saying has to do with anything.

 

[FlyLikeAnEagle]

it depends on your view. reagan encouraged small business, which helped the economy, and helped little guys get their own business going, without the all to high b&o taxs. ohbama, on the other hand, beleives buisnesses, are no good. for one thing, we rely less on goverment handouts, which none of us deserve anyway. he refuses to give the ok on the pipelne, or natural gas, and has recently blocked all gov land lease renewals, that do this work. cool!! now we will have more familys without work! great, huh? he and the far leftl, have done a wonderfull job, however, brainwashing our young people into beleiving capatalism is bad. we are all capitalsits. its what makes us great. so. back to reagan. he did replace the airling strikers. but the media dident bother telling us, (and make sure it got edited), that the airlines contract had a "no-strike clause". so in fact, the strike was illegal. so dont blame him. blame the media, for not telling us tjhe whole truth. which they continue to do each and every day. the worst presidednt? no id say ohbama, which, most recently took the "title" from carter....how ohbama got elected is the mystery. no buisness exp, which we NEED NOW. never was a gov. never owned a buis. never was a mayor. and was a piss poor senator. BUT, HE SPEAKS EVEN BETTER THAN CASTRO DID. so there is how a good speaker looking for a job (he appied, he did not inherite it, by the way). bull shit thier way in the door. in a nutshell. those with their hands out, are going to be the end of this country. they youth arent even being taught about how this county was formed nowadays. the leftists have long had a hold on the teachers unions...and they teach .....HATE AMERICA FIRST! the liverals hate the constituiton. its been hard for them to turn this country into the socialst camp it wants. why? becasue we have a constitution! look at countries who dont! currently, the U.N is trying to take away americas right to help allys with gun/equip sales. like to isreal, our alli. and this to include PERSONAL ARMS we have at home! why? well, the only countrys that are socialist/communist, never could have got there, if their people had still been armed.....and the head of this coalition for this "small arms treaty" being signed this week in ny city, is non other than IRAN.!! now lets see. i have a nuke, and the americans now have no guns. sweeeeeeeet!!! wake up america. or leave it. dont make the rest of us suffer for what you want. dont like it here. leave.

Reagan helped the economy? I suppose if you think 11% unemployment rate and 15% interest on home loans is your idea of a good economy...lol!

 

[Justin00]

What are you talking about? You said Lincoln started the civil war and I argued he didnt, I have no idea what the rest of what you're saying has to do with anything.

I was arguing that Abe was worse than Reagan because you said Reagan is the worst prez ever, but i felt Abe's part in the civil war and effects of his decisions put him far ahead in terms of badness.

and the only reason i went to the effort of typing all that out was you insinuated that my dislike for Abe was unfounded in a fairly rude way.

and our definitions of "started" may vary, in that the first shots of the civil war were fired on april 12 1861, abe took office on march 4 1861, and the emancipation proclamation was not issued until septemeber 1862, at which point ending slavery was added to war goals. and there we have some facts i learned in southern schools =).

 

[Mindmelted]

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!

You DO know that it wasn't "black slaves" that initiated the Civil War? I get it! Everybody was taught that the Civil War was ALL ABOUT slavery. It wasn't the central issue though. Like it or not, the statement you responded to is fairly accurate. Slavery was on its way out and would've been entirely done away with thanks to mechanization and rapidly advancing farming technology. History isn't all rainbows and unicorns and sometimes the truth stings a bit. Don't get me wrong, I am glad that slavery was abolished and the Union victory saw to it that abolition would be enforced. The Civil War left deep scars that still exist to this day. It was very costly in lives and property.

Plus you never hear the fuckers complain about who started slavery and how the rest of the world had slaves way before there was a united states.
And that the majority of black slaves went to south america not north america.And not one southern slave ship,all yankee slave ships with the red,white and blue flying.
And that we where the only country to use force to end it.And the miss conception that whitey went into the wilds of africa hunting blacks.
They just had to row to shore and the cheif was there with slaves to trade.

 

[blindbaby]

when more people are working, the higher the interst rates on homes are. when its bad, like now, they try to stimulate some sales, by lowering the rates. in fact, in those 15% int rates, were lots of people buying! goes with anything. look up clinton. he bennifited from reagans policys. and then he went on to name CHINA, AS "MOST FAVORED NATION" TRADE STATUS!! lol!! in other words, he started this china trade crap. when i was younger, i felt much the same as you..because the media often would edit out statements that whould make anyone but THEM look good. and they are doing it as i type. so. gee. wonder why fox has 80% of the viewership, AND GROWING? because preety much the only ones who pay attention to the liveral media, are the far-lefters, who demand the goverment give out all free!! freedom aint free..and we currently have THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER. anyone who stops jobs, and the other day sighned off on the olympis uniforms be made in china......well, it speakes for itself. and appologizes to the world........over.....and over.....and blames bush, for the extintion of the dinaosaurs?? -thats a joke. but u get my drift. the reason its cloudy out today, is becasue of bush!!!!!!-wahhhhhhhhh!!

 

[BA142]

The only president to triple the Federal Deficit while in office.


There have been worse though....the one thing that caused our housing crash was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Hardly any Republican opposition...The Dems had more opposition but they still let it get through. There's only 1 president...there's 535 buffoons in Congress. Too bad all of the blame usually falls on the president.

 

[Justin00]

Also a key note to add to Abe's coffin is that this was the first time "Total War" was instituted under general Sherman (Abe's second man behind Grant). The phrase was used by both when speaking about war efforts at the time.

Total war is a war in which a belligerent engages in the complete mobilization of fully available resources and population.
In the mid-19th century, "total war" was identified by scholars as a separate class of warfare. In a total war, there is less differentiation between combatants and civilians than in other conflicts, and sometimes no such differentiation at all, as nearly every human resource, civilians and soldiers alike, can be considered to be part of the belligerent effort.[SUP][1]

[/SUP]I can think of no other president who would willing sacrifice the women and children of a country he vowed to protect for any reason at all. he considered "all" southern citizens military assets that should be eliminated, or at the very least acceptable collateral damage in order to achieve his goal.

 

[canndo]

Also a key note to add to Abe's coffin is that this was the first time "Total War" was instituted under general Sherman (Abe's second man behind Grant). The phrase was used by both when speaking about war efforts at the time.

Total war is a war in which a belligerent engages in the complete mobilization of fully available resources and population.
In the mid-19th century, "total war" was identified by scholars as a separate class of warfare. In a total war, there is less differentiation between combatants and civilians than in other conflicts, and sometimes no such differentiation at all, as nearly every human resource, civilians and soldiers alike, can be considered to be part of the belligerent effort.[SUP][1]

[/SUP]I can think of no other president who would willing sacrifice the women and children of a country he vowed to protect for any reason at all.

So far as I know, women and children were not targeted in that war, they were collateral damage.

 

[doc111]

Of course Nixon started it, but Reagan put it on steroids. While Carter called for the decriminalization of marijuana, Reagan got in there and immediately more than tripled the amount of money on the war on drugs to 1.4 billion dollars. By the time Reagan left office that number was over $5 billion a year. So it went from $400 million a year during the Carter admin to over $5 billion a year with Reagan. This is what started our police state whether the right wingers want to admit it or not.

Ok, we're getting somewhere! You basically said that Reagan started it, which he did NOT. Now, we've had 2, count 'em 2 democratic presidents since Reagan. What have they done to improve the "drug war" situation? How about the "police state" situation? I'll be patiently awaiting your answer.

 

[Justin00]

So far as I know, women and children were not targeted in that war, they were collateral damage.

see update, they were considered "acceptable" collateral damage, bordering on encouraged and certainly not avoided, considering the support they offered confederate troops.

 

[cannabineer]

Reagan did two truly reprehensible things:
1) already as governor, he tore the heart out of the mental healthcare system. A massive failure of human compassion for an expensive, unproductive segment of society, and he saw them only as that. For the rest of us, it's a lesson in duplicitous ethics.
He went on to do same for the nation. Who knows how much the "savings" were compensated by higher police and medical costs for the wave of homeless nutters?

2) he made like a kid with a Mastercard with that deficit spending. He took the inspiration from those financiers who were buying and dismantling companies in order to raid the pension fund. For Ron, it was the SS fund, which he declared as "borrowable against". Oh such a bad idea, and we're in it to our necks as a result.
And I'll wager that he chuckled about the irony of it all right up until the day he died. cn

 

[BadDog40]

when more people are working, the higher the interst rates on homes are. when its bad, like now, they try to stimulate some sales, by lowering the rates. in fact, in those 15% int rates, were lots of people buying!

This is some of the dumbest shit I've read today. Were you even around during that time? People couldnt sell their damn house for 20k. the whole country was like Detroit is now. I remember looking at $8,000 condos in Denver that people couldnt give away. Those same condos today are going for over $200,000. They were trying to stimulate sales my ass.

wonder why fox has 80% of the viewership, AND GROWING?

Yes, because the old farts and people on social security have nothing better to do with their time than to watch FOX News and listen to blowhard Rush. Pretty fucking simple.

 

[jessy koons]

No one's talkin' about Jimmy Carter?