PDA

View Full Version : Views on George Bush (41)'s Presidency?



CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-27-2009, 10:55 PM
Next in a round of historical debates---

How do you you guys, both as conservatives and in general, view the presidency of George H.W. Bush in retrospect? I think this summary of his term in office (written as a summary of a book on his presidency) sums up my feelings:

''Cazenovia College historian Greene's verdict on George Bush's presidency will surprise no one: Bush triumphed in foreign policy, but stumbled fatally in domestic affairs. Greene traces what he perceives as Bush's failures on the home front, starting with Ronald Reagan's troubled legacy, which included the budget deficit, the savings and loan crisis and the failure of tax cuts to trickle down. (Some of these were, ironically, the exact problems Bush anticipated during his campaign against Reagan in 1980, when he labeled the policies of his future boss "voodoo economics.") Due partly to a hostile and overwhelmingly Democratic Congress, according to Greene, Bush was unable to solve these troubles, a failure eagerly pounced upon in 1992 by Bill Clinton. Greene argues that Bush did better in foreign affairs, where he was able to capitalize on the considerable experience he had gained as ambassador to China, CIA director and vice-president. The Gulf War is described as the outstanding achievement of Bush's presidency, a smashing victory that reversed an illegal invasion, accelerated the Mideast peace process and crystallized post-Cold War international relations. Greene only briefly considers whether Bush should have taken the next step and ousted Saddam Hussein. In the end, it was Bush's misfortune to be sandwiched between two equally great communicators, the smiling Teflon movie star and the good old boy who feels everyone's pain. Bush could live up to neither the memory of one nor the promise of the other. Diminished though his legacy may be, Bush, Greene points out, "brought no discredit to the office" and produced "a nation more stable than he had inherited". A fine contribution to presidential biography, this should become the essential introduction to Bush's abbreviated, but still consequential, tenure in office.''

Rockntractor
11-27-2009, 10:57 PM
Lackluster. But I would take him any day compared to the piece of crap we have now.

Speedy
11-27-2009, 10:58 PM
As opposed to Obama who has been a spectacular failure in both foreign and domestic policy.

djones520
11-27-2009, 11:01 PM
I was 8 when he was elected out of office, but from what I know, I'd have to agree with the assesment you posted.

Big Guy
11-27-2009, 11:12 PM
I was not impressed when he started downsizing the military after the Gulf War ended in 91. He had a pretty hard act to follow, Reagan was the best I can remember.

AmPat
11-28-2009, 12:19 AM
It's hard to focus on Bush 41 when we have a muslim apologist and an apparent America hating Marxist in office now. Of course future "retrospectives" of this present failure will accuse his Marxist staff of all the ill-conceived and hare-brained schemes. OBlah Blah will come out smelling like roses.:cool:

megimoo
11-28-2009, 12:29 AM
Next in a round of historical debates---

How do you you guys, both as conservatives and in general, view the presidency of George H.W. Bush in retrospect? I think this summary of his term in office (written as a summary of a book on his presidency) sums up my feelings:

''Cazenovia College historian Greene's verdict on George Bush's presidency will surprise no one: Bush triumphed in foreign policy, but stumbled fatally in domestic affairs. Greene traces what he perceives as Bush's failures on the home front, starting with Ronald Reagan's troubled legacy, which included the budget deficit, the savings and loan crisis and the failure of tax cuts to trickle down. (Some of these were, ironically, the exact problems Bush anticipated during his campaign against Reagan in 1980, when he labeled the policies of his future boss "voodoo economics.") Due partly to a hostile and overwhelmingly Democratic Congress, according to Greene, Bush was unable to solve these troubles, a failure eagerly pounced upon in 1992 by Bill Clinton. Greene argues that Bush did better in foreign affairs, where he was able to capitalize on the considerable experience he had gained as ambassador to China, CIA director and vice-president. The Gulf War is described as the outstanding achievement of Bush's presidency, a smashing victory that reversed an illegal invasion, accelerated the Mideast peace process and crystallized post-Cold War international relations. Greene only briefly considers whether Bush should have taken the next step and ousted Saddam Hussein. In the end, it was Bush's misfortune to be sandwiched between two equally great communicators, the smiling Teflon movie star and the good old boy who feels everyone's pain. Bush could live up to neither the memory of one nor the promise of the other. Diminished though his legacy may be, Bush, Greene points out, "brought no discredit to the office" and produced "a nation more stable than he had inherited". A fine contribution to presidential biography, this should become the essential introduction to Bush's abbreviated, but still consequential, tenure in office.''

You are the product of your savaged and very troubled education .What college did you attend to absorb that liberal twisted historic rewrite ?You took your little synopsis directly from the Editorial Reviews of 'The Presidency of George Bush'!

"In the end, it was Bush's misfortune to be sandwiched between two equally great communicators, the smiling Teflon movie star and the good old boy who feels everyone's pain. "..." Ronald Reagan's troubled legacy,John Robert Greene".

For one thing Ronald Reagan's legacy was far from troubled but rather proud.

He saw the works of the ultra liberal herd in California first hand and went against them from the first .

They,the liberals,starting with Kennedy absolutely hated and despised Reagan and worked against everything he did for America .

Kennedy's middle man's accurate writings after the fact tell us of his contact with the Russian KGB offering them intelligence against Reagan during the height of the cold war amounts to absolute treason against America .

Kennedy was a traitorous scum who wouldn't let treason dampen his party's political ambitions.As a matter of record all of the liberal Democrats were rather ambivalent about about their American loyalty's.

According to KGB archives, Kennedy used lifelong friend and former fellow senator John Tunney (son of famed heavyweight boxer, Gene Tunney) as a go-between with the Soviet KGB. In 1978 Kennedy requested that the KGB establish a relationship with Tunney's firm, which they apparently had already done through one of their agents in France.

Kennedy the man had many troubling flaws in his nature starting with running away from a drowning woman to his laissez faire attitude towards treason.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/the_KGB_kennedy_and_carter.html

From Carters mindless toying with national security during the Iranian hostage fiasco to that great oaf Clinton's sellling American missile launch secrets and allowing and being payed for the raid on our Warhead designs by Chinese agents during his watch.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/26/214938.shtml

Did you perhaps know that Kennedy sold his Washington Mansion to the Chinese military for more then the asking price as a way towards his payoff from the Chinese Army for his help .It Turns out that Eric Hotung, a Hong Kong billionaire was actually a Chinese Red Army agent!

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/56387-how-i-helped-ted-sell-his-house

Swampfox
11-28-2009, 12:56 AM
I'd say Bush (41) was slightly better than Millard Fillmore and just about as unremarkable.

NJCardFan
11-28-2009, 01:10 AM
Bush 41's biggest problem was that he wasn't Reagan. People expected 4 more years of Reagan and for the most part were very disappointed. Bush's other problem was that as always happens, the economy began to ebb toward the end of his term. Clinton used this to his advantage, however, had Perot not run I'm convinced that Bush would have been re-elected. All in all he wasn't terrible. Sure the "no new taxes" thing went all to hell but who's promises didn't? I think Obama is setting records with broken campaign promises. Anyhoo, another Bush 41 faux pas would be not finishing the job in Iraq. Had he provided air support for the Kurds in their attempt to overthrow Saddam, we wouldn't be in the quagmire we are in today and Iraq would be a hell of a lot more stable.

Speedy
11-28-2009, 02:08 AM
Bush 41's biggest problem was that he wasn't Reagan. People expected 4 more years of Reagan and for the most part were very disappointed.

It does not happen just in politics. One can take heavyweight boxing champion Larry Holmes. Had Larry Holmes been born a few years later, he would likely have been in anyone's mention of greatest heavyweights ever. As it was, he followed Muhammed Ali. For all his fights and defenses, he defended his title more times than Ali, had a longer reign than Ali and even defeated an aging Ali. His reward? A complete lack of respect.

The Great Roger Staubauch, quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys for 10 years was followed by Danny White. Danny White did a more than capable job with the Cowboys and was even the top quarterback in the NFL a couple of times. Did he get any respect? No he didn't. In fact with every misstep, he would be reminded that Staubach would have done better in a similar situation.

Constitutionally Speaking
11-28-2009, 06:46 AM
To answer your initial question, - fair to middling.

To address some GROSS inaccuracies in the book you quote:


starting with Ronald Reagan's troubled legacy, which included , the savings and loan crisis and the failure of tax cuts to trickle down.


This sentence has three incredibly mistaken assertions:

1)
the budget deficit


The budget deficit was nearly all a result of the dire need to rebuild a horribly neglected military and non-discretionary spending he had absolutely no control over. The Budget deficit was shrinking rapidly when Reagan left office. I covered this in more detail in the "rate the Presidents" thread you started.



2)
the savings and loan crisis

The savings and loan crisis was not of Reagan's doing. Starting with the FACT that the crisis began before Reagan took office! Here is a simplified explanation of what caused the crisis. At the root of EVERY cause is the government interfering where it should have no business.


Borrowing short to lend long was the main problem -and it was (again) caused by government interference in the free market. by enforcing various policies held over from the Great Depression, the federal government effectively forced S&Ls to use short-term passbook savings to fund long-term, fixed-rate home mortgages. This is all fine and dandy if interest rates are stable, but if you recall, Interest rates skyrocketed under Jimmy Carter and the interest they were paying out far exceeded the interest they were receiving on the long term loans. Regulation Q, extended to the S&L's in 1966, helped to disguise and hide this problem - allowing the situation to continue for another 15 years. In addition, interest rate restrictions locked S&Ls into below-market rates on many mortgages whenever interest rates rose. So market forces dictated they raise the rates they paid out on savings accounts, yet the government did not allow them to charge market rates on the mortgages they sold. The secondary mortgage market agencies created by the federal government—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (where have we heard about them before)— undercut S&L profits by using their taxpayer backing to effectively lower interest rates on all mortgages - even further exacerbating the problems caused by the long term loans/short term savings account interest rate mismatch.

Federal deposit insurance, was another of the main reasons for the crisis. Deposit insurance was actuarially unsound, primarily because all S&Ls were charged the same insurance premium no matter how safe or risky they were. This encouraged higher risk behavior and discouraged sensible investments.


Inter-state restrictions and a restriction on nationwide banking prevented S&Ls from expanding across state lines. As a result, they became badly exposed to regional economic downturns.


I suppose that if you REALLY stretched, Reagan could be blamed for the poor management of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board - even though it's management was in place before Reagan took office, you could make the case he should have replaced them. In addition, the effects of the passive-loss rules changes in 1986 devalued real-estate and set off more bankruptcies. You could make the case that Reagan didn't end the crisis expeditiously, but to try and say it was caused by him is beyond dishonest.



3)
and the failure of tax cuts to trickle down


The author SURELY must be joking!!!! Was he utterly unaware of the 30 years of nearly uninterrupted economic growth set off by those tax cuts???? Was he ignorant of the fact that revenues EXPLODED after the tax cuts took effect???? They did not just trickle down, they were the equivalent of Niagara Falls.

NJCardFan
11-28-2009, 10:52 AM
It does not happen just in politics. One can take heavyweight boxing champion Larry Holmes. Had Larry Holmes been born a few years later, he would likely have been in anyone's mention of greatest heavyweights ever. As it was, he followed Muhammed Ali. For all his fights and defenses, he defended his title more times than Ali, had a longer reign than Ali and even defeated an aging Ali. His reward? A complete lack of respect.

The Great Roger Staubauch, quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys for 10 years was followed by Danny White. Danny White did a more than capable job with the Cowboys and was even the top quarterback in the NFL a couple of times. Did he get any respect? No he didn't. In fact with every misstep, he would be reminded that Staubach would have done better in a similar situation.
True buy Danny White never won or went to a Super Bowl because you could say the same for Steve Young who followed in Montana's footsteps and didn't get his just respect until he finally won a Super Bowl of his own. But I do like your Larry Holmes angle as it fits to a degree, however, the difference is that Holmes was a great fighter regardless but Bush 41 was a so-so president at best.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-28-2009, 03:22 PM
It really seems like some conservatives cannot allow Reagan to have done anything wrong.

AmPat
11-28-2009, 03:43 PM
It really seems like some conservatives cannot allow Reagan to have done anything wrong.

It's more apparent that some people cannot give Reagan credit enough.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-28-2009, 03:46 PM
It's more apparent that some people cannot give Reagan credit enough.

Credit for turning 900 billion $ debt into 2.6 trillion?
Credit for selling arms to a terrorist nation illegally?
Credit for pulling out of Libya and making us look weak?
Credit for spending more than any liberal president did?
Credit for allowing jobs to go overseas en masse?

Yeah, he had some nice speeches. But that's it really.

Apache
11-28-2009, 04:06 PM
Credit for turning 900 billion $ debt into 2.6 trillion?
Credit for selling arms to a terrorist nation illegally?
Credit for pulling out of Libya and making us look weak?
Credit for spending more than any liberal president did?
Credit for allowing jobs to go overseas en masse?

Yeah, he had some nice speeches. But that's it really.

Read the books and didn't live through it, did ya?

Buddy, Regan did a lot for this country. Was he perfect? No, he was human and made some mistakes. Regan was pround of this country and made sure that the people were proud of it too...unlike Jimmy "malaise" Carter...

AmPat
11-28-2009, 04:38 PM
Credit for turning 900 billion $ debt into 2.6 trillion?
Credit for selling arms to a terrorist nation illegally?
Credit for pulling out of Libya and making us look weak?
Credit for spending more than any liberal president did?
Credit for allowing jobs to go overseas en masse?

Yeah, he had some nice speeches. But that's it really.
I guess you can cease the pretense at being a Conservative now.

As mentioned elsewhere, Reagan wasn't perfect. As for pulling out of Libya. I believe you meant Lebanon. We shot down a couple of Libyan fighters but we were not there to "pull out of."

Making us look weak? Are you insane or just ignorant? Reagan was the antithesis of weak. When you look under weak presidents, you will find Cater and O Blah Blah. Reagan was the strongest president we have had in this century. Other countries knew it too. Look how fast the Mullahs let our hostages go when Reagan took office. The mighty USSR became a shell country with a weak, inept government that came crashing down.

Regarding spending. That too was explained. When a liberal moron is in charge, like say (Carter), you have to spend more to get the same results. Carter gutted and neglected our military for years. Had he spent the appropriate amount each year, Reagan would have started at a much more manageable level. Carter caused the massive spending, Reagan neccessarily had to do the actual spending. Your liberal profs won't teach you this.

Reagan didn't cause jobs to go overseas. He may have allowed it and I sure am glad. I wouldn't want to live in a country where my El Presidente could dictate to me where I can do business.

Selling arms? Maybe. Our immediate concern was South America. At the time, that was a more clear and present danger. Hindsight won't change that. Maybe it was a mistake, maybe not. That alone would not make Reagan a bad rpesident no matter what your liberal education teaches.

Sonnabend
11-28-2009, 04:47 PM
*sniff sniff*

Anyone smell sock?

Apache
11-28-2009, 05:10 PM
*sniff sniff*

Anyone smell sock?

Who you thinkin'?

AmPat
11-28-2009, 05:16 PM
Certainly a liberal who wants to attempt to cast doubt over here. He needs to be better prepared in terms of his references. He's not in an echo chamber over here. We have a tendency to smack down liberal bias with a tubesock filled with facts. :cool:

FeebMaster
11-28-2009, 05:18 PM
It really seems like some conservatives cannot allow Reagan to have done anything wrong.

It's a cult.

AmPat
11-28-2009, 05:23 PM
There are huge differences. Reagan followers don't follow the man, they follow the ideas of the man.

O Blah Blah followers worship the man. They make up Maoist-like worship songs. They have cult-like O Blah Blah clubs (uniforms and all), They swallow every single, stupid thing that spews forth from his considerable sewer. He can do no wrong. They see no inconsistencies, obfuscations or outright lies by the Liar-In-Chief. That is a cult!:cool:

FeebMaster
11-28-2009, 05:50 PM
They swallow every single, stupid thing that spews forth from his considerable sewer. He can do no wrong. They see no inconsistencies, obfuscations or outright lies by the Liar-In-Chief.


Define irony.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-28-2009, 06:38 PM
It's more apparent that some people cannot give Reagan credit enough.


I guess you can cease the pretense at being a Conservative now.

As mentioned elsewhere, Reagan wasn't perfect. As for pulling out of Libya. I believe you meant Lebanon. We shot down a couple of Libyan fighters but we were not there to "pull out of."

Making us look weak? Are you insane or just ignorant? Reagan was the antithesis of weak. When you look under weak presidents, you will find Cater and O Blah Blah. Reagan was the strongest president we have had in this century. Other countries knew it too. Look how fast the Mullahs let our hostages go when Reagan took office. The mighty USSR became a shell country with a weak, inept government that came crashing down.

Regarding spending. That too was explained. When a liberal moron is in charge, like say (Carter), you have to spend more to get the same results. Carter gutted and neglected our military for years. Had he spent the appropriate amount each year, Reagan would have started at a much more manageable level. Carter caused the massive spending, Reagan neccessarily had to do the actual spending. Your liberal profs won't teach you this.

Reagan didn't cause jobs to go overseas. He may have allowed it and I sure am glad. I wouldn't want to live in a country where my El Presidente could dictate to me where I can do business.

Selling arms? Maybe. Our immediate concern was South America. At the time, that was a more clear and present danger. Hindsight won't change that. Maybe it was a mistake, maybe not. That alone would not make Reagan a bad rpesident no matter what your liberal education teaches.

The strongest president we've ever had? I'm assuming you never heard of FDR or Truman, who firebombed and nuclear bombed cities and basically led America to having hegemony over a good portion of the world, certainly most of Western Europe?

And yes, I got Libya and Lebanon confused. He pulled out of Lebanon after marines got killed and made us look weak.

Spending is still spending, and debt is still debt no matter what you're spending it on. And to blame Carter for Reagan spending money is ludicrous. So anything Reagan did wrong wasn't Reagan's fault, it was Carter or Bush I's. LOL.

To say the military was gutted is wrong. I believe even in the '70s America could've won any war, if the Generals were allowed to do what they needed to do. The problem is most presidents since LBJ have been armchair warmasters.

And that's great you're glad Reagan allowed for America's job base to go overseas. Wonderful. Yeah, let's let some moron over in India have a job that was once and should be American.

And doing something illegal is pretty bad, no matter what the reason was for. Nixon's excuses for tapping people's phones or spying on them otherwise was ''national security'' and yes maybe dealing with the people he was dealing with it was a legitimate excuse--But no matter how good a reason it is it does not justify engaging in illegal activity, particularly when you're the head of the branch of government that is to execute the law.

As for letting the hostages go, you really buy into the myth that they were so scared of Reagan? Really??

The USSR was already a weak country by the late '70s, and were working under an inherently flawed and doomed system. Reagan didn't kill the USSR, the USSR did that themselves. And to say Reagan single handedly did it, as I've seen many conservatives do, does a grave disservice to many previous presidents and thousands of soldiers who fought or died fighting communism.

So yes, nice speeches, little else.

BadCat
11-28-2009, 06:39 PM
The strongest president we've ever had? I'm assuming you never heard of FDR or Truman, who firebombed and nuclear bombed cities and basically led America to having hegemony over a good portion of the world, certainly most of Western Europe?

And yes, I got Libya and Lebanon confused. He pulled out of Lebanon after marines got killed and made us look weak.

Spending is still spending, and debt is still debt no matter what you're spending it on. And to blame Carter for Reagan spending money is ludicrous. So anything Reagan did wrong wasn't Reagan's fault, it was Carter or Bush I's. LOL.

To say the military was gutted is wrong. I believe even in the '70s America could've won any war, if the Generals were allowed to do what they needed to do. The problem is most presidents since LBJ have been armchair warmasters.

And that's great you're glad Reagan allowed for America's job base to go overseas. Wonderful. Yeah, let's let some moron over in India have a job that was once and should be American.

And doing something illegal is pretty bad, no matter what the reason was for. Nixon's excuses for tapping people's phones or spying on them otherwise was ''national security'' and yes maybe dealing with the people he was dealing with it was a legitimate excuse--But no matter how good a reason it is it does not justify engaging in illegal activity, particularly when you're the head of the branch of government that is to execute the law.

As for letting the hostages go, you really buy into the myth that they were so scared of Reagan? Really??

The USSR was already a weak country by the late '70s, and were working under an inherently flawed and doomed system. Reagan didn't kill the USSR, the USSR did that themselves. And to say Reagan single handedly did it, as I've seen many conservatives do, does a grave disservice to many previous presidents and thousands of soldiers who fought or died fighting communism.

So yes, nice speeches, little else.

Occasionally, you let your moonbat shine through.

Sonnabend
11-28-2009, 06:52 PM
The strongest president we've ever had? I'm assuming you never heard of FDR or Truman, who firebombed and nuclear bombed cities and basically led America to having hegemony over a good portion of the world, certainly most of Western Europe?Hegemony? The US used the Bomb to stop a war the JAPANESE STARTED. Where the fuck did YOU go to school?

Then the US used massive resources to help them and Germany rebuild...after the Germans allowed a madman to try to turn the entire world into a graveyard.

We have had to ride to the aid of the Euroweenies TWICE..."hegemony"?

Idiot.


And yes, I got Libya and Lebanon confused. He pulled out of Lebanon after marines got killed and made us look weak.Buy a MAP :rolleyes:


And doing something illegal is pretty bad, no matter what the reason was for. Nixon's excuses for tapping people's phones or spying on them otherwise was ''national security'' and yes maybe dealing with the people he was dealing with it was a legitimate excuse--But no matter how good a reason it is it does not justify engaging in illegal activity, particularly when you're the head of the branch of government that is to execute the law. Kennedy. Hoover. COINTELPRO

Case closed


As for letting the hostages go, you really buy into the myth that they were so scared of Reagan? Really??Yes. they were. unlike Carter, who was a weak dicked excuse for a human being, the Iranians knew they now had a serious man on their hands. You DO realise that in fact the Iranians had committed an act of war?

An embassy is US soil....the Iranians invaded the embassy and took hostages, so Reagan would have been well within his rights to say "Hand them back or I select a target every hour"...and the ragheads knew he would do it.

Hence they capitulated.

Carter? EFFECTIVE?? The man was and is a limp dicked, impotent anti semite


The USSR was already a weak country by the late '70s, and were working under an inherently flawed and doomed system. Reagan didn't kill the USSR, the USSR did that themselves...this guy went to the Obama University of Delusions.......


. And to say Reagan single handedly did it, as I've seen many conservatives do, does a grave disservice to many previous presidents and thousands of soldiers who fought or died fighting communism...and establishing a "hegemony"...riiightttt......


So yes, nice speeches, little else.Uh huh.....

BadCat
11-28-2009, 06:56 PM
He/she/it claims to be 19 Sonna...and a Dimocrat with "reservations".

If so, then he/she/it is wasting money on tuition.

Sonnabend
11-28-2009, 07:26 PM
.and a Dimocrat with "reservations".

Where at..the local looney bin?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-28-2009, 07:26 PM
Hegemony? The US used the Bomb to stop a war the JAPANESE STARTED. Where the fuck did YOU go to school?

Then the US used massive resources to help them and Germany rebuild...after the Germans allowed a madman to try to turn the entire world into a graveyard.

We have had to ride to the aid of the Euroweenies TWICE..."hegemony"?

Idiot.



Buy a MAP :rolleyes:



Kennedy. Hoover. COINTELPRO

Case closed



Yes. they were. unlikt Carter, who was a weak dicked excuse for a human being, the Iranians knew they now had a serious man on their hands. You DO realise that in fafvt the Iranians had committed an act of war?

An embassy is US soil....the Iranians invaded the embassy and took hostages, so EReagan would have been well within his rights to sday "Hand them back or I select a target every hour"...and the ragheads knew he would do it.

Hence they capitulated.

Carter? EFFECTIVE?? The man was and is a limp dicked, impotent anti semite



...this guy went to the Obama University of Delusions.......



..and establishing a "hegemony"...riiightttt......



Uh huh.....

I meant hegemony in terms of the Marshall Plan and I didn't mean it in a negative light. I know the Japaneses started the war and the Bomb was in a way our response, it brought a much quicker end to a war that had it gone on and we invaded Japan might've cost thousands if not millions of American troops; However, it was a great move and basically showed the world that you don't fuck with the US. It was a strong move. We basically rebuilt Europe. Also, WWII made the US one of the most feared and respected powers in the world, and made us one of two remaining superpowers; The British Empire was crippled as was Germany, with other severe damage done to tons of other countries.

And so because Kennedy and Edgar Hoover did illegal things, that makes it OK for Reagan to do so as well? Weak excuse.

Did I ever call Carter effective? You're putting words in my mouth. Carter was and is an arrogant, stubborn, self righteous, stupid person and a horrible president who mangled every opportunity he got to do something worthwhile.

Are you saying the USSR was in great shape before Reagan? That the communist system they had was built to last? Seriously?

Never said the troops or Presidents who fought the Cold War established a hegemony; That was in reference to the state that the Truman doctrine, as well as our general worldwide influence in the postwar era. Perhaps I used the wrong word. Even so, I don't see hegemony as a negative thing, I feel the US should be imperialistic, if we didn't have so much debt.

Sonnabend
11-28-2009, 07:57 PM
I meant hegemony in terms of the Marshall Plan and I didn't mean it in a negative light. I know the Japaneses started the war and the Bomb was in a way our response, it brought a much quicker end to a war that had it gone on and we invaded Japan might've cost thousands if not millions of American troops;


Not might...WOULD. Saipan proved that.


And so because Kennedy and Edgar Hoover did illegal things, that makes it OK for Reagan to do so as well? Weak excuse.

Except he did nothing illegal.


Are you saying the USSR was in great shape before Reagan? That the communist system they had was built to last? Seriously?

Reagan's strategies and tactics basically blew its foundations to pieces...his attacks on Gorby, his insistence on the Wall coming down..the day that thing fell, I knew the Soviets were not far behind.


Never said the troops or Presidents who fought the Cold War established a hegemony; That was in reference to the state that the Truman doctrine, as well as our general worldwide influence in the postwar era.

Then be more specific in language. If you cannot say what you mean, then you cannot mean what you say.


Perhaps I used the wrong word. Even so, I don't see hegemony as a negative thing, I feel the US should be imperialistic, if we didn't have so much debt.

"manifest destiny"?

Unlikely.

Rockntractor
11-28-2009, 08:00 PM
Sniff sniff sniff!

Constitutionally Speaking
11-28-2009, 08:55 PM
The strongest president we've ever had? I'm assuming you never heard of FDR or Truman, who firebombed and nuclear bombed cities and basically led America to having hegemony over a good portion of the world, certainly most of Western Europe?

All Reagan did was save the entire free world. :rolleyes:


And yes, I got Libya and Lebanon confused. He pulled out of Lebanon after marines got killed and made us look weak.

One of the few mistakes Reagan did make.


Spending is still spending, and debt is still debt no matter what you're spending it on. And to blame Carter for Reagan spending money is ludicrous. So anything Reagan did wrong wasn't Reagan's fault, it was Carter or Bush I's. LOL.

When our military was in as bad a shape as it was, YES you CAN blame it on Carter. The military HE left us was not even able to fly a couple of helicopters across the desert to rescue the hostages!!!


To say the military was gutted is wrong. I believe even in the '70s America could've won any war, if the Generals were allowed to do what they needed to do. The problem is most presidents since LBJ have been armchair warmasters.

Our ability to sustain a war with the soviet Union was estimated at somewhere around 3 weeks. Our military was in an absolute shambles. Spare parts were virtually nonexistent and our equipment was old and outdated. You REALLY need to check your facts on this.




And that's great you're glad Reagan allowed for America's job base to go overseas. Wonderful. Yeah, let's let some moron over in India have a job that was once and should be American.

Actually jobs didn't leave under Reagan. They were expanded GREATLY. Get a clue would you???




And doing something illegal is pretty bad, no matter what the reason was for.


It was NOT illegal, the liberals want to SAY it was illegal because of the Boland amendment. The problem is that the Boland amendment was an unconstitutional usurpation of executive power by the legislative branch.



As for letting the hostages go, you really buy into the myth that they were so scared of Reagan? Really??

They sure as hell didn't give them up for Carter!!!!


The USSR was already a weak country by the late '70s, and were working under an inherently flawed and doomed system. Reagan didn't kill the USSR, the USSR did that themselves. And to say Reagan single handedly did it, as I've seen many conservatives do, does a grave disservice to many previous presidents and thousands of soldiers who fought or died fighting communism.

The Soviet Union was at their VERY PEAK in the late 70's - GOD MAN take out a history book!!!!!!

stsinner
11-28-2009, 08:56 PM
Hegemony? The US used the Bomb to stop a war the JAPANESE STARTED. [B]Where the fuck did YOU go to school? .

Oh, how I love it when the Aussie takes us Americans to school. And, yes, even when he schools me.. You are impressive, Sonnabend... You have my admiration as an avid historian.

Constitutionally Speaking
11-28-2009, 09:10 PM
Here is a bit more on our military and the shambles Carter left it in.


In December 1979, the Army rated six of its ten combat divisions in the Continental United States (CONUS) as in category C-4 (not combat ready). Two of the units so rated, the 101st Airborne and the 24th Infantry Divisions, were earmarked for the RDJTF.

Of the remaining four divisions, three were rated combat ready but with major deficiencies. These divisions had suffered most from failures to meet recruiting goals in 1979 and from the shortage of experienced NCOs in the combat arms specialty due to assignment to Europe and the Far East.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/DAHSUM/1980/ch02.htm


So not even ONE division was in satisfactory condition 6 of 10 were deemed not ready at all and of the four that were deemed combat ready - they were rated as "ready but with MAJOR deficiencies".


Take your ignorant liberal professors talking points and shove them up his ass.

HomerJay
11-28-2009, 09:31 PM
Here is a bit more on our military and the shambles Carter left it in.



http://www.history.army.mil/books/DAHSUM/1980/ch02.htm


So not even ONE division was in satisfactory condition 6 of 10 were deemed not ready at all and of the four that were deemed combat ready - they were rated as "ready but with MAJOR deficiencies".


Take your ignorant liberal professors talking points and shove them up your ass.

Just as a contrasting point but what condition was the army in when Reagan fixed it up?

Constitutionally Speaking
11-28-2009, 10:10 PM
Just as a contrasting point but what condition was the army in when Reagan fixed it up?


38% of all units were rated at C-1 (the very top level of readiness) and NONE - read ZERO were rated less than C-3 - compare this to only 4 of 10 divisions even reaching the c-3 level under Carter.

In addition, the funding for weapons systems that have become invaluable to our current military were initiated in this period.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-28-2009, 10:40 PM
Hegemony? The US used the Bomb to stop a war the JAPANESE STARTED. Where the fuck did YOU go to school?

Then the US used massive resources to help them and Germany rebuild...after the Germans allowed a madman to try to turn the entire world into a graveyard.

We have had to ride to the aid of the Euroweenies TWICE..."hegemony"?

Idiot.

Buy a MAP :rolleyes:

Kennedy. Hoover. COINTELPRO

Case closed

Yes. they were. unlike Carter, who was a weak dicked excuse for a human being, the Iranians knew they now had a serious man on their hands. You DO realise that in fact the Iranians had committed an act of war?

An embassy is US soil....the Iranians invaded the embassy and took hostages, so Reagan would have been well within his rights to say "Hand them back or I select a target every hour"...and the ragheads knew he would do it.

Hence they capitulated.

Carter? EFFECTIVE?? The man was and is a limp dicked, impotent anti semite

...this guy went to the Obama University of Delusions.......

..and establishing a "hegemony"...riiightttt......

Uh huh.....


All Reagan did was save the entire free world. :rolleyes:



One of the few mistakes Reagan did make.



When our military was in as bad a shape as it was, YES you CAN blame it on Carter. The military HE left us was not even able to fly a couple of helicopters across the desert to rescue the hostages!!!



Our ability to sustain a war with the soviet Union was estimated at somewhere around 3 weeks. Our military was in an absolute shambles. Spare parts were virtually nonexistent and our equipment was old and outdated. You REALLY need to check your facts on this.





Actually jobs didn't leave under Reagan. They were expanded GREATLY. Get a clue would you???






It was NOT illegal, the liberals want to SAY it was illegal because of the Boland amendment. The problem is that the Boland amendment was an unconstitutional usurpation of executive power by the legislative branch.



They sure as hell didn't give them up for Carter!!!!



The Soviet Union was at their VERY PEAK in the late 70's - GOD MAN take out a history book!!!!!!

Ok, so do you think it was only Carter who downgraded the military?
Also, I've read the peak of the Soviet Union was in the mid 60s (under Khrushchev) and the early-mid 70s because of Detente.

Also--How do you feel about Reagan's amnesty? And don't say ''well Obama supports amnesty too'' because I don't support him doing it either.

EDIT: I apologize as far as the military thing--You're right. Besides reading the Army history link someone posted, I spoke to my dad (he was in the Army from 76-'78 in the 29th Field Artillery Division) and he remembers a lot of people being pissed because Carter did some big R&D cuts or something similar.

Rockntractor
11-28-2009, 10:58 PM
Amnesty is a bad idea no matter who is trying to sell it!

Big Guy
11-28-2009, 11:01 PM
Hey caught in the Middle, YOU came to us asking about Bush 41 remember? If you aren't ready to hear what is to be said, don't ask. Most people who post here are Conservative, what in the hell did you expect?

Sonnabend
11-29-2009, 12:19 AM
Oh, how I love it when the Aussie takes us Americans to school. And, yes, even when he schools me.. You are impressive, Sonnabend... You have my admiration as an avid historian

*sigh*

Not really.....the fact that the Japanese pulled the US into the war at Pearl Harbour is there for anyone to see. A topic for another day...I again wonder why the US waited so long...Hitler was a menace to the entire world.

What would have happened if the US had told Hitler AND Japan.... "back off or else..".

I am just so sorry so many died on Dec. 7th to 'wake the sleeping giant" :(


Ok, so do you think it was only Carter who downgraded the military?

Mr limpdick Carter did the most damage.


Also, I've read the peak of the Soviet Union was in the mid 60s (under Khrushchev) and the early-mid 70s because of Detente.

And had lost none of its power or wont for conquest. Gorby was very much in the control of the hardliners....Stalin's hand was still a long touch from the grave.


EDIT: I apologize as far as the military thing--You're right. Besides reading the Army history link someone posted, I spoke to my dad (he was in the Army from 76-'78 in the 29th Field Artillery Division) and he remembers a lot of people being pissed because Carter did some big R&D cuts or something similar.

And more besides.

Constitutionally Speaking
11-29-2009, 05:45 AM
Ok, so do you think it was only Carter who downgraded the military?

No he wasn't the only one, but he WAS the main culprit - and the absolute worst President of Since 1900 and perhaps ever.


Also, I've read the peak of the Soviet Union was in the mid 60s (under Khrushchev) and the early-mid 70s because of Detente.

The Decline of the Soviet Union did not begin until Reagan took office. Their sphere of influence was at an all time high in 1979. That is simply a fact.



Also--How do you feel about Reagan's amnesty? And don't say ''well Obama supports amnesty too'' because I don't support him doing it either.

Another error. There are a few more errors, including allowing an anti-gun amendment to be attached to an otherwise VERY good gun bill.



EDIT: I apologize as far as the military thing--You're right. Besides reading the Army history link someone posted, I spoke to my dad (he was in the Army from 76-'78 in the 29th Field Artillery Division) and he remembers a lot of people being pissed because Carter did some big R&D cuts or something similar.

Thank you for actually looking into this. I have not tried in any way to mislead or misrepresent anything here. Ronald Reagan was simply the absolute best President this country has seen since Washington.

AmPat
11-29-2009, 11:28 AM
Facts are to liberals as garlic to vampires.:rolleyes: This is no Conservative we are attempting to educate. This is a TROLL!;)