• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The End of the Reagan Era?

does the passage of landmark HCR legislation mark the end of the Reagan era?


  • Total voters
    17
  • Poll closed .
I strongly disagree. Ronald Reagan was the lynchpin for his era, in that he was the leader, who brought the ideas of personal freedom and personal responsibility into government. But the Regan era was more about forging alliances with differing groups of Republicans, and even some Democrats, which resulted in many changes, especially the change from "Government is here to look after you and run your life" to "You pack your own chute, and you have the power to change your own life for the better". Finally, Reagan made people feel good about America, after the "Malaise" period of Jimmy Carter.

You give Reagan too little credit. There will never be another like Reagan, who made Americans feel good about their country again. Reagan was more than just a person. He became an ideology for millions. I don't know about anyone else, but I miss him.

I liked him a lot, I think he was one of the better modern day Presidents. But he did do some bad things too. It's not all rainbows and fresh backed apple pie with him. On the other hand, he also got a lot of things right; which is well better than our last few Presidents can say.
 
I liked him a lot, I think he was one of the better modern day Presidents. But he did do some bad things too. It's not all rainbows and fresh backed apple pie with him.

True, but what I liked about Reagan is that the buck stopped with him, and he made no excuses. When Iran Contra broke, he got on national TV, against the advise from all his advisers, and told everybody that it was his fault that it happened. You don't see that kind of taking responsibility from any of today's Republicans.
 
True, but what I liked about Reagan is that the buck stopped with him, and he made no excuses. When Iran Contra broke, he got on national TV, against the advise from all his advisers, and told everybody that it was his fault that it happened. You don't see that kind of taking responsibility from any of today's Republicans.

True, but on the same accord, that was technically high treason.
 
True, but what I liked about Reagan is that the buck stopped with him, and he made no excuses. When Iran Contra broke, he got on national TV, against the advise from all his advisers, and told everybody that it was his fault that it happened. You don't see that kind of taking responsibility from any of today's Republicans.

...except Oliver North became the fall guy in that scandalous period of Reagan's presidency.
 
...except Oliver North became the fall guy in that scandalous period of Reagan's presidency.

Hehehe

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juxm4P4fnq8&feature=related"]YouTube- American Dad - Oliver North song[/ame]
 
True, but what I liked about Reagan is that the buck stopped with him, and he made no excuses. When Iran Contra broke, he got on national TV, against the advise from all his advisers, and told everybody that it was his fault that it happened. You don't see that kind of taking responsibility from any of today's Republicans.

The buck stopped with him on Iran/Contra after it became abundantly clear that the evidence of his involvement was overwhelming. Before that happened, he denied that there was any arms for hostage, or arms sales to Iran.
His words, at a press conference, can be read here:

REAGAN'S MEMORY ALSO FAILS. Reagan attended four NSC meetings, but he also contended that he knew nothing of illegal arms shipments to Iran and illegal weapons sales to the Contras. In November 1986, a Beirut newspaper broke a story which explained that American arms sales to Iran.
A month earlier on October 8, 1986 Reagan was asked at a news conference: "Was there any United States involvement in this fight over Nicaragua -- carrying the arms -- any involvement whatsoever?" Reagan replied: "I'm glad you asked. Absolutely not. While they (three Americans, including Eugene Hasenfus) there is no government connection with that at all." Then after the Reagan administration acknowledged that the United States was selling weapons to Iran, Reagan stated on November 19, 1986: "To eliminate the widespread but mistaken perception that we have been exchanging arms for hostages, I have directed that no further sale of arms of any kind be sent to Iran." Reagan was then asked, "Didn't the United States condone shipments of arms to Israel and other nations?" Reagan denied this charge by saying, "We did not condone and do not condone the shipment of arms." Then Reagan was asked, "Could you explain what the Israeli role was here?" Reagan's response was, "No, because, as I say, have had nothing to do with other countries or their shipment of arms."



There is more on the Iran/Contra affair here:


The scandal was almost the undoing of the Teflon President. Of all the revelations that emerged, the most galling for the American public was the president's abandonment of the long-standing policy against dealing with terrorists, which Reagan repeatedly denied doing in spite of overwhelming evidence that made it appear he was simply lying to cover up the story.
 
Such as? What do you see as character or agenda related flaws the should be addressed concerning an and all of the above former presidents you've mentioned?

Kennedy installed the Baathists in Iraq, which we are still cleaning up now.
He instigated the Cuban missile crisis.
Did a couple other regime change assassinations.

T. Roosevelt was a war happy douche and helped bring about the creation of the FDA, one of the most corrupt aspects of our government.
He also helped with the progressive movement, which, to me, has become a plague of politics.

Reagan really geared up the war on drugs, which has cost us tons.
He also ramped up military build up which I would contest as not entirely necessary.
 
Kennedy installed the Baathists in Iraq, which we are still cleaning up now.
He instigated the Cuban missile crisis.
Did a couple other regime change assassinations.

Obviously not something a libertarian would be happy about. However, the Soviets were attempting to streamline us out of Middle East oil. That would have created a very acute energy crisis.

T. Roosevelt was a war happy douche and helped bring about the creation of the FDA, one of the most corrupt aspects of our government.
He also helped with the progressive movement, which, to me, has become a plague of politics.

Progressivism has many fine accomplishments, public education being the best of them, labor rights being the second.

Reagan really geared up the war on drugs, which has cost us tons.
He also ramped up military build up which I would contest as not entirely necessary.

Unless you want to build nations. Nuclear power sort of makes war into an obsolete concept unless you want to get into a nation and fix it up from the inside.
 
Last edited:
Obviously not something a libertarian would be happy about. However, the Soviets were attempting to streamline us out of Middle East oil. That would have created a very acute energy crisis.

It completely destabilized the country.
Which we are paying for now.

I'm not so sure that threat was valid.

Progressivism has many fine accomplishments, public education being the best of them, labor rights being the second.

Your value of "public education" is obviously much higher than mine.
Labor rights is a double edged sword, unions are another scourge still plaguing us.

Unless you want to build nations. Nuclear power sort of makes war into an obsolete concept unless you want to get into a nation and fix it up from the inside.

We had nuclear weapons, enough to counter whatever was thrown at us.
The Soviets were already on there way out, they didn't need any help.
 
One can only hope. The problem is that Reaganomics is capitalism with greed as the ultimate motive and since we are a capitalist economy and greed is easier than generosity, it will take a serious social movement.

Even with the damage done since Reagan people still defend his policies. The Reagan Legacy Project has been a great influence on the deification of Reagan.
 
One can only hope. The problem is that Reaganomics is capitalism with greed as the ultimate motive and since we are a capitalist economy and greed is easier than generosity, it will take a serious social movement.

Even with the damage done since Reagan people still defend his policies. The Reagan Legacy Project has been a great influence on the deification of Reagan.

Until you realize that almost every single person is greedy, you will never learn anything.
 
One can only hope. The problem is that Reaganomics is capitalism with greed as the ultimate motive and since we are a capitalist economy and greed is easier than generosity, it will take a serious social movement.
Human nature will never change.

Even with the damage done since Reagan people still defend his policies.
What's there to defend?
 
Until you realize that almost every single person is greedy, you will never learn anything.
I do realize it, but society's attitude can effect whether we accept or deny indulgences that do harm to itself.
Human nature will never change.
Evolution says you fail.

What's there to defend?
Outsourcing for more profit, unfunded tax cuts are peachy, reducing government (he didn't however), be greedy it helps the economy, privatize as much as you can because corporations are more important than workers, bust unions so they can't force employers to pay reasonable wages and working conditions and take away the important peoples profits, don't prosecute employers of illegals workers because they need those low wages to make more profits, after all, we can't outsource EVERYTHING, waste as much tax money on the military despite necessity and don't let the viability of a program stop the spending, alternative energy - **** that, give some more tax money to the fossil fuel industry... I could go on but I'm feeling nauseous. :(
 
Evolution says you fail.
Really? Show the evolutuon of human nature, specifically that it has changed.

Outsourcing for more profit
Show that this is a Reagan policy,

unfunded tax cuts are peachy,
There's no such thing as a funded/unfunded tax cut.

reducing government (he didn't however)
If he didnt achieve this policy point, what need is there toi defend it?

be greedy it helps the economy,
Capitalism is driven on 'greed'; the economy is capitalism.
What's there to defend?

privatize as much as you can because corporations are more important than workers
non sequitur.

bust unions so they can't force employers to pay reasonable wages and working conditions
Show that this was a Reagan policy.
Note that an eample or two does not, in and of itself, demonstrate a policy in place.

don't prosecute employers of illegals workers because they need those low wages to make more profits,
Show that this was a Reagan policy.
Note that an eample or two does not, in and of itself, demonstrate a policy in place.

waste as much tax money on the military despite necessity
Not sure how these even makes sense, much less an example of RWR policy.

and don't let the viability of a program stop the spending, alternative energy - **** that, give some more tax money to the fossil fuel industry
See above.

I could go on but I'm feeling nauseous.
Its probably the abject failure of your mission to specify what policies need to be defended...
 
Back
Top Bottom