Ronny was the man...

[Vertnut]

I have no idea what you do for a living, nor do I care. You do not seem like a particularly smart guy or someone that I would enjoy getting to know.

Again, I have not said that he was a bad president, I just pointed out some flaws that everyone seems to think were either ok or not his fault.

My father is/was a fan of Reagan, and like I said, I do not think he was a bad president. I just don't put him on a pedestal or understand why others do.

"Signing the fronts of checks" is what I do. Have been for a long time. I have no desire to be around you, either. I've been around enough slackers and know-it-all's to pretty much fill my life-time quota.

Guess you had to be there.

[talisman]

It's getting redundant now.

The young man pointed out negatives about Reagan. Like right out of a text book (or prof's mouth, lol). Talk about "one-sided"? I never said he was perfect, and he wasn't. He DID pull us out of a shit-hole, and pretty much destroyed the USSR.
I didn't serve in Viet Nam (too young), but it was an analogy. My point was that I can't imagine what it was like to be there, even with family trying to explain it.
I have no aversion to colleges at all. We are an educated family, which is how I know what kind of horseshit they pump into kids on campuses now. My youngest is his age (I'm guessing 22), and at least a few times a month I would laugh at the BS they would spew out in lectures. UT is pretty damn liberal, probably more-so than Baylor.

Understood. You didn't directly answer my question of if you graduated college though. Just curious.

[Vertnut]

LOL, that's a huge liberal rag you just quoted. To someone uneducated, the 'facts' posted might appear to have some merit. The federal deficit fell from 6% of GDP in 1983 to 3.2% of GDP in 1987. The federal deficit in Reagan's final budget fell to 2.9% of GDP. The rate of growth in federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Ronald Reagan. And most importantly - federal spending - and the power of the purse is controlled by the House of Representatives - which was controlled by the democrats the entire two terms Ronald Reagan was in office. Some of the shit you posted is for narrow minded liberals, not for factual minded people. Those same people praise Carter and loathe Reagan - completely ignoring the fact that under Carter the enconomy tanked. Under Reagan it had an amazing recovery and strengthened to unseen levels. The facts disprove all of that liberal crap.

Thank God for a level head...

[Vertnut]

Understood. You didn't directly answer my question of if you graduated college though. Just curious.

No four-year degree here. Assoc in Business Mngmt and Arch. My wife is a CPA out of DBU, oldest daughter has masters in chemistry, and the youngest is out of McCombs with dual in Marketing/Advertising.

[talisman]

No four-year degree here. Assoc in Business Mngmt and Arch. My wife is a CPA out of DBU, oldest daughter has masters in chemistry, and the youngest is out of McCombs with dual in Marketing/Advertising.

Sounds like you guys all are going to/do make some money. Got a spare room? I'll be the son you never wanted...

[Moose242]

LOL, that's a huge liberal rag you just quoted. To someone uneducated, the 'facts' posted might appear to have some merit. The federal deficit fell from 6% of GDP in 1983 to 3.2% of GDP in 1987. The federal deficit in Reagan's final budget fell to 2.9% of GDP. The rate of growth in federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Ronald Reagan. And most importantly - federal spending - and the power of the purse is controlled by the House of Representatives - which was controlled by the democrats the entire two terms Ronald Reagan was in office. Some of the shit you posted is for narrow minded liberals, not for factual minded people. Those same people praise Carter and loathe Reagan - completely ignoring the fact that under Carter the economy tanked. Under Reagan it had an amazing recovery and strengthened to unseen levels. The facts simply bring those points to how nonfactual they really are.

I'm here for the factual arguments. Iran Contra is a legitimate scandal for Reagan, the rest of this is garbage. Reagan is and will always be a highly regarded president because of his idea, what he stood for, and what he accomplished. Just as Lincoln - he stood for something - an idea of a strong America - he did what he believed was right. It's that idea combined with success that makes presidents historical. Reagan had faults, but he had substantial successes, and he founded a premise that is proven.

CJ, you know far more about economics than I do so I will not attempt to refute your statements on Reagan era economic policy, but I will not withdraw the criticisms I have made about his political policies that I believe had negative consequences.

[Vertnut]

Sounds like you guys all are going to/do make some money. Got a spare room? I'll be the son you never wanted...

We're no ballers. It's a relief not having to worry about my kids. My wife and I do OK, but the best thing we did was get the kids out of school so they can be self sufficient. I've been building houses a long time now, and I can tell you there's not a shit load of money in it right now. My wife has a great job with an oil refinery company, thank God.

[Vertnut]

CJ, you know far more about economics than I do so I will not attempt to refute your statements on Reagan era economic policy, but I will not withdraw the criticisms I have made about his political policies that I believe had negative consequences.

Hell, ALL POTUS have negatives concerning their political policies.

[Moose242]

Hell, ALL POTUS have negatives concerning their political policies.

I agree, but when you mention Reagan's it is like sticking your dick in a hornets nest for some reason.

[Vertnut]

I agree, but when you mention Reagan's it is like sticking your dick in a hornets nest for some reason.

I'll admit probably so. He wasn't perfect, but he's the best I've seen so far.

[CJ]

CJ, you know far more about economics than I do so I will not attempt to refute your statements on Reagan era economic policy, but I will not withdraw the criticisms I have made about his political policies that I believe had negative consequences.

Economically Reagan was a beast of rabid fiscal dominance and success. Foreign policy can be criticized - but I take that as a grain of salt. Who's foreign policy can't be criticized? Clinton fucked up in Somalia, and let Bin Laden organize his sand people to crash into the twin towers? Roosevelt sat on WW2 too long and arguably cost us billions of dollars and American lives. I personally believe the case for Clinton dropping the ball on Bin Laden - the end result being the death of 2,000+ Americans - is far easier to establish than saying Reagan supplied weapons which may have killed some people in the middle east. It's my firm belief that because Reagan did shit his way, and really stuck it to the Dems that his shortcomings contrast far far greater than others - because he is the biggest right wing target there is. In retrospect, I feel his shortcomings - although merited - are far far less substantial than other more current presidents.

Now, also - it becomes far easier to criticize Reagan when you're speaking to generations outside of his terms in office. Because criticizers always happen to leave out just how bad it use to be, compared to how it ended up after Reagan. Those kinds of socioeconomic conditions are far more difficult to communicate through text - and for some reason they get left out of text books nowadays.

[stevo]

Liberal professor? At Baylor? I'll let you know when I find one.


Also, how did you learn about it? Were you in Iraq? Were you in the presidential cabinet? Naw, you watched the news and read the paper.

I was a lot closer to being in it than you ever will be. I was able to live at the time, able to experience the conditions, and hear opinions from everyone, not just those that were spoon-fed to me by 'instructors' and so-called historians with agendas.

Your point about taking someone else's word as truth is invalid, as History is nothing more than a sequence of events recorded by an observer for all to learn from.

Tell that to the historians in Germany that refuse to put information about the holocaust in many history books.

Just because this event happened relatively recently does not mean that it cannot be speculated on and interpreted by different ways by different people.

History cannot be "interpreted", it is what it is.

I agree, but when you mention Reagan's it is like sticking your dick in a hornets nest for some reason.

Kinda like how when people mention Carter and Clinton people start frothing at the mouth?

Stevo