Yes, because only a Democrat would hate a man who gave two warring factions nuclear weapons and took out Non-Democratic governments and replaced them with dictators. Or I could just hate him because he was a f*cking ass-wipe.joshthor said:
I'm confused why do people hate Ronald Reagan?
- Thread starter Mcupobob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Iran-Contra, him funding the Taliban, terrible economic policies and lack of actual meaningful quotes. I have a bunch of conservative friends on Facebook who worship the man like he's the next Jesus or something. Reagan's no Oscar Wilde...to say the least.
oh, there is more, but i can't remember it.yoshimickster said:
hey, criticize him, but lets avoid insultsyoshimickster said:
The Nuclear arms race helped bankrupt the Soviet Union, and both sides knew quite well that their side would never fire first...Eukaryote said:
Kind of like all that nerve gas I may or may not have stockpiled in my basement, I know that I'll never use it (If I had any) but it's reassuring that I have it there, just in case...
joshthor said:
I looked it up the guy who tried to assassinate him was supposedly insane so I guess he really didn't have a reason. But I think my other point about the distance of time in assessing someone's accomplishments is still valid. I guess I just brought it up those other things to highlight how easy it is to be selective in how you judge him. And while the orignal poster brings up some of his positive points, he's not giving us a full picture of his term as president (if he did, he'd most likely understand why some people didn't like him). Anyway, like I said, I'm really too young to comment on actually living through the Reagan era (and I wasn't living in the US at the time).
I'm not entirely sure about current opinions of the man in the US, so I'll stick to the things I've noted from here in New zealand.
He's seen as a "cowboy" politician; lacking in foreign policy experience and acting out of misdirected patriotism. Note when I say "patriotism" I mean that very particular brand of American patriotism seemingly synonmous with conservative imperialism.
While his time in office did result in overall gains for the US, the economy sharply declined after his term (he enacted policies similar to the ones used just before the Great Depression), and his Cold War stance is seen as being a step backward for US foreign policy similar to the aggressive actions taken by Truman at the beginning of the Cold War period.
He is often named responsible for the end of the Cold War, however I disagree. During reagan's time in office, Gorbachev's Soviet Union was suffering economically, and more than willing to move toward peaceful negotiations. Reagan acted in a similar way to Truman, initiating outdated political tactics that risked increasing hostilities at a time when peace was paramount to America's economic success.
He's seen as a "cowboy" politician; lacking in foreign policy experience and acting out of misdirected patriotism. Note when I say "patriotism" I mean that very particular brand of American patriotism seemingly synonmous with conservative imperialism.
While his time in office did result in overall gains for the US, the economy sharply declined after his term (he enacted policies similar to the ones used just before the Great Depression), and his Cold War stance is seen as being a step backward for US foreign policy similar to the aggressive actions taken by Truman at the beginning of the Cold War period.
He is often named responsible for the end of the Cold War, however I disagree. During reagan's time in office, Gorbachev's Soviet Union was suffering economically, and more than willing to move toward peaceful negotiations. Reagan acted in a similar way to Truman, initiating outdated political tactics that risked increasing hostilities at a time when peace was paramount to America's economic success.
No..... The USSR collapsed because the system pretty much discouraged working hard resulting in the majority of Russian workers to stop working and do illegal jobs causing the Soviet union to have no fundingPyromaniac1337 said:
.
the contra war? I read somewhere that reagan technically committed treason, but im sure he also pissed off alot of liberals. From a historical pov he was a cool enuff guy; thatcher gets a bigger rap tbh
HA. AHHAHAHAHAHA. HAHAHAHAHA Seriously? I hate to break it to you but Kennedy CAUSED the Cuban Missile Crisis. If there's a president that really deserves shit it is this man. Kennedy was a moron and a much worse president than Reagan.Worgen said:
OT: Honestly I always thought Reagan was a pretty good president. He did a lot of good things for the country. His economic policy was meant as a short term solution to the steady decline of the United States, not a long term fix. He gets a lot of hate because he's really the only Republican of note whom people liked, and still like, except for ol' Abe himself. And you really can't make fun of Lincoln.
Regan is the prototype for what current Republicans aspire to be.
Therefore, Democrats have to hate him. If comitted Democreats liked Ronald Regan than their ideology would kind of fall apart, so they have to find reasons that he was a bad president.
Same thing happens on both sides. Republicans are just as guilty when the shoe is switched.
When you subscribe to an ideology you have to change history to match what you currently believe.
It's more rare than you think that adults actually learn about the facts of why things happen and adapt their worldviews to reflect the new data. Instead, many people are much more comfortable having a rigid worldview and changing history to match that ideology.
Therefore, Democrats have to hate him. If comitted Democreats liked Ronald Regan than their ideology would kind of fall apart, so they have to find reasons that he was a bad president.
Same thing happens on both sides. Republicans are just as guilty when the shoe is switched.
When you subscribe to an ideology you have to change history to match what you currently believe.
It's more rare than you think that adults actually learn about the facts of why things happen and adapt their worldviews to reflect the new data. Instead, many people are much more comfortable having a rigid worldview and changing history to match that ideology.
One word: Reaganomics. You know all those financial problems that exist in our country? The huge gap between the rich and the poor? The fact that the poor stay poor and the rich get richer? Remember how we used to have this whole 'American Dream' about being able to get wealthy (or at least comfortable) based on good old fashioned hard work and American ingenuity? Yeah, being able to pretty much blame the downfall of the American dream on Reaganomics makes it pretty easy for people to dislike Reagan. Not to mention the absurd level to which some conservatives worship the guy. He wasn't a BAD President, he just created lasting and possibly irreconcilable economic problems for America.
Not to mention he almost caused the end of the world as we know it. Lucky thing the USSR self-destructed when it did. He gets most of the credit for that, despite the fact that he was really only in the right place at the right time.
Republicans are in love with the fact that he didn't totally destroy the country, and he was just some cowboy actor with a soothing southern drawl.
Not to mention he almost caused the end of the world as we know it. Lucky thing the USSR self-destructed when it did. He gets most of the credit for that, despite the fact that he was really only in the right place at the right time.
Republicans are in love with the fact that he didn't totally destroy the country, and he was just some cowboy actor with a soothing southern drawl.
As a non-American, I don't see Reagan as particularly bad or particularly good. Everything went mostly okay, couple of scandals just like any president, and so on.
He's often strongly championed for two things I think rather dubious.
Firstly, he probably doesn't deserve a huge amount of credit for the collapse of the USSR. The USSR had been failing economically and politically long before Reagan, although I think he nudged them down a bit faster. He achieved considerable economic growth, but he could be docked marks when the wealth gap increased hugely and social mobility decreased. He was also responsible for the massive debt the USA had even before the bail out, as he cut taxes and increased spending.
All in all, a few plusses, few minuses from my point of view.
He's often strongly championed for two things I think rather dubious.
Firstly, he probably doesn't deserve a huge amount of credit for the collapse of the USSR. The USSR had been failing economically and politically long before Reagan, although I think he nudged them down a bit faster. He achieved considerable economic growth, but he could be docked marks when the wealth gap increased hugely and social mobility decreased. He was also responsible for the massive debt the USA had even before the bail out, as he cut taxes and increased spending.
All in all, a few plusses, few minuses from my point of view.
Sorry man, but this is a load of shite and typical of the responses given by both sides in the liberal vs conservative arguments today, both of which are based more on emotional response than logical thought processes and critical thinking. The rest of your post practically admitted as such and proved what I'm saying.Whispering Death said:
I'm disgusted by the political system in the US today. We're being led today by, for the most part, a bunch of snot-nosed brats born into privilege, who then enter "public service" where they continue to earn huge paychecks and enjoy excellent health care while having playground fights instead of practicing politics as it should be...listening to constituents and compromising for the betterment of the society. Instead we get party loyalty, which helps nobody but the politicians, and we citizens eat the entire shit pie up and ask for seconds.