It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

6 Objective Reasons Ronald Reagan Was your Worst President

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok


Forget Clinton, Bush or Obama. Regan always to me seems to be the one that sent the USA on its downward spiral.



On the plus side he did not lead the world into nuclear holocaust. He sort of did the opposite.

That ought to count for something.
Silly onessidet list.




posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: DupontDeux

That was never going to happen anyway.

Both sides were never going to press the button unless the USA invaded the USSR or the USSR invdaed the USA. Both were events that were never going to happen.

Infact we are probably worse off today, USA and Russia might not have started a nuclear war but Pakistand and Inida? North Korea? Israel?
edit on 9-6-2016 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99


He was great in the eyes of people that are almost dead.


You're *cough* damn right!!
Where's Kevorkian *choke sputter drool* ?



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: nwtrucker

Please explain my so called left "views"?

Who are my "ilk" ?

I seem to be more small goverment than you. Hence you are the "lefty".


Left, anti-American, same area code.

The answer is self-evident. Your thread, your 'hindsight' on events you weren't around to experience and those that have responded on this thread similarly.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

So you cant name any true left policys I support so instead your talking out your arse.....got it


Here is a tip old man. Next time ditch the left/right Childish black/white Ideology of everyone that disagree with me must be (Left/Right) and focus on the topic

edit on 9-6-2016 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   
We were 30yr old working adults in 1980 and his policy of anti unions, changing the tax structure and taking away a lot of deductions we use to enjoy as laborers, set us back for 30 yrs. Idaho went "right to work" and his wage went from $18 to $10/hr, we were poor suddenly.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: DupontDeux

That was never going to happen anyway.

Both sides were never going to press the button unless the USA invaded the USSR or the USSR invdaed the USA. Both were events that were never going to happen.

Infact we are probably worse off today, USA and Russia might not have started a nuclear war but Pakistand and Inida? North Korea? Israel?


Really? REALLY. You weren't there.

This is an event covered by the A.& E History channel, chase it down if your interested. It was during the Reagan era, just after the shoot sown of that KAL 747 over the Soviet Union. The KGB was convinced that Reagan intended a pre-emptive strike on the Soviet Union. They ordered their spies and consulate people to collect ANY information that would confirm/prove that intent. (Reagan was an actor....
) Agents were removed for NOT finding anything that confirmed as they weren't doing their job.

The 'Comrade' In-charge of their threat board had an incident where an ICBM launch bloom-heat- was detected in the U.S.. That was quickly followed by four more heat blooms for a total of five. Protocol called for an immediate and massive counter-launch. He hesitated. He couldn't see why the U.S. would only launch five ICBMs. He didn't follow those protocols and immediately inform the next person on the chain of command.

Short cut to the end of this, it turns out the Soviet computers misread solar heat reflection from high level clouds as ICBM launches...

He wasn't sent to Siberia, but was removed from his position....

That close and that's only one incident. Apparently there were others.

As far as Israel, Pakistan, et al goes. I'd agree. The exception is they don't and will never have 20,000, 30,000 or more warheads on each side that would automatically be set off.

It was a depressing time. Ending it was job one.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

What strikes me is why?

The USA Economy has already unparalleled and was working for the majority of Americans.

Why fix what wasn’t broken?

Regan to me seemed to take a well functioning economy (ok with some faults) and turn it into the unstable low wage mess we have today that works for only a minority of very wealthy.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

Idaho made that law, NOT Reagan.


Another thing is Reagan never had Congressional control. The guys that control the money? Hello? Democrat controlled.


They made and passed the legislation
....



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I'm off to work...it been fun as usual...



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Reagan was a life-long actor. He was paid well to do that job.

Question is: Who was he 'really' working for? I think you'll find out if you look at who his VP and successor was.

America's downward spiral began shortly before 1910 ... 08 or 09 if memory serves. It went over the edge during the Eisenhower administration ... and there was never any comin' back.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Maybe you do have point here.
Not entirely convinced, yes there were near misses but deliberate nuclear war was never going to happen. shorting the cold war just reduced the chance of a accidental near miss being catastrophic. Though I’m doubtful the USSR would have lasted anyway even without Regan as the whole foundation of the USSR was unstable.



See, when you ditch the left/right # and accusing being of being “wingers” and discuss things properly then you can make a good point.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Reagan was trash, but Obama, Bush, and Nixon join him on the worst president bench.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Just like his contemporary here in the UK Reagan was a half-decent orator, good at stage managing Public Relations, he was excellent at projecting an image of self-assuredness and strong and commanding leadership.
In addition he appeared to represent a clear 'vision' of what the USA, and to a lesser extent the world, both could and should be.

He was strong and resolute in his dealings with the Soviet Union.
But he also recognised both the need and opportunity to seek agreement with the Soviets.
It could be argued that his approach helped bring about the era of glasnost and perestroika.

But I remember at the time he filled me full of fear.
His rantings about the 'evil empire' and 'star wars' seemed to be those of a man consumed with hatred and bitterness.

His economic and domestic policies seemed to be reactionary, short-sighted and aimed at enriching the elite rather than looking after the interests of ordinary, everyday working Americans.

As with most people, especially politicians, he seems to have been a man of contradictions.

Although still not being fond of the man or his legacy, I do however think its fair to say that I view him more favourably now with the benefit of time, age and hindsight than I did during his actual presidency.
Something I can't say for his afore mentioned British counterpart whom I still view with absolute disgust.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 10:56 AM
link   
The Regan era was a time of fear, numbing fear of the Russians. He was able to cause a new era of peace.

www.youtube.com...

We had inherited a world ripe for war, We had dealt with Iran, there would be Pol Pot, South America Sandinistas, a whole new movement in our youth reflected in the Punk culture, a generation Lost with no real future.....

www.youtube.com...

Given the circumstance, I think Ronald Regan secured peace, which in turn led to the prosperity in the 90's. Probably the best of modern times that we had.
edit on 9-6-2016 by Plotus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: ugmold
a reply to: crazyewok
Funny how the usual Right Wing Hannity's of ATS are avoiding this thread.


A waste of time, especially when the left is reduced to decrying Presidents long gone and avoid the flaws of the President they're trying to elect.....


Hardly when you see the long term results of Failed Policies which the GOP still consider "good" for the Country.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   
The Russians wanted peace because they were broke and could not maintain perpetual war (something we will face soon). The actor, Ronald Reagan, gave them a way.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: ugmold

We're not ignoring it, we're just at our jobs.

LOL, sorry, couldn't resist.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

Reagan was a life-long actor. He was paid well to do that job.

Question is: Who was he 'really' working for? I think you'll find out if you look at who his VP and successor was.



Bullseye.

Who could arrange an arms for hostages deal with Iran before the election? A former Governor, or the head of the CIA? Who had the connections to have the CIA smuggle coc aine into the US? Who was in the best position to get dirt on Jessie Jackson so he would shut the heck up and mind his manners?

Running Regan for POTUS was a master stroke. After the Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations Americans desperately needed to feel good about their country again. Regan was the perfect puppet for the job at the right time. He was great in front of the camera and could pull off the one-liners like no other. When he did go off the rails a little bit, an assassination attempt reminded him to stay on script.

When Bush stepped up to the spotlight, he tried to emulate Regan's style. But he just didn't have the wit and charisma to distract the country the way Regan could.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

He was President, very vocal in his anti union stance,appointed union foes to key NLRB positions, and the labor department. And that is when mexicans began taking our jobs because they do not like unions, at that time anyway.







 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join