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.

 

We need a Ronald Reagan

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Its funny,

From the conservative sphere you here a lot of talk about government spending being bad,
yet Reagan was the first president in history to run our nation on such a massive debt platform.

Doesn't that compute with anyone? Or is all the talk, just talk?

Reagan, raised taxes MORE than socialist Obama too... Go figure that one.

I think the core essence of conservatism has NOTHING to do with actions or policy,
case in point this thread, it just feels good.






posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta
Its funny,

From the conservative sphere you here a lot of talk about government spending being bad,
yet Reagan was the first president in history to run our nation on such a massive debt platform.

Doesn't that compute with anyone? Or is all the talk, just talk?

Reagan, raised taxes MORE than socialist Obama too... Go figure that one.

I think the core essence of conservatism has NOTHING to do with actions or policy,
case in point this thread, it just feels good.



and you could ignore the fact that Reagan was the one person that posited less government over all things. Or you could just be a hippie liberal spewing talking points.

You pick. and that whole recovery thing after Jimmah Carter got ousted (with a vengeance) was attributed to who? again?
edit on 7-12-2011 by tangonine because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
It's sesame street time:

Big Government = bad

No Government = good

It's pretty damn simple, really



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by tangonine
 


Ronald Reagan is an elitist a NWO puppet speaking of which...

Here he is at the Bohemian Grove

I mage Source

All mens club.
edit on 7-12-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   
why yes yes we do My fellow Americans , in times like thees there is one you can count on that is Bonzo , you see we are just a like you, your concerned and worried, we too, am the same way, worried and concerned, just as you are, who can and will defend you from the tyrants that seek to have power over you Bonzo that is who, in times like thees there is one you can count on that is Bonzo My fellow Americans



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by tangonine

Originally posted by mastahunta
Its funny,

From the conservative sphere you here a lot of talk about government spending being bad,
yet Reagan was the first president in history to run our nation on such a massive debt platform.

Doesn't that compute with anyone? Or is all the talk, just talk?

Reagan, raised taxes MORE than socialist Obama too... Go figure that one.

I think the core essence of conservatism has NOTHING to do with actions or policy,
case in point this thread, it just feels good.



and you could ignore the fact that Reagan was the one person that posited less government over all things. Or you could just be a hippie liberal spewing talking points.

You pick. and that whole recovery thing after Jimmah Carter got ousted (with a vengeance) was attributed to who? again?
edit on 7-12-2011 by tangonine because: (no reason given)


Ya buddy, saying stuff and doing stuff are not the same things are they?

Ronald Reagan created more debt than ALL the US presidents before him, not rhetorically,
but ACTUALLY. In fact, over a third of the debt we have now is his debt and the interest on
that debt, its a bleedin fact.

So if you want to feel warm and fuzzy, go for it, if you want to walk the walk
check the mans fiscal record.



ALAN SIMPSON (Republican, Wyoming): Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration. I was here. I was here. I knew him. Better than anybody in this room. He was a dear friend and a total realist as to politics.


www.npr.org...



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by tangonine
It's sesame street time:

Big Government = bad

No Government = good

It's pretty damn simple, really


Sesame Street is about right...

George W got elected twice... I wonder why???



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 02:29 AM
link   
I guess you can take a 'Ronald Reagan' to mean whatever it means to you.
For me I guess the highlight of him was that he had the good sense to pay attention to astrology, although I'm sure many will disagree.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by tangonine
 


Ronnie?

You gotta be kidding me. He's one of the worst presidents we've ever had.

There are no GOOD candidates out there.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by tangonine
 


No government = chaos, death and every man/woman/child for themselves.

Do you really want that?

Is this some kind of death wish for anti-government types?



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   
No we don't



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


You seriously think that clown Reagan telling Gorby to tear down the wall is why it came down? Russia was bankrupted by trying to keep up with our defense spending. IT HAD NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH RONNIE REAGAN. It merely happened to coincidentally happen during his term. IT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED NO MATTER WHO WAS PRESIDENT AT THAT TIME.

It was the failure of Communism that brought down Russia, not Ronald Reagan's mouth.

Let's not forget the CIA had a field day under Ronnie importing Cocaine and bringing down legitimate governments the world over so that US Corporations could have a favorable business environment overseas.

The best thing Ronnie ever did was get shot.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


You seriously think that clown Reagan telling Gorby to tear down the wall is why it came down? Russia was bankrupted by trying to keep up with our defense spending. IT HAD NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH RONNIE REAGAN. It merely happened to coincidentally happen during his term. IT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED NO MATTER WHO WAS PRESIDENT AT THAT TIME.

It was the failure of Communism that brought down Russia, not Ronald Reagan's mouth.

Let's not forget the CIA had a field day under Ronnie importing Cocaine and bringing down legitimate governments the world over so that US Corporations could have a favorable business environment overseas.

The best thing Ronnie ever did was get shot.


You angry liberals are the most fun to watch.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by tangonine
 


And conservative who exalt the liberal Reagan are even more !
How do you like those 11 tax increases?



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta
reply to post by tangonine
 


And conservative who exalt the liberal Reagan are even more !
How do you like those 11 tax increases?




How do you like not being able to buy health insurance?

"The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988. "

You tell me, smartypants.

and what you liberals fail to understand is those of us that actually earn a living aren't afraid to pay taxes; we just want that money spent well (i.e. not Solyndra, or Fast and Stupid, or to pad the coffers of corrupt union officials).
edit on 7-12-2011 by tangonine because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-12-2011 by tangonine because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta
Its funny,

From the conservative sphere you here a lot of talk about government spending being bad,
yet Reagan was the first president in history to run our nation on such a massive debt platform.

Doesn't that compute with anyone? Or is all the talk, just talk?

Reagan, raised taxes MORE than socialist Obama too... Go figure that one.

I think the core essence of conservatism has NOTHING to do with actions or policy,
case in point this thread, it just feels good.




The difference between RR and Obama is RR took the job of president seriously.

Why is it that you hippies scream and flail about demanding that taxes be increased, yet you revile RR for increasing taxes.

A personal anecdote: I was an E-3 in the military when Clinton took over from RR. From my world view: my paycheck got raped (I was making like $500 a week). Prior to Clinton, I could walk in to the base pharmacy and get OTC meds for my infant daughter. After Clinton, Nope. It reached the point where I was an active duty soldier and I qualified for food stamps. I didn't take them, there's a thing in my family called "pride."

What you're missing, dear hippie, is that RR wasn't about taxes: he led. You wouldn't understand that unless someone "leads" you to the local medicinal marijuana store, so I understand.

Obama doesn't lead. He golfs. And he complains about how hard his job is. He's a whiney little girl. You idiots elected him, and what's he done for you? He's golfed, taken vacations, and gotten upset when the people that pay him take issue with his whiney little girlishness.

All this guy (Obama) does is step up the podium and blame someone else for the problem du jour. He couldn't take responsibility for fathering his own children.

I know by this point you probably hate me, but sit back and think: If you owned a coffee shop and you had Obama as an employee, some guy that always blames everyone else for any mistake that happens on his shift, BUT also takes credit for everything good that happens (even though it had nothing to do with him), wouldn't you fire his arse?

You know the type: the one person that complains endlessly about how bad a job the last guy that left the office did. Whiney little girls.
edit on 7-12-2011 by tangonine because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
No we don't

Go research the GE pitchman before you get all nostalgic. The reason we have the candidates that we do is because they're the ones that the corporations bought and paid for. (Research the top contributors for the democratic and republican candidate in the last 3 elections). Same Corporations.
edit on 6-12-2011 by EyesWideShut because: (no reason given)


"No we don't" need a hero? a leader? I think you're correct in saying that the current candidates are the product of corporations (and government) and are ill-suited as leaders, but how does that fact support "No we don't" need a true leader?



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hawking
reply to post by tangonine
 


The last thing we need is more trickle-down Reaganomics BS. Followed by in-office senility


yeah, full on communism/socialism is much better, right?



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
If Ronald Reagan wouldnt have been such an hardass on unions, there could be a somewhat sounder economy in America, with inflation being driven to a greater degree by raising incomes, rather than just by corporate profits, which benefit mostly shareholders. As inflation rises but salaries do not adapt, people can only react by consuming less and less, guess that portion was ommitted in Reagnomics 101. Right now we are seeing the dreaded "side effects" of Reaganomics. People on a fixed income in the lower income bracket have been squeezed as hard as possible. They cant work any longer or take any more jobs. The next step would be to expect them to accept a lower standard of living, while working the same ammount, which translates into them consuming less, which translates into a shrinking innerborder economy and I dont see America becoming king of export anytime soon.

So you have the very rich who dont want to spend too much on salaries, yet somehow they want profits, which means they want people to consume, now we are approaching the end result of it all.

Also you did not put anything out in favor of Reagan in therms of his policies. It is true, that he was a charismatic leader, however I dont see how a charismatic leader is going to help just by oozing charisma.
edit on 7-12-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
If Ronald Reagan wouldnt have been such an hardass on unions, there could be a somewhat sounder economy in America, with inflation being driven to a greater degree by raising incomes, rather than just by corporate profits, which benefit mostly shareholders. Right now we are seeing the dreaded "side effects" of Reaganomics. People on a fixed income in the lower income bracket have been squeezed as hard as possible. They cant work any longer or take any more jobs. The next step would be to expect them to accept a lower standard of living, while working the same ammount.


Unions are outdated. The only reason for a union is to keep people from having to work for pennies a day in sweatshops. That kinda went out the window about 50 years ago.

Now, unions are nothing more than a political tool. They tax their members, they make it mandatory that you join the union in order to get a job. Unions are marxist ##SNIP## and an anathema to the founding principles of this nation.

If I hate anything, I hate unions and stupid people that support them. Each according to his need, right? ##SNIP## commies.
edit on Wed Dec 7 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Note: Do Not Evade the Automatic Censors – Please Review This Link.




top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join