believer;806523 wrote:I never thought a dorky looking inept peanut farmer from Plains, Georgia would emerge to become POTUS either, but Jimmy Carter did. Thanks to Carter, Ronald Reagan was a shoo-in.

Let's hope Obama is the prelude to someone similar.

Why....what in the hell did Ronald Regan ever really do?

Ronald RegAn? Don't have a clue.

Ronald ReAgan was a leader when the US desperately needed one after Carter. He was very instrumental in the fall of the Soviet Union and ending the Cold War.

Other than that, not much.

Had he not had a willing partner in Mikhail Gorbachev...he would not have even gotten that done. Lets not act like he did it all by himself

Ready for a leader after Carter? Hell I could have been President after Carter

Ty Webb;806794 wrote:Why....what in the hell did Ronald Regan ever really do?

First, he knew how to spell his last name.

Reagan also was an inspirational leader; something Obama only wishes he could be.

Reagan had the uncanny ability of making us feel as if it's good to be American again after years of negative self-reflection as a nation regarding Viet Nam, Watergate, civil rights reform, etc. Reagan bypassed the liberal media and spoke directly to the American people in a positive, uplifting manner. Obama chides, scolds, wags his finger, and blames.

Reagan's tax cuts also brought us out of the stagflation and economic malaise of the disastrous Carter years.

He deregulated the airline industry making it possible for average Americans to afford air transportation.

He built up our military after Carter and his Democratic Congress decimated it in the mid to late 70's....and please don't tell me that's not true; I lived the Carter Army and then the Reagan Air Force.

Reagan stood up to the Soviet Union and was the clear voice that started the collapse of European communism.

Reagan wasn't perfect, but he WAS a leader. Obama is too busy playing golf, throwing parties at taxpayer expense, and making world wide apology tours to lead.

Ty Webb;806804 wrote:Had he not had a willing partner in Mikhail Gorbachev...he would not have even gotten that done. Lets not act like he did it all by himself

Ready for a leader after Carter? Hell I could have been President after Carter

Since Obama is as inept as Carter, maybe you can run as the Republican candidate in 2012. It would be better than what we have.

believer;806808 wrote:First, he knew how to spell his last name.

Reagan also was an inspirational leader; something Obama only wishes he could be.

Reagan had the uncanny ability of making us feel as if it's good to be American again after years of negative self-reflection as a nation regarding Viet Nam, Watergate, civil rights reform, etc. Reagan bypassed the liberal media and spoke directly to the American people in a positive, uplifting manner. Obama chides, scolds, wags his finger, and blames.

Reagan's tax cuts also brought us out of the stagflation and economic malaise of the disastrous Carter years.

He deregulated the airline industry making it possible for average Americans to afford air transportation.

He built up our military after Carter and his Democratic Congress decimated it in the mid to late 70's....and please don't tell me that's not true; I lived the Carter Army and then the Reagan Air Force.

Reagan stood up to the Soviet Union and was the clear voice that started the collapse of European communism.

Reagan wasn't perfect, but he WAS a leader. Obama is too busy playing golf, throwing parties at taxpayer expense, and making world wide apology tours to lead.

Let me preface this by saying Reagan was a great President and the best since Ike. That said, he gets the Bill Brasky treatment a lot.
Reagan was a leader, but had many set backs or short comings.
Sure, he grew the economy, but that lead to the weak economy in the early 90s.
He grew our military, but also grew the debt level as a result, and some of that was pointless money spent (see the MX missile).

His policy towards the Soviets was dangerous in his first term and excellent in his second. His first term nearly saw us go to war several times (82 nearly twice). His second term, when Gorb was in charge and Reagan learned it was better to talk with them instead of grand stand led to the break through of the late 80s.

He also didn't win the Cold War. The fall of the Soviets was a long time coming and the result of many factors, including Reagan, but also poor economic policy by the Soviets, NATO, Gorb and Afghanistan. If we want to to pin the Cold War victory on anyone, it is Truman for establishing the framework and institution that led to the eventual end.

Also, his National Security Council was a mess, he had 7 National Security Advisers and no framework or oversight for it. That led to Iran Contra.
Again, Reagan was a great leader, but had many flaws that nearly always get over looked.

believer;806175 wrote:Writer, you know that Stlouie is just going to scoff at Ventre's well written op-ed and claim he's just an opinionated misinformed, right-wing hack...right?

Nah, I don't need to do that. A lot of what Writer claimed in his post I questioned wasn't addressed in the link, not that I expected to see anything of the sort. The only thing that link told me was that GE Capital got some of the TARP bailout. There was nothing to support his claims at all. Writer likes to inject opinion as fact-based. Maybe it makes him look knowledgeable to the weak-minded.

Writerbuckeye;806801 wrote:Ronald RegAn? Don't have a clue.

Ronald ReAgan was a leader when the US desperately needed one after Carter. He was very instrumental in the fall of the Soviet Union and ending the Cold War.

Other than that, not much.

I'm often stunned at how people claim today's economy is the worst ever, especially since it started under Satan's child, George W. Bush. Having lived through the late 70's and early 80's, jobs were scarce, inflation was ungodly high (but we don't measure it the same way anymore because we're too sensitive and can't take the bad news), interest rates were about 20% (few could afford a mortgage), and the mood of the country was horrible. We had a POTUS that couldn't break the will of Iranian students, we had OPEC strangling us while laughing all the way to the bank, we had a country that was splintering politically, and no one knew how to fix what ailed us. Ronald Reagan was a lot of things to a lot of people, but most of all he was the eternal optimist that allowed Americans to find a way to be positive and rise above the malaise and pits we were in. Compared to Ronald Wilson Reagan, Obama doesn't even have the ability to write, "thank you notes", let alone stir the positive energy that he could generate in a moment's notice.

ptown_trojans_1;806950 wrote:He also didn't win the Cold War. The fall of the Soviets was a long time coming and the result of many factors, including Reagan, but also poor economic policy by the Soviets, NATO, Gorb and Afghanistan. If we want to to pin the Cold War victory on anyone, it is Truman for establishing the framework and institution that led to the eventual end.

I agree EXCEPT that Reagan had the balls to call a spade a spade. You have to admit he had the Soviet's attention as opposed to the weakness exhibited by Carter.

I already admitted that Reagan wasn't perfect, but IMHO, the main purpose of the President of the United States is to set the national tone and lead.

Reagan was a master at it.

BGFalcons82;807006 wrote:Ronald Reagan was a lot of things to a lot of people, but most of all he was the eternal optimist that allowed Americans to find be positive and rise above the malaise and pits we were in. Compared to Ronald Wilson Reagan, Obama doesn't even have the ability to write, "thank you notes", let alone stir the positive energy that he could generate in a moment's notice.

this

stlouiedipalma;807001 wrote:Maybe it makes him look knowledgeable to the weak-minded.

Or maybe he just has more common-sense than the liberal-minded.

ptown_trojans_1;806950 wrote:Let me preface this by saying Reagan was a great President and the best since Ike. That said, he gets the Bill Brasky treatment a lot.
Reagan was a leader, but had many set backs or short comings.
Sure, he grew the economy, but that lead to the weak economy in the early 90s.
He grew our military, but also grew the debt level as a result, and some of that was pointless money spent (see the MX missile).

His policy towards the Soviets was dangerous in his first term and excellent in his second. His first term nearly saw us go to war several times (82 nearly twice). His second term, when Gorb was in charge and Reagan learned it was better to talk with them instead of grand stand led to the break through of the late 80s.

He also didn't win the Cold War. The fall of the Soviets was a long time coming and the result of many factors, including Reagan, but also poor economic policy by the Soviets, NATO, Gorb and Afghanistan. If we want to to pin the Cold War victory on anyone, it is Truman for establishing the framework and institution that led to the eventual end.

Also, his National Security Council was a mess, he had 7 National Security Advisers and no framework or oversight for it. That led to Iran Contra.
Again, Reagan was a great leader, but had many flaws that nearly always get over looked.

Ehh....I don't think so ptown

ReAgan didn't do jack shit as President and that is a fact

stlouiedipalma;807001 wrote:Nah, I don't need to do that. A lot of what Writer claimed in his post I questioned wasn't addressed in the link, not that I expected to see anything of the sort. The only thing that link told me was that GE Capital got some of the TARP bailout. There was nothing to support his claims at all. Writer likes to inject opinion as fact-based. Maybe it makes him look knowledgeable to the weak-minded.

From the first link:

"Should anyone be surprised that Immelt gets to keep his CEO job while cheerleading the Obama administration and soliciting government contracts for GE?"

Add in the TARP bailout and it covers everything I claimed. GE is primed to get all kinds of green contracts as payback for its "cheerleading" of Obama and his policies. The Brian Williams piece -- the ONLY one like it done by any member of the MSM -- was probably the crowning touch toward the bailout and future contracts.

From the Examiner column:

In all seriousness, the obsequious coverage is as obvious and transparent as the Teleprompters on which the president relies. And it comes with expectation of ROR (return on ruination of a once respected news network for monetary gain).

If you aren't seeing any of this, it's because you're willfully blind and naive.

GE is one of the leaders in "green" technology is it not?

Don't know what your point is. Even if true, that doesn't mean they should be deliberately selling out their coverage to get contracts. I think it's pretty obvious that that is what they've been doing.

reagan cut taxes??? how many times did he raise them??? he was a great communicator since he was an actor, as lindsey graham said i think romney has alot of jimmy carter in him!!! LOL!!! allthough he did come up with obama care first one thing about romney he appeals to everybody since hes flip flopped on about everything.

wgh raider;807213 wrote:reagan cut taxes??? how many times did he raise them??? he was a great communicator since he was an actor, as lindsey graham said i think romney has alot of jimmy carter in him!!! LOL!!! allthough he did come up with obama care first one thing about romney he appeals to everybody since hes flip flopped on about everything.

I'm sure you had some points to make, but your thoughts are flip flopping round on just about everything.

Writerbuckeye;807158 wrote:Don't know what your point is. Even if true, that doesn't mean they should be deliberately selling out their coverage to get contracts. I think it's pretty obvious that that is what they've been doing.

No No No Writer. Don't you see? Since anything relating to green energy/living/sustenance is akin to singing kumbaya with Mother Earth herself, then there are no rules and regulations. If GE is saving the planet, then everyone needs to let them be on their merry way and please PLEASE don't stop them. They are the second coming.

However, if Haliburton gets any deals or gubmint contracts, then we should have full Senate and House investigations, the FBI and CIA need to get deeply involved, and nothing short of a lynching will suffice.

Get it?

Looks like Ty's slam dunk election race has hit a chuckhole in the road -
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44311

The most interesting one to me is the 51% approval rating he got after doing what all Americans wanted to do in taking out Bin Laden. That is his ceiling, Ty...he can't do any better than that, only worse. Better hope the D's can muster up another faux Tea Partier like they did in NY last month so that Barry can win like Bill did with less than 50% of the vote.

BGFalcons82;807271 wrote:No No No Writer. Don't you see? Since anything relating to green energy/living/sustenance is akin to singing kumbaya with Mother Earth herself, then there are no rules and regulations. If GE is saving the planet, then everyone needs to let them be on their merry way and please PLEASE don't stop them. They are the second coming.

However, if Haliburton gets any deals or gubmint contracts, then we should have full Senate and House investigations, the FBI and CIA need to get deeply involved, and nothing short of a lynching will suffice.

Get it?

No, the point was that I'd like to see some evidence that GE is receiving contracts because of the reasons Writer stated and not because they are one of the largest makers of "green" products. Has nothing to do with Kumbaya or any of that bullshit so you can quit using dumb stereotypes.

Can we also end the childish "messiah" crap anytime someone doesn't feel like bashing everything to do with the left/Obama? Just because I'm not frothing at the mouth with a seething rage 24/7 like you guys doesn't mean he's my damned messiah or that I think he or the left is somehow great.

I Wear Pants;808470 wrote:No, the point was that I'd like to see some evidence that GE is receiving contracts because of the reasons Writer stated and not because they are one of the largest makers of "green" products. Has nothing to do with Kumbaya or any of that bull**** so you can quit using dumb stereotypes.

Can we also end the childish "messiah" crap anytime someone doesn't feel like bashing everything to do with the left/Obama? Just because I'm not frothing at the mouth with a seething rage 24/7 like you guys doesn't mean he's my damned messiah or that I think he or the left is somehow great.

When you have a president who said, "I am the one we've been waiting for" it's hardly a stretch to think he has a messiah complex -- and thus the derisive term that has followed him since saying that line of BS.

I Wear Pants;808470 wrote:No, the point was that I'd like to see some evidence that GE is receiving contracts because of the reasons Writer stated and not because they are one of the largest makers of "green" products. Has nothing to do with Kumbaya or any of that bullshit so you can quit using dumb stereotypes.

Can we also end the childish "messiah" crap anytime someone doesn't feel like bashing everything to do with the left/Obama? Just because I'm not frothing at the mouth with a seething rage 24/7 like you guys doesn't mean he's my damned messiah or that I think he or the left is somehow great.

No, the point is that Haliburton is advertised by the press as evil and Dick Cheney once sat on their Board...EE-GAD. GE is awesomely glorious according to them because they are in a deep harmonious cum-fest with Mother Earth. The press feeds on this and chooses to look the other way when their boss is involved. It's simple hypocrisy and the Left never sees it....only a blood lust hatred for anything associated with Bush and Cheney.

Context. By "I am the one we've been waiting for" he meant a non corrupt politician who would listen to the wants and needs of all citizens, not just the most loud or powerful. Obviously that hasn't been the case but acting like he was saying he was a messiah is disingenuous.

I'd still like to see evidence that they got contracts based on anything other than them being a major player in the market so I can more accurately damn/pardon them.

After that I'd say there is still a major difference between the two even assuming GE is being given contracts via corrupt means (which I would most certainly and most people would most certainly have a problem with). That difference is a war.

Another thing: Don't tell me what my point was.

Using that wording -- for any reason -- shows an ego beyond measure, and likely a narcissistic bent. It cannot, and should not, be defended.

Any rational voter who heard him use wording like that -- even in that context -- should have seen a huge red flag and run for cover.

First off, I didn't vote for him so...

Second, this is another one of those situations where I think it's a bad way to say something and you guys take it as a damning conviction that he is an egomaniacle narcissist that thinks he's a messiah.

Eh, we (those on here) aren't even close to all the people who think the President is a narcissist and probably has a personality straight out of a psych textbook. And not all of them are on the conservative side of the political spectrum, either.

I Wear Pants;808577 wrote:First off, I didn't vote for him so...

Second, this is another one of those situations where I think it's a bad way to say something and you guys take it as a damning conviction that he is an egomaniacle narcissist that thinks he's a messiah.

I don't think he thinks he's the Messiah or anything...I concede that's a reach. He's a classic narcissist though...it only takes a couple chapters of any Psych 101 textbook to see that.