Breaking news: RONALD REAGAN HAS DIED TODAY

by sf 38 Replies latest social current

  • Daga
    Daga

    Reagan was a great President, one of the two best in the 20th Century. He was relentless in his intent to end the peril of Communism and he was successful. All this stuff about the Soviet Union falling of its own weight is a lot of revisionis history, simply because the left doesn't want to give the credit where it is due.

    And there is some truly disgusting stuff coming out of some liberals about Reagan but not too much. The vast majority of people liked him even if they didn't agree with him.

    Check out the following for some of the bad stuff http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_8675.shtml

  • Daga
    Daga

    Brilliant quote from Sharansky:

    Natan Sharansky (né Anatoly Shcharansky), the Soviet dissident turned Israeli official, tells a story of Reagan in today's Jerusalem Post:

    In 1983, I was confined to an eight-by-ten-foot prison cell on the border of Siberia. My Soviet jailers gave me the privilege of reading the latest copy of Pravda. Splashed across the front page was a condemnation of President Ronald Reagan for having the temerity to call the Soviet Union an "evil empire." Tapping on walls and talking through toilets, word of Reagan's "provocation" quickly spread throughout the prison. We dissidents were ecstatic. Finally, the leader of the free world had spoken the truth--a truth that burned inside the heart of each and every one of us.

    Let's remember that Reagan took a lot of flak for that statement--from many of the same people who now criticize President Bush for, among other things, identifying the axis of evil. In 1983 they agreed with Pravda rather than Sharansky. Apparently they are condemned to repeat history.

  • avishai
    avishai
    By the way, none of us Liberals are happy to see anyone die. And there is no celebrating here

    That's a blanket statement, and untrue. Du you speak for all liberals? I'm sure there are many, as well as some conservatives who are happy, and are celebrating.

    He pissed off a lot of people, especially when he was Mccarthy's lapdog, and helped ruin a lot of lives. I like a lot of what he did. But no that. He did some bad stuff.

  • talesin
    talesin

    Avi,

    Hell, no one is celebrating his death. That is such a nasty thought, and far beneath you. Liberals might have celebrated the end of his presidency, but let's not be silly and think anyone is happy he's dead. After all, he was just a sick old man who hid his illness during his presidency, was a pawn for big business, and was a mediocre actor, but none of us is malicious enough to be happy that he suffered a horrible illness.

    I, for one, feel a lot of compassion for him, gawd, I wouldn't wish Altzheimer's on my worst enemy (well, maybe I would to the molesters heheh). Ronnie was just a man, no more no less than many others, but let's not canonize him nor demonize him.

    tal

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    ""Or the ramifications of his nuclear buildup?""

    lol Which helped bring down the USSR....Even his opposers now admit. Thank goodness your views are with the fringe minority.

    Remembering Ronald Reagan

    by David Boaz

    David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute and author of Libertarianism: A Primer. He campaigned for Reagan in 1976.

    Ronald Reagan was the most eloquent spokesman for limited government of our time. Through 25 years of tirelessly "raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors" of political principle, he succeeded in changing the climate of opinion in the United States and around the world.

    From his first appearance on the national political scene in 1964, he spoke for the values he set forth in his nationally televised speech just before that election:

    This idea that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

    You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order -- or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits."

    The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.

    As a liberal who moved to the right, he might have been called the first neoconservative. Except that he had been a liberal anticommunist, not a communist like the original neoconservatives. And his conservatism involved making government smaller, not using big government for conservative goals. We miss that kind of conservatism in Washington today.

    In his first inaugural address, he proclaimed,

    In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.

    It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.

    His actions in office did not always fulfill those promises. Government spending continued to grow, there was little devolution of power to the states, and the cost of federal regulation continued to increase. Instead of abolishing two Cabinet departments, as he had promised (Education and Energy), he created one (Veterans Affairs). We owe to him the presidencies of George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, neither of whom shared his commitment to liberty and limited government.

    Nevertheless, after he succeeded a president who gave us good reason to believe that our nation was in a malaise, he revived our spirits and our faith in free enterprise. He slashed marginal tax rates and revived the sagging economy. Along with Margaret Thatcher, he both symbolized and galvanized a renewed enthusiasm for entrepreneurship and free markets. In his second inaugural, he echoed his words from 20 years earlier:

    By 1980, we knew it was time to renew our faith, to strive with all our strength toward the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with an orderly society. We believed then and now there are no limits to growth and human progress when men and women are free to follow their dreams.

    Reagan was regarded as a social conservative, and he often spoke of "our values of faith, family, work, and neighborhood." But he rarely sought to use government to impose those values. In 1978 he spoke out against an antigay initiative in California. Robert Kaiser of the Washington Post, noting that the Reagans were the first White House occupants to have hosted a gay couple overnight, dubbed him in 1984 a "closet tolerant."

    Much of Reagan's presidency, of course, was dominated by the Cold War and the long struggle with communism. In a 1983 speech he shocked the chattering classes by telling the truth about the Soviet Union:

    Let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness -- pray they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the Earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world....

    I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages even now are being written....

    I urge you to beware the temptation of pride -- the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire.

    One could debate the advisability of particular foreign policy initiatives, but it was surely a good thing to be honest about the nature of totalitarian communism. His words declared an end to "moral equivalence" and a determination to seize the moral high ground in the struggle with communism, and they inspired people behind the Iron Curtain to believe that they might indeed be able to put an end to the "sad, bizarre chapter of human history" they were forced to live through.

    As the last pages of that chapter did indeed begin to unfold, Reagan went to Berlin and in perhaps his most famous words ever, issued a challenge to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev:

    General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

    A year later, in 1988, Reagan visited Gorbachev in Moscow. Allowed to speak to students at Moscow State University, he gave them a brilliant discussion of the nature of a free society:

    The explorers of the modern era are the entrepreneurs, men with vision, with the courage to take risks and faith enough to brave the unknown. These entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States. They are the prime movers of the technological revolution. In fact, one of the largest personal computer firms in the United States was started by two college students, no older than you, in the garage behind their home....

    We are seeing the power of economic freedom spreading around the world -- places such as the Republic of Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan have vaulted into the technological era, barely pausing in the industrial age along the way. Low-tax agricultural policies in the sub-continent mean that in some years India is now a net exporter of food. Perhaps most exciting are the winds of change that are blowing over the People's Republic of China, where one-quarter of the world's population is now getting its first taste of economic freedom....

    Go into any schoolroom, and there you will see children being taught the Declaration of Independence, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights -- among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- that no government can justly deny -- the guarantees in their Constitution for freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion....

    But freedom is more even than this: Freedom is the right to question, and change the established way of doing things. It is the continuing revolution of the marketplace. It is the understanding that allows us to recognize shortcomings and seek solutions. It is the right to put forth an idea, scoffed at by the experts, and watch it catch fire among the people. It is the right to stick -- to dream -- to follow your dream, or stick to your conscience, even if you're the only one in a sea of doubters.

    Freedom is the recognition that no single person, no single authority of government has a monopoly on the truth, but that every individual life is infinitely precious.

    Ronald Reagan often said that "the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." I heard him say that at Vanderbilt University in 1975, when I had the honor to dine with him before his speech and get his signature on my "Reagan for President" newsletter. These days I put it somewhat differently: the best aspect of American conservatism is its commitment to protecting the individual liberties proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed in the Constitution. Ronald Reagan spoke for that brand of conservatism. That's the conservatism we sorely miss in today's Washington and today's Republican party.

  • CountryGuy
    CountryGuy
    By the way, none of us Liberals are happy to see anyone die. And there is no celebrating here.

    That's a blanket statement, and untrue. Du you speak for all liberals? I'm sure there are many, as well as some conservatives who are happy, and are celebrating.

    Avishai,

    You are correct. However, I wasn't really talking about or for all liberals. I was speaking about JWD. I know that I'm not the official spokesman for the board's liberals, but I'd like to think that none of us here would be celebrating anyone's death. (Except maybe the death of the WT.) It seemed that Richie was unjustly saying that some who had mentioned some negative points of Reagan's presidency were celebrating his death. I just wanted to point out that that was not the case.

    Thanks,
    Country

  • William Penwell
    William Penwell

    I for one am not celebrating his death. My grandmother died of Alzheimer's, so appreciate what his family is going through but if I don't agree with what he was as a man I am not going to start praising him now. I don't like him because I found him to be a phoney, shallow minded, uncompassionate and insincere person. He, like most politicians, was only out for his own gains. I think we maybe giving him too much created for things that were out of his control. His image was a creation of the Republican PR people and the media bought into it.

    Will

  • avishai
    avishai

    Tal and CG, thank you, and I appreciate your compassion. I was in a way pointing out the polarizing nature of politics. I know you are both great people.

  • RevMalk
    RevMalk
    When Ronald Reagan took office, Iran held American hostages. Inflation was abround 12% to 15%. Mortgage interest was at 17% (I was luckly, because my mortgage was only 16%) and few people could buy a house ... unemployment was at 10% and rising ... and the economy was in a mess. The upper marginal income tax rate was 70%. The Soviet Union was making hell around the world, either directly, or through its subordinate puppet states.

    Reagan launched the greatest and longest post-war (WWII for the young people) economic boom, a boom that George Sr. and Clinton inherited. He forced the conditions which led to the fall of the Soviet Union and Communism around the world ... all without a shot being fired. Tax rates were brought down to 28%. Unemployment reduced to 4% or less. And now today we enjoy 6% mortgage rates.

    He had trouble with the Iran-Contra scandal, but I agreed with his actions ... the scandale went away. While the lower tax rates boomed the economy, which brought in more tax revenue by virtue of the growth, the spend-happy members of congress managed to keep over-spending ... my only complaint about Reagan is that he signed the spending bills. I wish he would have shut down the government until Congress got serious about spending cuts.

    Ronald Reagan achieved far more in eight years than Franklin Roosevelt did in 14 years as President ... and the claims that he killed more people than Pol Pot is typical of the radical idiots who refuse to take an honest look at history. Ronald Reagan had nothing to do with mass killings of any kind. - Jim W.

    Well Put!!Well Put!!Well Put!!Well Put!!Well Put!!Well Put!!Well Put!!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit