7 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst President of our lifetime

I wonder if he was a cokehead too?

Obama has also said repeatedly that he has quit smoking. First during the campaign and from time to time in office. The doctor recommended he quit smoking about five months ago. He lies about giving up smoking, why not other stuff. His life is so cloaked in secrecy he could be doing anything.

Now that I brought it up let me ask our liberal brethern, don't you think it is very unusual that Obama's life is such a closed book? We know about old girlfriends, childhood drug use, long ago DUIs, and unsubstanciated charges from decades ago but with Obama, nothing. I mean nothing other than they want it to be out there. Does that raise any red flags at all? Does it make you curious?

. . . but with Obama, nothing. I mean nothing other than they want it to be out there. Does that raise any red flags at all? Does it make you curious? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

More than curious, it's very odd. Even his known association with Ayers isn't questioned by the MSM.

Now that I brought it up let me ask our liberal brethern, don't you think it is very unusual that Obama's life is such a closed book? We know about old girlfriends, childhood drug use, long ago DUIs, and unsubstanciated charges from decades ago but with Obama, nothing. I mean nothing other than they want it to be out there. Does that raise any red flags at all? Does it make you curious? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You are right JD, I'm not sure those kids are really even his....

Here is a link if you want to actually learn something. There are some really good b ooks on why you kooks believe in these Conspiracies!


http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smar...y-theories/762

Watergate break-in was a coverup.
But with so few that turn out to be true, why do people believe in conspiracies?
A new article in Scientific American tries to figure that out. Michael Shermer outlines in his “Skeptic” column four traits of those who believe:

• patternicity, or a tendency to find meaningful patterns in random noise;
• agenticity, or the bent to believe the world is controlled by invisible intentional agent;
• confirmation bias, or the seeking and finding of confirmatory evidence for what we already believe;
• hindsight bias, or tailoring after-the-fact explanations to what we already know happened.

On the other hand, distrust contributed to an inflation of the East-West fears during the Cold War, as well as continued belief by some that HIV (which causes AIDS) was created in a lab and distributed by the U.S. government to limit the growth of the African-American population.
Some points from his article:

• People who believe in one theory are more likely to believe in others.
• There is a strong association between income and belief levels: the better-off are less likely to believe in conspiracy theories. (Perhaps this can be chalked up to education.)
• Instability makes most of us uncomfortable; people prefer to imagine living in a predictable, safe world. Some conspiracy theories offer accounts that feel “safe” or “predictable.”
• Conspiracy theories often mutate over time in light of new or contradicting evidence.
• Conspiracies usually require a big newsworthy event on which to peg it.

But it’s Shermer who drives the point home. He writes:

“The more elaborate a conspiracy theory is, and the more people that would need to be involved, the less likely it is true.”

Obama has also said repeatedly that he has quit smoking. First during the campaign and from time to time in office. The doctor recommended he quit smoking about five months ago. He lies about giving up smoking, why not other stuff. His life is so cloaked in secrecy he could be doing anything.

Now that I brought it up let me ask our liberal brethern, don't you think it is very unusual that Obama's life is such a closed book? We know about old girlfriends, childhood drug use, long ago DUIs, and unsubstanciated charges from decades ago but with Obama, nothing. I mean nothing other than they want it to be out there. Does that raise any red flags at all? Does it make you curious? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Obama's close friendship with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers should have been enough to destroy his political career.

If a white conservative Republican had friendships with Nazi's and Klan members he would be thrown out of the party.

Obama's sucess is comparable to David Duke being chosen as the Republican presidential nominee while the media ignored his background.

You are right JD, I'm not sure those kids are really even his....

Here is a link if you want to actually learn something. There are some really good b ooks on why you kooks believe in these Conspiracies!


http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smar...y-theories/762

Watergate break-in was a coverup.
But with so few that turn out to be true, why do people believe in conspiracies?
A new article in Scientific American tries to figure that out. Michael Shermer outlines in his “Skeptic” column four traits of those who believe:

• patternicity, or a tendency to find meaningful patterns in random noise;
• agenticity, or the bent to believe the world is controlled by invisible intentional agent;
• confirmation bias, or the seeking and finding of confirmatory evidence for what we already believe;
• hindsight bias, or tailoring after-the-fact explanations to what we already know happened.

On the other hand, distrust contributed to an inflation of the East-West fears during the Cold War, as well as continued belief by some that HIV (which causes AIDS) was created in a lab and distributed by the U.S. government to limit the growth of the African-American population.
Some points from his article:

• People who believe in one theory are more likely to believe in others.
• There is a strong association between income and belief levels: the better-off are less likely to believe in conspiracy theories. (Perhaps this can be chalked up to education.)
• Instability makes most of us uncomfortable; people prefer to imagine living in a predictable, safe world. Some conspiracy theories offer accounts that feel “safe” or “predictable.”
• Conspiracy theories often mutate over time in light of new or contradicting evidence.
• Conspiracies usually require a big newsworthy event on which to peg it.

But it’s Shermer who drives the point home. He writes:

“The more elaborate a conspiracy theory is, and the more people that would need to be involved, the less likely it is true.”

Originally Posted by WTF

Perhaps then you could avail yourself to explain why the MSM is/was so negligent in detailing the Anointed One's association with a known terrorist and murderer.

Please explain how his association with Jeremiah Wright was not vetted in the same way Herman Cain's associations with females other than his wife were vetted.

Obama's close friendship with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers should have been enough to destroy his political career.

If a white conservative Republican had friendships with Nazi's and Klan members he would be thrown out of the party.

Obama's sucess is comparable to David Duke being chosen as the Republican presidential nominee while the media ignored his background. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Well that is a bit of a strech but compare him to Reagan might be a better choice...
http://www.shmoop.com/reagan-era/race.html

Reagan's abstract, coded appeals to race began with the candidate's very first appearance of the 1980 general election campaign. After accepting his party's nomination for president at the Republican National Convention in Detroit, Reagan traveled to Philadelphia, Mississippi, the site of one of the most horrific hate crimes of the civil rights era—the 1964 murders of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner, three young civil rights activists who were killed for trying to help local black citizens register to vote. Local government authorities then sought to thwart any real investigation of the crime and ensure that the young men's murderers would not be punished.

Sixteen years later, Reagan arrived in Philadelphia, Mississippi. Speaking at the Neshoba County Fair, just a few miles from the earthen dam where the bodies of the three civil rights activists had been buried in 1964, Reagan reassured an enthusiastic audience of 10,000 people that "I believe in states' rights."33 Reagan promised, if elected, to "restore to states and local governments the power that belongs to them."34 During the 1950s and '60s, "States' rights" had been the mantra of southern segregationists who insisted the federal government had no right to intervene to force them to stop discriminating against black people. And "the power that belongs to local governments" had been used in Neshoba County to protect the murderers of civil rights activists.


The Myth of the Chicago Welfare Queen

Reagan developed similar coded appeals to the racial resentments of northern whites as well. His criticisms of federal welfare policy often included an anecdote about a Cadillac-driving "Chicago welfare queen," a black "woman in Chicago. She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards, and is collecting veteran's benefits on 4 non-existing deceased husbands. And she's collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, is getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income alone is over $150,000."38 (In fact, there was no "Chicago welfare queen." Like many of Reagan's anecdotes, this one might charitably be called apocryphal.) The story's accuracy (or lack thereof) notwithstanding, Reagan's "welfare queen" anecdote indulged the prejudice of many northern whites, who came to see welfare as a government-funded scam that allowed lazy, undeserving black people to prosper at the expense of hardworking white taxpayers.

The politics of racism were certainly nothing new in American history, and Reagan was no more guilty than any number of other major political figures in our past for appealing to the least noble sentiments of the American character. What made Reagan's brand of racial politics uniquely powerful, however, was Reagan's success in channeling prejudice against black people into scorn for the government. Implicit in Reagan's multitude of "Chicago welfare queen"-style anecdotes was the notion that federal government spending on social programs was mostly wasted on pointless handouts to black recipients. In fact, during the 1980s more than 85% of the federal budget was allocated to defense spending, Social Security, Medicare, and payments on the national debt—all utterly colorblind expenditures. Even welfare, which Reagan often implied was a program for black people, benefited far more whites than African-Americans. But Reagan carefully cultivated the impression that "government spending" meant "free money for black people," and happily watched as some whites' resentment of blacks morphed into loathing of the government that supposedly coddled them.

Of course, the Reagan Revolution was about much, much more than racism. Most Americans were not racists, and most Reagan voters were not racists. Race was clearly only a peripheral issue in the president's own worldview, and millions of Reagan voters were undoubtedly oblivious to their candidate's coded racial appeals. There were plenty of other political and ideological reasons to support Reagan's movement. But racism was still an undeniable factor in American life in the 1980s, and the Reagan campaign did pursue a deliberate strategy to win the votes of the significant minority of the American population motivated by racial resentment.

Thus, while it's clearly not fair to say that racism alone can explain the Reagan phenomenon, neither is it fair to say that racism played no role.

Well that is a bit of a strech but compare him to Reagan might be a better choice...
http://www.shmoop.com/reagan-era/race.html

Reagan's abstract, coded appeals to race began with the candidate's very first appearance of the 1980 general election campaign. After accepting his party's nomination for president at the Republican National Convention in Detroit, Reagan traveled to Philadelphia, Mississippi, the site of one of the most horrific hate crimes of the civil rights era—the 1964 murders of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner, three young civil rights activists who were killed for trying to help local black citizens register to vote. Local government authorities then sought to thwart any real investigation of the crime and ensure that the young men's murderers would not be punished.

Sixteen years later, Reagan arrived in Philadelphia, Mississippi. Speaking at the Neshoba County Fair, just a few miles from the earthen dam where the bodies of the three civil rights activists had been buried in 1964, Reagan reassured an enthusiastic audience of 10,000 people that "I believe in states' rights."33 Reagan promised, if elected, to "restore to states and local governments the power that belongs to them."34 During the 1950s and '60s, "States' rights" had been the mantra of southern segregationists who insisted the federal government had no right to intervene to force them to stop discriminating against black people. And "the power that belongs to local governments" had been used in Neshoba County to protect the murderers of civil rights activists.


The Myth of the Chicago Welfare Queen

Reagan developed similar coded appeals to the racial resentments of northern whites as well. His criticisms of federal welfare policy often included an anecdote about a Cadillac-driving "Chicago welfare queen," a black "woman in Chicago. She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards, and is collecting veteran's benefits on 4 non-existing deceased husbands. And she's collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, is getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income alone is over $150,000."38 (In fact, there was no "Chicago welfare queen." Like many of Reagan's anecdotes, this one might charitably be called apocryphal.) The story's accuracy (or lack thereof) notwithstanding, Reagan's "welfare queen" anecdote indulged the prejudice of many northern whites, who came to see welfare as a government-funded scam that allowed lazy, undeserving black people to prosper at the expense of hardworking white taxpayers.

The politics of racism were certainly nothing new in American history, and Reagan was no more guilty than any number of other major political figures in our past for appealing to the least noble sentiments of the American character. What made Reagan's brand of racial politics uniquely powerful, however, was Reagan's success in channeling prejudice against black people into scorn for the government. Implicit in Reagan's multitude of "Chicago welfare queen"-style anecdotes was the notion that federal government spending on social programs was mostly wasted on pointless handouts to black recipients. In fact, during the 1980s more than 85% of the federal budget was allocated to defense spending, Social Security, Medicare, and payments on the national debt—all utterly colorblind expenditures. Even welfare, which Reagan often implied was a program for black people, benefited far more whites than African-Americans. But Reagan carefully cultivated the impression that "government spending" meant "free money for black people," and happily watched as some whites' resentment of blacks morphed into loathing of the government that supposedly coddled them.

Of course, the Reagan Revolution was about much, much more than racism. Most Americans were not racists, and most Reagan voters were not racists. Race was clearly only a peripheral issue in the president's own worldview, and millions of Reagan voters were undoubtedly oblivious to their candidate's coded racial appeals. There were plenty of other political and ideological reasons to support Reagan's movement. But racism was still an undeniable factor in American life in the 1980s, and the Reagan campaign did pursue a deliberate strategy to win the votes of the significant minority of the American population motivated by racial resentment.

Thus, while it's clearly not fair to say that racism alone can explain the Reagan phenomenon, neither is it fair to say that racism played no role. Originally Posted by WTF

Surprise, surprise. You went to racist site and found a racist diatribe. Furthermore, Reagan didn't have dinner with the killers.

Surprise, surprise. You went to racist site and found a racist diatribe. Furthermore, Reagan didn't have dinner with the killers. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

No he just courted the killers vote....now did you read the so called racist site conclusion?


Of course, the Reagan Revolution was about much, much more than racism. Agreed Most Americans were not racists, and most Reagan voters were not racists.Agreed Race was clearly only a peripheral issue in the president's own worldview, and millions of Reagan voters were undoubtedly oblivious to their candidate's coded racial appeals.Agreed There were plenty of other political and ideological reasons to support Reagan's movement.Well I do not agree but those have to do with different beliefs systems, I understand where others would agree But racism was still an undeniable factor in American life in the 1980s, and the Reagan campaign did pursue a deliberate strategy to win the votes of the significant minority of the American population motivated by racial resentment. There is no doubt, his people that ran the campaingn admit as much. ***

Thus, while it's clearly not fair to say that racism alone can explain the Reagan phenomenon, neither is it fair to say that racism played no role. Agreed. How can one not agree that race plays no part in elections. It played a huge part in Obama's. You did not see blackls voting for McCain or a shit load of Latino's. Talking aboult reality does not make one bad or right or wrong but the facts are the facts
.

***Lee Atwater, the most influential Republican political operative of the 1980s and Reagan's campaign manager in 1980, called Reagan's subtle approach to white backlash voters the "New Southern Strategy."31 Atwater acknowledged in 1981 that the strategy had been designed to appeal to "the racist side of the [George] Wallace voter" without antagonizing other Americans who might be offended by ugly Wallace-style racism. As Atwater explained, "You start out in 1954 by saying, 'N*****, n*****, n*****.' By 1968 you can't say 'n*****'—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like 'forced busing,' 'states' rights,' and all these things that you're talking about are totally economic things and a by-product of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it... because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'N*****, n****.'"32

32 Quoted in Alexander P. Lamis, "The Future of Southern Politics: New Directions for Dixie," in Joe P. Dunn and Lawrence Preston, ed., The Future South: A Historical Perspective for the Twenty-first Century (U. of Illinois Press, 1991), 61-62.

Reagan was not as good as his press, but that site is all innuendo, and bullshit.

Reagan was not as good as his press, but that site is all innuendo, and bullshit. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Really? Ask Lee Atwater, he ran Reagan's campaign. Not that you would let the facts get in the way of your misguided beliefs.



***Lee Atwater, the most influential Republican political operative of the 1980s and Reagan's campaign manager in 1980, called Reagan's subtle approach to white backlash voters the "New Southern Strategy."31 Atwater acknowledged in 1981 that the strategy had been designed to appeal to "the racist side of the [George] Wallace voter" without antagonizing other Americans who might be offended by ugly Wallace-style racism. As Atwater explained, "You start out in 1954 by saying, 'N*****, n*****, n*****.' By 1968 you can't say 'n*****'—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like 'forced busing,' 'states' rights,' and all these things that you're talking about are totally economic things and a by-product of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it... because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'N*****, n****.'"32

32 Quoted in Alexander P. Lamis, "The Future of Southern Politics: New Directions for Dixie," in Joe P. Dunn and Lawrence Preston, ed., The Future South: A Historical Perspective for the Twenty-first Century (U. of Illinois Press, 1991), 61-62.

Lee Atwater apologized for many of his lies before he died. I don't believe this. I'm not impressed with Reagan, but this remains bullshit.

Lee Atwater apologized for many of his lies before he died. I don't believe this. I'm not impressed with Reagan, but this remains bullshit. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Was this one of them? The facts sure seem to bear them out. He was quoted 1981....hardly far from recalling wtf happened in 1980. Here is wtf he apologized for....Sounds similiar to what he said he did in 1980!

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/13/us...s-apology.html

"In 1988," Mr. Atwater said, "fighting Dukakis, I said that I 'would strip the bark off the little bastard' and 'make Willie Horton his running mate.' I am sorry for both statements: the first for its naked cruelty, the second because it makes me sound racist, which I am not." Reputation as 'Ugly Campaigner'
Since being stricken last year, the 39-year-old Mr. Atwater has apologized on several occasions for many of the campaign tactics he once employed and for which he was criticized. But rarely has he spoken in such detail or with such candor as in the interview for the first-person Life article.
"In part because of our successful manipulation of his campaign themes, George Bush won handily," Mr. Atwater said. He conceded that throughout his political career "a reputation as a fierce and ugly campaigner has dogged me."
"While I didn't invent negative politics," he said, "I am one of its most ardent practitioners."

No he just courted the killers vote....now did you read the so called racist site conclusion?


Thus, while it's clearly not fair to say that racism alone can explain the Reagan phenomenon, neither is it fair to say that racism played no role. Agreed. How can one not agree that race plays no part in elections. It played a huge part in Obama's. You did not see blackls voting for McCain or a shit load of Latino's. Talking aboult reality does not make one bad or right or wrong but the facts are the facts


Originally Posted by WTF

Your ad hominem statements do not qualify as "truth", and nothing you've written exonerates Obama.

Lol, Gold is down from $1930 to $1530 per ounce and expected to fall down further to low 1400 early next year and it pays ZERO interest.

And those nice coins goldline sells for $9.95 contain 14milligram of gold which is less than 70 pennies worth. Originally Posted by waverunner234

Amateur mistake, gold is NOT an investment, buying gold is pure speculation contrary to buying stocks or bonds, money invested to work for you.………………….. Originally Posted by waverunner234

And here I thought I made a nice, tasty profit when I sold most of the gold I bought when I pulled my half of our stock investment portfolio out at the end of the Clinton administration. They were saying to buy bonds, but I bought gold instead.

I don’t invest in stocks at all. I’ve worked for too many large companies that engage in the dumbest of dumb practices to boost the stock price but that cost enormous sums of money. Companies will spend $4 to ship a $3 item if it means keeping up with the quarterly revenue projections. Dumb.

Pursuit of self interest is human nature. People are not altruistic by nature. This is why socialism doesn't work. If left to a popular vote, the majority of the people will vote to loot the treasury.

This is why we have a constitution that limits the actions of the federal government. America is not a democracy; we are a republic.

We are going bankrupt because we are operating outside the boundaries of the constitution. If we closed every federal agency that is not constitutional, we could balance the budget over night. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Exactly. People can almost always be counted on to act in their own self-interest. And, yes, we are operating outside the framework of the Constitution.

Ronald Regan was not a bad president.

1. He had a bad counterpart in Tip O’Neil, a political machine unto himself, as the Speaker of the House.
2. He inherited a RIDICULOUS defense / foreign relations problem left to him by that moron Carter and the vestiges of Vietnam.
3. He chose his running mate brilliantly. I think Bush was almost as responsible for the huge foreign affairs successes as Regan.
4. He bankrupted the Soviet Union. Yes, yes, I realize they were rotting from the inside out, but Regan’s the one that did them in for good.
5. Iran / Contra, in many opinions, wasn’t constitutional. The Congress can’t dictate foreign affairs, and I believe the Domino Theory, proxy war with the Soviet Union is foreign policy not a war treaty type policy.
6. He stayed out of abortion / gay marriage inflammatory discussions that have done nothing but drag the Republican party down and down.
7. In the ‘80’s AIDS was a young disease that no one really knew anything about. I looked up a time line. It entered the States in ’81. By ’86 there were only 38k deaths worldwide. The UK didn’t even began an AIDS awareness program in ’87. ’88 we began our AIDS awareness campaign and he was out of office in ’89. http://www.avert.org/aids-timeline.htm
8. He granted amnesty for illegal aliens.