Provided he wasn't brain dead and was in the same exact physical condition (before he got shot) as when he was pres, and advocated the same policies as when he was president in the '80s, would you vote for him?
Depends on who he was running against. If we could have Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson in his prime, running against him, I'd choose Lincoln or Jefferson in a heartbeat.
OK, I'll bite.....WHY? Peace, Rs7 PS: No, I would not vote for him except under extreme circumstances (Reagan vs. David Duke, or something equally absurd).
Absurd like Albert Gore, William Jefferson Clinton (or Hillary), Thomas Daschel, Al Sharpton, or any of the others on the Democratic card today. He'd get my vote, for the third time!
OK Al Sharpton is clearly not in the same group as the others, but why wouldn't you vote for any of the others?? Is fiscal responsibility really that horrible?? Are budget surpluses really a bad thing, when they go towards ensuring that medicare and social security won't go bankrupt?? To me, W is Reagan all over again, and it blows my mind that people don't realize what a complete jackass W is...look at this, for example -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2747153.stm -- basically, the people who support Reagan's (OOPS - I mean W's) 2003 tax plan are betting against Nobel Laureates and many other respected economists...do you guys also constantly bet against specialists? And if so, how long did it take you to go broke?? No offense, Republicans -- but what makes you (and W) think you know more about the economy than a Nobel Laureate?? Maybe I'm mistaken here, and it really is W's plan to destroy the economy, then why do you support this?? I mean, we're all sitting here b!tching about how much these markets suck, and it apparently hasn't occurred to most people here that a big part of the reason for this is W. He's mishandled Iraq, he's mishandling the economy -- what pot are you going to let him piss in next??? How much money are we spending now to de-proliferate, after Reagan and Bush pissed away billions and trillions of dollars building nuc-a-lar weapons?? Was it really necessary to spend enough money to blow up the world 25 times over?? Who's the terrorist here??
bung, arguing with Reaganites is like arguing with, well, Reagan himself. Logic, and facts are irrelevant. Take a stand, stick with it right or wrong, whether it works or not. Because you can always take credit for the occasional success (luck comes in here big time) and blame the other guys for your failures. Reactionary politics at it's finest. So yeah, maybe Reagan was "one of the greats"....he perfected a system of always being right, and never being wrong. (Hand to ear...."Huh?' ) waves off questions he had no clue how to answer. Correction, he had no clue what the questions meant. Yes, yes, we will now hear how he defeated the USSR. Never in the history of the modern world has one man been credited so much with an event he had so little to do with. Don't ask me, ask a good republican like Colin Powell. As for Reagan's policies on the environment....ooops..never mind.....he didn't have any. Oh, wait, didn't his guy Watt want to drill for oil in Yellowstone? Social programs? Was I dreaming or did Nancy Reagan explain how school lunches supplied vegetables with ketchup? Iran contra....ok, beaten to death. But let's not forget that Reagan conspired with the Ayatollah to free the American hostages in Tehran during his inauguration. This was NOT a good president. Lucky, yes. Competent, no. Even Dubya has shown the restraint to try diplomacy (even if he had his arm twisted by his more sensible cabinet members). But Reagan? Imagine if he had his finger on the button on 9/11. Scary!!!! Here, for some laughs:http://www.quickchange.com/reagan/1981.html Peace, rs7
What is so funny, is that the Reganites are quick to give Reagan the credit for singlehandedly ending communism, yet they will give Clinton no credit for the peace and prosperity during his tenure. Two side of the same myopic coin.
I like Bill Clinton, he's one of the smartest guys out there. Look at the peace and prosperity during his time. He was working hard to end the Israel-Paletine Conflict and I think he was very close. Look at it after Bush became Pres. It's gotten worse. Despite all the Internet Bubble criticism, he (OK, Al Gore... who made the Internet) did create a great market for a lot of us. People made money and that's what counts. Whether they keep the money and expand it depends on the individual too. Some say, Clinton made an illusion and Bush having to fix it up. But look through all the Financial Turmoil, Clinton (Bob Reuben) had to deal with. Russia, Asian, and South American Crisis would be a few that could have killed the world economy. But they stood strong and kept the damage minimal. Sure, Clinton had Monica Lewinsky Scandal but that doesn't change what he did.