1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Ronald Reagan, 100 Years

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Arbo, Feb 5, 2011.

  1. Arbo

    Arbo Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2010
    Messages:
    3,942
    Ratings:
    +1
    [​IMG]

    Born February 6, 1911
    :thumbs:
     
  2. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Ratings:
    +1
    Great words from a great President! :thumbs:
     
  3. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +119
    My only major issue with President Reagan?

    Well, two related problems.

    Bush I
    Bush II
     
  4. mets65

    mets65 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2011
    Messages:
    392
    Ratings:
    +0
    He's only responsible for his own actions. He was a great man. As far as the Bushes go, well let's hope we are done with them.
     
  5. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +119
    I was angry with him in 1980 when he chose Bush I as his running mate. I knew then we would regret it.
     
  6. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Ratings:
    +1
    I was upset with Reagan's choice of Richard Schweiker as his running mate during the 1976 GOP convention. What was he thinking? As it turned out RR didn't win the GOP nomination in 1976.

    Thankfully, after four years of Jimmy Carter, Americans wised up.
     
  7. Borneol

    Borneol New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    Messages:
    127
    Ratings:
    +0
    I kind of enjoyed this article about Reagan and the press. It is surprising that nice words are now said about the Gipper from the MSM.

    The Media Never Loved Ronald Reagan

    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAna...41911/The-Media-Never-Loved-Ronald-Reagan.htm
     
  8. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Ratings:
    +0
    Wow, we agree on something politically. I think Reagan was an excellent President. The only wrong thing he did was picking Bush the First as his running mate. Had he picked someone else, he would have spared this nation twelve years of liberal Republican leadership. Had Bush the First not been picked, Bush the Second would have never been elected. The history channel had an excellent show about Reagan, very well done.

    In my life, I rate Reagan as the best President, and have a good impression of Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford to a degree. The bottom of the rung was Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and both Bushes. Kennedy was kind of a mix. He believed in tax cuts and a strong military. I saw a show in 2008, and to illustrate how far to the left the parties have drifted, if Kennedy had been debating McCain in the 2008 election, Kennedy would have been the more conservative candidate.
     
  9. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Ratings:
    +0
    Amen to that. It is amazing that two people could do so much harm to this nation in twelve short years.
     
  10. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,888
    Ratings:
    +609
    Faith:
    Baptist
    (ie - the Bushes)

    So are you saying that Dukakis ('88), Gore ('00) and Kerry ("08) would have been better Presidents?
     
  11. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Ratings:
    +0
    I rank neither of the bushes terribly high...but I'm sure SN ranks them lower... :D

    However, I don't think the above two quotes are mutually exclusive. There's no doubt in my mind that if forced either-or...the Bush's are "less bad." It's just that they were better than the alternatives.

    (not trying to derail into a 3rd party discussion...)
     
  12. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,888
    Ratings:
    +609
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I had high hopes for Bush II, but over the years, I did become very disappointed, but as you said, they were (much) better than the alternatives.

    As my Dad would say, I believe Douglas MacArthur would make a excellent President
     
  13. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    19,967
    Ratings:
    +305
    Faith:
    Baptist
    God Bless you Mr. President RIP :applause:
     
  14. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Ratings:
    +0
    Better, I doubt it. In those years either would have done harm. Its like choosing between an F and an F+. There was a time around the Nixon and Reagan years when one expected more out of Republicans before they became clones of Democrats. Since you are going with the what if of the worst choice years (you left out 2008), what if Goldwater had won in 1964, or Ford in 1976, or Dole in 1996. There is a positive spin to the what ifs also.

    Salty, I do not know if you saw the History Channel program on President Reagan, but they showed a speech he made while President of the Screen Actor's Guild. He was clicking off liberal point after liberal point. It was almost amusing and quite interesting seeing the transformation. It was an honest transformation.

    An unrelated tidbit on Presidents, I did get to shake President Nixon's hand in 1973.
     
    #14 saturneptune, Feb 10, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 10, 2011
  15. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Ratings:
    +0
    Now SN, as bad as you feel Bush 41 & 43 was...certainly over the last few years you see how monumentally disastrous a Gore presidency would have been for our country. I don't think I can say Bush 43 was an "F+" to Gore's "F." You gotta at least put Al into negative numbers.

    Like I said...most of our differences were in matters of degrees. But there WAS a huge difference in how much more awful Gore was than Bush.
     
  16. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Ratings:
    +0
    As you said, we disagree on matters of degree. Maybe I should quit living in the past. I expect Democrats to raise taxes, spend us into oblivion, support abortion and gay rights, and take up the cause of every nut case in America. I never in my wildest dreams ever expected a Republican President or nominee to embrace the same thing. You are correct. I am harsher on the Republicans for doing the same thing because I expected more. It is probably more realistic to say F and D+.
     
Loading...