HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why do Republicans worshi...

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 03:55 PM

Why do Republicans worship Ronald Reagan ??


I remember the Reagan years very well. They were some of the toughest years of my life trying to find a job. I have looked and looked for his greatness and I do not find it.

However, when Republicans talk about him now, they speak of him like he was a god. They say he restored the spirit of America. He didn't restore my spirit. In my opinion, he was one of the worst Presidents ever for the common working man.

But, for whatever reason, Republicans speak in awe of the man. I have little doubt but that if any other President makes it on Mount Rushmore, it will likely be Ronald Wilson Reagan.

I have tried to understand why they worship the man? After all, the Democrats have their FDR and JFK, why shouldn't the Republicans have their own hero? He defeated Jimmy Carter and busted the PATCO union and made people believe there was a "shining city on the hill". He was instrumental in the collapse of the Soviet Union, although some may think he overthrew them single-handedly?

In the final analysis, I think he made them feel like "winners". They had been in the wilderness for decades, playing second fiddle to the Democratic majority. Reagan pulled them up out of their doldrums and told them that government was bad, that taxes were bad, and the ten worst words in the English language were, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you".

In reality, he was a doddering and feeble old man that depended on others to tell him where to stand and what he might want to say. Being a professional actor of many years, he was good at delivering his lines.

But it didn't stop the Republicans from building up his legacy. He is not known as much for his great deeds as much as for the great transformation of the Republican Party. He was the county fair, with laughter and cotton candy.



136 replies, 19499 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 136 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why do Republicans worship Ronald Reagan ?? (Original post)
kentuck Jul 2012 OP
nmbluesky Jul 2012 #1
kentuck Jul 2012 #3
unblock Jul 2012 #8
kentuck Jul 2012 #11
brewens Jul 2012 #53
hifiguy Jul 2012 #31
oldhippydude Jul 2012 #54
nanabugg Jul 2012 #110
Zoeisright Jul 2012 #70
GeorgeGist Jul 2012 #91
Blanks Jul 2012 #95
pansypoo53219 Jul 2012 #105
Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #106
Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2012 #136
CBGLuthier Jul 2012 #2
kentuck Jul 2012 #9
rurallib Jul 2012 #22
kentuck Jul 2012 #26
truebrit71 Jul 2012 #4
11 Bravo Jul 2012 #20
kentuck Jul 2012 #23
oldhippydude Jul 2012 #57
braddy Jul 2012 #68
kentuck Jul 2012 #74
braddy Jul 2012 #111
kentuck Jul 2012 #113
braddy Jul 2012 #114
kentuck Jul 2012 #115
braddy Jul 2012 #117
kentuck Jul 2012 #118
braddy Jul 2012 #119
kentuck Jul 2012 #120
kentuck Jul 2012 #121
braddy Jul 2012 #122
kentuck Jul 2012 #123
rurallib Jul 2012 #24
oldhippydude Jul 2012 #56
Archae Jul 2012 #5
Populist_Prole Jul 2012 #6
wandy Jul 2012 #19
Blue Owl Jul 2012 #7
cbdo2007 Jul 2012 #10
rurallib Jul 2012 #25
Drunken Irishman Jul 2012 #12
monmouth Jul 2012 #34
moondust Jul 2012 #13
indepat Jul 2012 #14
Yavapai Jul 2012 #15
alfredo Jul 2012 #16
WI_DEM Jul 2012 #17
Scootaloo Jul 2012 #18
WI_DEM Jul 2012 #27
Iggy Jul 2012 #21
braddy Jul 2012 #112
Iggy Jul 2012 #131
jody Jul 2012 #28
kentuck Jul 2012 #29
HopeHoops Jul 2012 #30
The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2012 #35
HopeHoops Jul 2012 #36
Pool Hall Ace Jul 2012 #87
JitterbugPerfume Jul 2012 #32
moondust Jul 2012 #44
patrice Jul 2012 #33
hifiguy Jul 2012 #37
kentuck Jul 2012 #39
hifiguy Jul 2012 #41
HughBeaumont Jul 2012 #89
hifiguy Jul 2012 #94
NNN0LHI Jul 2012 #38
Ikonoklast Jul 2012 #40
liberal N proud Jul 2012 #42
ErikJ Jul 2012 #43
think Jul 2012 #45
jberryhill Jul 2012 #46
Zen Democrat Jul 2012 #47
aka-chmeee Jul 2012 #50
diane in sf Jul 2012 #48
spanone Jul 2012 #49
craigmatic Jul 2012 #51
struggle4progress Jul 2012 #52
lastlib Jul 2012 #55
MissMillie Jul 2012 #58
Abra Jul 2012 #59
kentuck Jul 2012 #60
Prophet 451 Jul 2012 #61
kentuck Jul 2012 #64
Odin2005 Jul 2012 #66
OmahaBlueDog Jul 2012 #62
phleshdef Jul 2012 #63
Agony Jul 2012 #65
truebrit71 Jul 2012 #97
LongTomH Jul 2012 #67
upi402 Jul 2012 #69
Zoeisright Jul 2012 #71
Zorra Jul 2012 #72
BT021 Jul 2012 #73
kentuck Jul 2012 #75
BT021 Jul 2012 #79
kentuck Jul 2012 #80
Blanks Jul 2012 #98
BT021 Jul 2012 #129
Blanks Jul 2012 #132
LongTomH Jul 2012 #133
Blanks Jul 2012 #134
unblock Jul 2012 #85
ieoeja Jul 2012 #116
BT021 Jul 2012 #130
NNN0LHI Jul 2012 #76
kentuck Jul 2012 #77
Zorra Jul 2012 #103
NNN0LHI Jul 2012 #126
Motown_Johnny Jul 2012 #78
JHB Jul 2012 #81
NNN0LHI Jul 2012 #82
lunatica Jul 2012 #83
unblock Jul 2012 #84
reformist2 Jul 2012 #86
NNN0LHI Jul 2012 #88
goclark Jul 2012 #90
kentuck Jul 2012 #109
RFKHumphreyObama Jul 2012 #92
Capt. Obvious Jul 2012 #93
Autumn Jul 2012 #96
Kurt Sperry Jul 2012 #99
Blanks Jul 2012 #100
Tejas Jul 2012 #101
demosincebirth Jul 2012 #102
goclark Jul 2012 #125
madrchsod Jul 2012 #104
maxrandb Jul 2012 #107
maxrandb Jul 2012 #108
NNN0LHI Jul 2012 #127
lanlady Jul 2012 #124
RegieRocker Jul 2012 #128
Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2012 #135

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 03:56 PM

1. He ended Cold War..

N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nmbluesky (Reply #1)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:02 PM

3. As I recall...

The Cold War ended when George Bush Sr was President. When he invaded Kuwait and bombed Saddam Hussein into submission, Iraq was supported by the Soviet Union. When they were soundly beaten and bombed, the Soviet Union looked rather weak and did not survive very long after that. It was not during the reign of Reagan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nmbluesky (Reply #1)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:06 PM

8. yeah, whatever credit he gets, gorby gets about 50 times that.

the stupid, right-wing idea that reagan should get credit, mostly for being there when the wall came down, oh wait that was actually poppy, ok for making a speech and asking for the wall to come down, as if that had anything to do with it, actually UNDOES a long-standing meme that SHOULD be a right-wing talking point, namely that COMMUNISM was inherently weaker than CAPITALISM and was doomed to fail.

for decades, every american president, left/right, dem/rep, whatever, had basically the same policy against the ussr and they all said that eventually the ussr would fail because communism would fail.


that's not a great right-wing talking point?

capitalism is proven better?

no, screw that! they gotta give credit to their star.

stupid, stupid, stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #8)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:07 PM

11. But he wasn't there when the wall came down.

That was under George Bush Sr. You are absolutely right but most Repubs do not know that or do not want to know that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #8)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 06:35 PM

53. I pretty sure I remember some CIA analyst that wrote a book saying that the real turning point

was when Gorbachev took the limos away from the politburo. Previously they had all had one of those Russian made Zil limos and a driver. They actually were afraid of a coup over that. Once he got that done they knew he was for real and meant to reform things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nmbluesky (Reply #1)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:39 PM

31. The Cold War ended when Mikhail Gorbachev realized

 

how insane and unsustainable it was, took the Soviet ball and went back to Moscow. All of the big attention-grabbing events (Berlin Wall coming down, etc) occurred long after King Ronald the Simple was gone. Bush Sr. was POTUS by that time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #31)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 06:38 PM

54. agreed

folks forget to factor in both Afghanistan, and Chernobyl.. both unsustainable to the Soviet Union..Odd that we obviously didn't learn from afghanistan

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #31)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 02:23 PM

110. Really, Afghanistan ended the cold war. We are on our way ....nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nmbluesky (Reply #1)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 01:12 AM

70. Oh he did not.

He was around when they were starting to go downhill. If anything ended the Cold War, it was the Soviet Union's involvement in Afghanistan. That is what destroyed that country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #70)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 09:19 AM

91. History repeats itself ...

for those who don't learn the first time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #70)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:24 AM

95. Do you suppose that's why Osama Bin Laden was...

So in need of killing? He did way more (as leader of Afghan resistance) to bring down the Soviet Union.

If I remember; the right wingers claim that it was because Reagan spent so much on defense spending.

However, on the ground in Afghanistan; helicopters were being shot down by single shot 50 caliber rifles. That would appear to be more devastating to the Soviets than building lots of tanks in Detroit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nmbluesky (Reply #1)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 01:30 PM

105. no he didn't. it was ending anyways.

he just happened to say shit europeans liked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nmbluesky (Reply #1)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 01:41 PM

106. Another GOP reagan lie. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nmbluesky (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 01:28 PM

136. Yeeeeeeah....no.

He ended shit.

He was the beneficiary of being around when the people living in the Eastern Bloc got fed up enough with their Soviet masters and demanded change.

He gave a nice little speech about tearing down the wall, but that's about the extent of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:00 PM

2. Nixon

Ike was OK, but nothing to really brag about. Ford was an actual joke played on the entire country. Nixon was a monster.

But that smooth talking traitorous SOB Reagan, now there's a man they can be proud of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CBGLuthier (Reply #2)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:06 PM

9. And they were never able to shed the weight of Hoover

and the Depression years. It was their man and their leaders that put America into the Great Depression. And they had been searching for redemption since that time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #9)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:18 PM

22. W should have the same effect

their man and their policies that took a thriving economy and wrecked it.
But Hoover didn't have the media behind him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rurallib (Reply #22)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:22 PM

26. Obama was supposed to be the next Hoover...

W was the Harding and Coolidge that set the table for Hoover. It was their taxcuts and policies in the 1920's that led to the Crash of 1929. If Romney wins the next election, I have little doubt but that he will be the next Hoover.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:02 PM

4. No idea. They always seem to forget him giving millions of illegal aliens blanket immunity..

 

...and his ACTUAL record on raising taxes...

I lived through it too and it was a fucking disaster...he was regarded the whole world over as a doddering old fool...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #4)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:16 PM

20. Don't forget the "Cut and Run" from Lebanon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Reply #20)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:18 PM

23. 241 Marines massacred.

Then he invaded Grenada as a diversion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #23)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 06:47 PM

57. had a Democrat lost that many men we would still be hearing about it!!!

Reagan crickets

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #23)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 01:07 AM

68. The Grenada invasion was ordered as a go before the Barracks in Lebanon.

The Grenada invasion was complex and was roughly simultaneous with the barracks bombing, they had nothing to do with each other.

I was in was in a Ranger unit at the time and paid some attention to the mission.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to braddy (Reply #68)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 06:04 AM

74. How do you explain?

That they went in to rescue the students that were being held hostage. Was that just an excuse? What was the real reason they went into Grenada?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #74)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 03:41 PM

111. It isn't my job to explain that to you.

You didn't know when the invasion took place and now you tell me that you don't know why it happened, the history is available on the internet and in books.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to braddy (Reply #111)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 03:59 PM

113. Just as I suspected...

deleted message for benefit of the doubt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #113)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 04:10 PM

114. Why attack me in a personal way because you don't know things?

If you want me to be your history teacher or your go to guy, you need to ask politely, not arrogantly or in a hostile manner.


1. Grenada was governed by a Marxist party. A split developed between authoritarian and democratic Marxists in the party, and a coup occurred, with the hardliners taking charge. The Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), as well as the nations of Barbados and Jamaica, appealed to the United States for assistance.

2. What made it an issue of national security for the U.S. was that Grenada, with funding and workers from Cuba, was building a runway that was long enough to handle strategic bombers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to braddy (Reply #114)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 04:15 PM

115. You insinuated that you knew something that no one else knew...

I was hoping you would explain how you knew that? I have no idea why you got so defensive about it? I would still like to know what you knew about it that no one else knew? Were you in one of the units that invaded the island? I would be interested in hearing your story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #115)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 04:27 PM

117. I never insinuated any such thing you aren't making any sense.

Stating that I was in a Ranger unit at the time and paid attention to the news does not mean anything, this isn't a movie where that puts me into some secret society.

We invaded because of the reasons I posted, and since your ridiculous and ignorant take on the operation was that it was created out of thin air to distract from the barracks bombing, why all this sudden interest in the invasion?

Just google it and catch up on your own if you want to learn about the operation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to braddy (Reply #117)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 04:29 PM

118. From Google

"In 1983, then-Member of the United States House of Representatives Ron Dellums (D, California), traveled to Grenada on a fact-finding mission, having been invited by the country's Prime Minister. Dellums described his findings before Congress:

...based on my personal observations, discussion and analysis of the new international airport under construction in Grenada, it is my conclusion that this project is specifically now and has always been for the purpose of economic development and is not for military use.... It is my thought that it is absurd, patronizing and totally unwarranted for the United States Government to charge that this airport poses a military threat to the United States’ national security.[14]"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #118)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 04:37 PM

119. Great, now you can do your own research and learn that the invasion and barracks had no connection

As a staffer to Representative Delllums, she traveled to Grenada to have the government there vett the report Representative Dellums planned to present to Congress. In the report Representative Dellums planned to state that the airport would not pose a military threat to United States national security. As noted in Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the '60 on page 163, "Another document retrieved after Grenada's liberation provided the postscript. In a diary entry dated March 22, 1980, Grenadian Defense Minister Liam James had written: "The Revo[lution] has been able to crush counter revolution internationally. Airport will be used by Cuban and Soviet military.""

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to braddy (Reply #119)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 04:46 PM

120. Margaret Thatcher disagreed with the invasion..

from google:

" British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher personally opposed the US invasion, and the British Foreign Secretary, Geoffrey Howe, announced to the British House of Commons on the day before the invasion that he had no knowledge of any possible US intervention. At 12:30 am Tuesday October 25, on the morning of the invasion, Thatcher sent a message to Reagan: "This action will be seen as intervention by a Western country in the internal affairs of a small independent nation, however unattractive its regime. I ask you to consider this in the context of our wider East-West relations and of the fact that we will be having in the next few days to present to our Parliament and people the siteing of Cruise missiles in this country... I cannot conceal that I am deeply disturbed by your latest communication.... hope that even at this late stage you will take it into account before events are irrevocable."[27][28] (The full text remains classified.) When she telephoned Reagan twenty minutes later, he assured Thatcher that an invasion was not contemplated. Reagan later said, "She was very adamant and continued to insist that we cancel our landings on Grenada. I couldn't tell her that it had already begun."[29]"

more...
The invasion showed problems with the U.S. government's "information apparatus," which Time described as still being in "some disarray" three weeks after the invasion. For example, the U.S. State Department falsely claimed that a mass grave had been discovered that held 100 bodies of islanders who had been killed by Communist forces.[4] Major General Norman Schwarzkopf, deputy commander of the invasion force, said that 160 Grenadian soldiers and 71 Cubans had been killed during the invasion; the Pentagon had given a much lower count of 59 Cuban and Grenadian deaths.[4] Ronald H. Cole's report for the Joint Chiefs of Staff showed an even lower count.[19]

On the other hand:
October 25 is a national holiday in Grenada, called Thanksgiving Day, to commemorate the invasion.

St. George's University built a monument on its True Blue Campus to memorialize the US servicemen killed during the invasion, and marks the day with an annual memorial ceremony.

In 2008, the Government of Grenada announced a move to build a monument to honour the Cubans killed during the invasion. At the time of the announcement the Cuban and Grenadian government are still seeking to locate a suitable site for the monument.[30] On May 29 2009 the Point Salines International Airport was officially renamed in honour of the slain pre-coup leader Maurice Bishop by the Government of Grenada.[7][8]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #120)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 04:49 PM

121. The Grenada invasion was ordered as a go before the Barracks in Lebanon.

Don't ask me how I know?? It certainly wasn't a diversion, was it? It was just a coincidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #121)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 04:54 PM

122. I'm sorry, but you just aren't making any sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to braddy (Reply #122)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 04:57 PM

123. Perhaps we can agree...?


That Ronald Reagan was a doddering old actor that caused great harm to this country?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Reply #20)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:19 PM

24. followed by the incredibly heroic invasion of Grenada

WTF?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #4)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 06:45 PM

56. well he did have some help

from Thatcher... they played off each other

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:03 PM

5. They worship their image of Reagan.

The actual Ronald Reagan would be kicked out of the GOP nowadays.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:04 PM

6. I'd say it's your fith paragraph

In the final analysis, I think he made them feel like "winners". They had been in the wilderness for decades, playing second fiddle to the Democratic majority. Reagan pulled them up out of their doldrums and told them that government was bad, that taxes were bad, and the ten worst words in the English language were, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you".

I'd like to add that his overall hawk-ish foreign policy made them feel like winners too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Populist_Prole (Reply #6)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:15 PM

19. +1 and I would that his ravings about welfare queens gave them.....

someone to be 'better' than. It also telegraphed the first part of the message, go ahead and hate, it's OK.
That is on of the cornerstons of todays republican party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:05 PM

7. They don't recall...

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:07 PM

10. He's dead so they can create their own Reagan reality without anybody to answer to....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbdo2007 (Reply #10)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:21 PM

25. Really shows the power of a compliant media

that not only lets them lie, but helps them lie.
My opinion has always been that the whole St. Ronnie legacy is on the media for letting it happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:08 PM

12. They needed their JFK...

Reagan was built up because he was a popular president who won two landslide elections. For Republicans, who have constantly been looking for their FDR and then their JFK, Reagan fit the mold. He's the president they can point to and say, "Hey, we've got a great one too!"

It wouldn't work for Eisenhower because the party had strayed dramatically from where it was under his leadership.

Nixon's presidency ended in disgrace, so, no go there.

Ford was never elected and didn't hold office long enough.

H.W. Bush was a one-termer perceived to be too weak for anything.

Reagan, though? He beat an incumbent in a landslide. He then went out and won reelection in a landslide. He dominated and defined the 80s. That was their guy to finally throw up against Kennedy. It's all about image and Reagan had it. His mystique has grown through time and 'greatness' was born out of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #12)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:41 PM

34. And yours is the winning answer. It was all about JFK, they had no one..n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:09 PM

13. "Made them feel like winners" is my guess.

After wandering in the wilderness for so long...

"He won 49 states! He won 49 states! That's who we are! We're with him! We're really popular and 49 states proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt! We're the future! (blah blah blah)"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:09 PM

14. Saint Ronnie must be deified by the true believers: after all, he was the architect of the mountain

of present Federal debt which gives Repigs cover to dismantle the nation's safety net.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:09 PM

15. Stupid loves stupid!

 

I remember when ray-gun was campaigning for his last term as governor of California. I worked at Kaiser Steel in southern Cal. I had a doctor appointment and had to leave work an hour early. When I exited the plant, there were cameras set up and was met by a guy who asked if I would like to meet and shake hands with ray-gun. I told him "I would be more pleased to shake hands with Fidel Castro than that asshole."

There were those that followed me that did shake his hand because I saw them on the news that evening.

Why do Republicans love ray-gun? Because he spoke bumper-sticker speak and many can't have thoughts that are more complicated than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:11 PM

16. It was his ability to lie and get away with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:13 PM

17. they worship him because he was a winner

and they hadn't really had a telegetic winner in the FDR/JFK mode except for Ike (sure Nixon won a second term in a landslide, but people didn't love him).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:15 PM

18. He's the last Republican they remember who could speak relatively coherently

 

Kind of stands out, especially in recent years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #18)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:22 PM

27. well, as long as he had his index cards in front of him or teleprompter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:17 PM

21. Co/uple of Things

 

why do clownservatives worship grandpa ronny?

1.) the guy was really, really dumb. him getting elected proved to the GOP/wealthy class they could
run just about anyone with a pulse, GOP voters would vote for him. this of course set the stage for W... who
Gore Vidal termed the most ignorant man to ever hold the office. you see where that got us: massive theft
of the U.S. Treasury and _two_ stupid wars of choice

2.) grandpa ronny was huge supporter of the MIC and advocate of American exceptionalism/colonialism. steal
important commodities from brown/black skinned peoples-- sell at high profit level in U.S.

clownservative support of Reagan is somewhat of a surprise(?) given THIS:

It is absolutely true that Ronald Reagan is the most influential President in the 20th Century after FDR. And its true that Reagan died a Republican. But did you know that Ronald Reagan was in fact a LIBERAL for thirty years of his life? I’m certain many of my Republican readers are hyperventilating at this point, probably asking themselves how I can say such a thing about their hero. But the fact remains that Reagan was a liberal and that liberalism influenced some of what Reagan did during his presidency between 1981 and 1989.

Ronald Reagan, the hero of most conservatives today, was a liberal between 1932 and 1962 at the height of liberalism in America. He strongly supported FDR, arguably the most liberal President in American history, and the New Deal policies of the era, including Social Security. Reagan not only supported FDR, he admired the man too. How many conservatives today would say they admire FDR? The answer is zero, but “The Gipper” did.

In the 1940′s, the actor became an active union member. First elected to the Board of Directors of the Screen Actors Guild in 1941, he would return from his World War II service and become its Vice President in 1946 and would subsequently be elected President of the Guild in 1947 and would serve in that position through 1952 and once more in 1959. Reagan’s leadership of the Screen Actor’s Guild carried it through eventful years that were marked by labor disputes, the Taft-Hartley Act, the House Committee on Un-American Activities hearings and the Hollywood blacklist era. Reagan had always been a strong supporter of unions and was still a strong supporter of unions during his Presidency. Its true that Reagan stood up to the Air Traffic Controllers union when they went on strike, but he didn’t do it because he hated unions. On the contrary, Reagan fired the Air Traffic Controllers because they had violated the law which states that federal workers are not allowed to go on strike. As further proof that Reagan strongly supported unions, I would point out that Reagan supported the Polish labor union Solidarity in its fight against Soviet domination. So Reagan would most certainly disagree with Republican attempts to destroy unions.


http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/06/27/reagan-the-liberal/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggy (Reply #21)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 03:53 PM

112. There is some inaccurate history in that post.

1948 was the last time that Reagan voted democrat for president, in 1952 and 1956 and 1960 he campaigned for republicans as a 'democrat for republican candidate x', during the 1950s he was a public speaker for conservative views, in 1962 he formally switched parties and in 1964 he spoke at the republican convention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to braddy (Reply #112)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:23 AM

131. I get it, but

 

in the context of the original question: "why does the GOP worship Reagan?",
I have to wonder if the teabaggers even _know_ Reagan was originally an
FDR supporting liberal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:32 PM

28. Why would any human "worship" another human? I've lived long enough to learn even the greatest among

 

us have weaknesses, perhaps even great weaknesses.

IMO people should be respected for great accomplishments but as often revealed on closer study, they stand on the shoulders of giants.

That's true in science and mathematics but even more likely in politics with good luck added to the foundation of giants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #28)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:36 PM

29. Very true.

I have a problem with hero worship...even when it's on our side also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:36 PM

30. Hey, they named the most disfunctional airport in America after him.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeHoops (Reply #30)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:41 PM

35. And every air traffic controller in the US still calls that airport "National."

The name "Reagan" will never cross their lips.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #35)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:42 PM

36. Hell, I still call it "National". You can't get more fucked up than that place.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #35)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 08:12 AM

87. I call it "DCA" or "National."

I flatly refuse to call it "Reagan." And I correct people when they refer to it as "Reagan National."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:40 PM

32. they worship an image of him that never existed

It is kind of like the God they worship.They make it up as they go along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JitterbugPerfume (Reply #32)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 05:00 PM

44. Same way they hate Democrats.

Clinton hate. Pelosi hate. Obama hate. ...

Much like target practice, RW media "pop up" targets for them to hate on, essentially directing their hostility. "Obamacare" is a good example of "irrational directed hostility."

As you suggest, many of them are "believers." They don't need no evidence or facts!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:40 PM

33. Union busting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:43 PM

37. He won two elections, big.

 

Ford was an accidental president.

Nixon was a disgraced criminal and a screeching paranoid.

Ike was far too progressive.

Hoover was an abject failure.

Coolidge, Harding and Taft were zeroes.

TR would go after the current repigs with a shotgun loaded with rock salt.

Who else do they have?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #37)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:44 PM

39. Reagan wins by process of elimination?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #39)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:46 PM

41. Pretty much.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #37)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 08:31 AM

89. And then there was that one guy . . .

. . . you might not get an answer from the suddenly short-term-memory void Repubs on this one, but I believe

* he was a two termer that never got elected,
* doubled the National Debt on giveaways to the wealthy and needless wars of choice,
* restarted the Cold War just for the hell of it,
* started a low-grade Civil War by proxy, which we're still affected by,
* had economic policies so enabling and comical that we had zero job growth during his tenure and had 20 trillion in wealth disappear (POOF)!

Yeah, who WAS that guy? Wasn't HE going to be their next "Reagan"??

"Miss Him Yet??"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HughBeaumont (Reply #89)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:21 AM

94. Well, Incurious George seems to have been erased from

 

the Repukes' history books. Does any national Repuke ever mention Monkeyboy in public? And Poppy was just the vestigial tail of the Reagan administration, so they're still stuck with King Ronald the Simple for purposes of 20th century hero worship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:44 PM

38. I can think of about a thousand DUers who have never posted a critical word about him in ten years

And many of those same posters criticize Presidents Obama and Clinton regularly here.

And it is damn noticeable. They stick out like sore thumbs.

Don

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:44 PM

40. He let the modern Republican Party be the openly racist party they always yearned to be.

They flirted with overt racism for years, but Reagan telegraphed the message loud and clear that being a racist out in the open is now allowed, and the Republicans willingly took that and have been running with it ever since.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:47 PM

42. Every problem this nation has today started with a Reagan policy.

He initiated the great decline of the United States and the rich got richer and that is why the 1% and the talking heads worship him.

The rank and file, vote against their own interest crowd simply does what the party leaders tell them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:49 PM

43. GOP's "Reagan Legacy Project"

 

How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan:
With the Gipper's reputation flagging after Clinton, neoconservatives launched a stealthy campaign to remake him as a "great" president.


"The Ronald Reagan Legacy Project was hatched in the spring of 1997 — and perhaps like any successful guerrilla operation, there was an element of surprise. There was no formal announcement, nothing to tip off any alarmists on the left. Rather than incorporate the Reagan project as a separate entity, which carried the potential of greater scrutiny of its operations and its finances, it was simply a unit of the group that Norquist had been overseeing for more than a decade, the Americans for Tax Reform. The Reagan Legacy Project would not even get its first mention in print until October 23, 1997 — by then its first bold proposal had two key backers in Georgia Rep. Bob Barr and that state’s Republican Sen. Paul Coverdell. They had endorsed legislation that would rename the Capitol region’s busy domestic airport, Washington National, as Reagan National. The renaming would not only mean that millions of air travelers would pass through the facility named for the 40th president, but a disproportionate number would be from the nation’s liberal elites, especially in Big Media, who used the airport’s popular shuttle service. Simply put, Reagan National Airport would be a weekly thumb in the eye of the Yankee elites who were still belittling the aging Gipper’s presidency."

http://www.salon.com/2009/02/02/ronald_reagan_2/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 05:25 PM

45. compared to Bush, Rmoney, Newt, Cantor, Bachmann and the rest

 

of the wrecking crew hell I even like Ronald Reagan even if I disagreed with him politically.

Mostly I think it was the persona he had of a fatherly figure back in simpler times like Ward Cleaver. Because if it was truly his stand on the issues the Repugs would never mention him! By today's standards he'd be called a stinking commie pinko Democrat hated and scorned by the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 05:32 PM

46. Because....

It's nice to have someone tell you how great you are when they are fucking you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 05:44 PM

47. The Republicans have never had any heroes. They had to create one.

So St. Ronnie was manufactured. Nevermind that he was actor playing a role.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zen Democrat (Reply #47)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 06:28 PM

50. Bingo! They finally had someone that a nutjob considered worth shooting. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 06:21 PM

48. The Gipper was chipper--probably because he was losing his mind even early on--perfect for Repugs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 06:22 PM

49. cause compared to the bushes, ford and nixon, he looks like a fucking genius...i guess

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 06:31 PM

51. Because Nixon resigned, Ford didn't win election, Bush didn't win in '92, Eisenhower was too

 

moderate, Hoover fumbled the Great Depression and nobody remembers Coolige.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 06:31 PM

52. I guess they admired his business savvy, trading guns for hostages and cocaine ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 06:42 PM

55. Shit knows its own, is all I can say.....



The f*cking bastard sure wrecked my life, I know that much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 06:47 PM

58. I have been asking this question for years.

Reagan signed into law no less than 6 tax increases.

The Tea Party loves to tout him as a tax cutter, and a shrinker of government.

If there's any proof that the current GOP doesn't know their own history--this is it.

Gear up for your drinking game during the GOP convention. I guarantee that on the 1st night, there will be a tribute to Reagan. (in 2008, I got HAMMERED)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 07:13 PM

59. I was just a kid and I loved Reagan at that time

 

For me, as a kid, he had many of the same qualities Obama has today. He was charismatic and cool. Hate me all you like for this, but he was (in my opinion) the most charismatic GOP President / Leader of the last fifty years. No one else has even been close. Comparing Reagan to Bush is like comparing Obama to Gore.

As for why Republicans today still worship him, that's different altogether. The typical Republican lives in a fantasy world, everything is backwards, everything (from their economic system to their morality) is a lie. They believe in and love the Reagan of that fantasy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Abra (Reply #59)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 07:21 PM

60. Much of what we believe is a product of the propaganda at the time, in my opinion...

Reagan was the Teflon President. Wanna know how I know? The media told me.

At the same time, we were told that Carter was the worst President of our time, if you were listening to the same media.

We are what we experience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 09:40 PM

61. Because he followed the despised Jimmy Carter

Seriously, I honestly think that's the majority of it. Ask a conservative about Jimmy Carter even now and you'll get an outpouring of venom.

And Reagan had the good fortune to be in office when most of the US was doing relatively well and the USSR fell apart. Really, their adulation is mostly for the myth of the man rather than what he actually did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Reply #61)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 09:49 PM

64. When the truth of the matter...

...is that America was looking for an honest man that they could trust after Nixon and Watergate and Ford's pardon of Nixon and the fall of Saigon and the first gas lines and WIN buttons and total mistrust of our government. That was what Jimmy Carter inherited. But Republicans soon put that behind them when they came in with Ronald Reagan and his attacks upon Jimmy Carter. America bought his bullshit. If only for time and place, Jimmy Carter was an historic President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Reply #61)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 09:50 PM

66. +1,000,000,000,000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 09:45 PM

62. Who the Hell else do they have beside Ike?

Dubya = idiot
HW = less of an idiot, but a one-termer
Ford = accidental President
Nixon = crook
Hoover = depression

How far back should we go. Note that TR is already on Rushmore (and I'm good with that).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 09:46 PM

63. Because he was a 2 termer who left office with his public perception dignity in tact.

W. nope
GHW nope
Ford nope
Nixon nope

They have to go all the way back to Ike to find anything else to be proud of and Ike was a radical leftist by today's Republican party standard. Reagan is all they got.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 09:49 PM

65. Ronald Reagan, Enabler of Atrocities

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2011/020611.html

"However, since Argentina’s rightists were devout Catholics, they had a special twist when the prisoners were pregnant women. The expectant mothers would be kept alive until they reached full term and then were subjected to either induced labor or Caesarian sections.

The babies were handed out to military families and the new mothers were loaded aboard the death planes to be dumped out over the sea to drown. The children were sometimes raised by their mothers’ murderers. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Argentina’s Dapper State Terrorist” or “Baby-Snatching: Argentina’s Dirty War Secret.”]

As ghastly as Argentina's “dirty war” was, it had an ardent defender in Ronald Reagan, who used his newspaper column to chide President Jimmy Carter’s human rights coordinator, Patricia Derian, for berating the Argentine junta.

Reagan joshed that Derian should “walk a mile in the moccasins” of the Argentine generals before criticizing them. [For details, see Martin Edwin Andersen's Dossier Secreto.]"

Reagan was a psychopath.

Republicans are psychopaths?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agony (Reply #65)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:55 AM

97. Thanks for that interesting link...i didn't think I could despise him more than I already did...

 

...now I do...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 10:04 PM

67. No one discussing Ronald Reagan should be allowed to forget the Salvadoran Baby Skulls

Robert Parry's 2007 story: Reagan and the Salvadoran Baby Skulls:

Ronald Reagan’s many admirers may find this idea offensive, but – given a new report by the Washington Post – it might be fitting to have a display at Reagan National Airport to show how Salvadoran baby skulls were used as candle holders and good luck charms. Perhaps the presentation could contain skeletal remains of Guatemalans and Nicaraguans, too.

It might be modeled after skeletons on display in Cambodia from the slaughters by the Khmer Rouge. After all, it was President Reagan – more than any other person – who justified and facilitated the barbarity that raged through Central America in the 1980s, claiming the lives of tens of thousands of peasants, clergy and students, men, women and children.

Reagan portrayed the bloody conflicts as a necessary front in the Cold War, but the Central American violence was always more about entrenched ruling elites determined to retain their privileges against impoverished peasants, including descendants of the region’s Maya Indians, seeking social, political and economic reforms.

One of the most notorious acts of brutality occurred in December 1981 in and around the Salvadoran town of El Mozote. The government’s Atlacatl Battalion – freshly trained and newly armed thanks to Reagan’s hard-line policies – systematically slaughtered hundreds of men, women and children.

Read the rest here: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/012907.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 01:08 AM

69. Corporate media propaganda organ of the elites

...who think the peons needs a manly-mans hero.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 01:12 AM

71. Stupidity. Rewriting history. Lies.

Your basic repuke qualities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 01:25 AM

72. Because he was the incarnation of greed, corruption, ignorance, and evil.

The natural Patron Saint of the GOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 02:09 AM

73. Reagan tamed inflation.

 

on top of that, he spoke some important words...

"Mr Gorbachev, come to this gate.
Mr Gorbachev, open this gate.
Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

Which in the minds of many,
ten times makes up for, his bonehead moves,
of which,
Greneda,
Beirut,
Iran-contra, and others,
comes to mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BT021 (Reply #73)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 06:09 AM

75. So they waited until Bush Sr was President before they picked up their hammers...

and tore down that wall. But it was the words of Ronald Reagan that caused it to happen? Yeah, I'm sure those East Germans, that did not speak English and did not understand Ronald Reagan, used that as their rallying cry when they were tearing down the Berlin Wall....when George Bush Sr was President... But we believe what we want to believe or what we are told to believe, depending on our political persuasion...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #75)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 07:06 AM

79. people and presidents from Truman to ...

 

Bush41 played their parts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BT021 (Reply #79)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 07:10 AM

80. Also, we should not forget the role of Paul Volcker...

the Fed Chair under Carter, who ran the interest rates sky high to get inflation under control, and who was kept in his job by Reagan and continued to raise the rates until inflation was under control. Inflation did not disappear when Reagan walked thru the door.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #80)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:55 AM

98. Inflation was a problem all the way back to Nixon.

Nixon signed an executive order trying to freeze wages and prices.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=60492#axzz20KF3rrSd

It didn't work (obviously) and Ford handed out buttons that said WIN (whip inflation now). So, yeah, Paul Volker said; we need to slow down the money supply. As a result farmers (and small contractors) had been financing their operations in advance had their rates jacked up and went tits up.

Really this was the beginning of corporate farming and corporate welfare and the death of the family farm. Ironically farm states love their Reagan. Hundreds, if not thousands of small towns across America were absolutely decimated and still have not recovered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blanks (Reply #98)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 01:57 AM

129. Guns and Butter started inflation

 

which predates Nixon

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BT021 (Reply #129)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 09:40 AM

132. I googled guns and butter and...

I don't quite know what you mean by it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blanks (Reply #132)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 12:06 PM

133. "Guns and butter" is a classic phrase....

...illustrating the conflict between providing for the needs of a civilian population (butter) and providing guns for the military. Since the Vietnam war, the 'needs' of an expanding military have put a check on programs providing for the poor and middle classes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LongTomH (Reply #133)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 01:24 PM

134. Why would that create inflation in the pre-Nixon era?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BT021 (Reply #73)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 08:05 AM

85. carter appointee volker did this by jacking rates up sky high.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BT021 (Reply #73)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 04:22 PM

116. Carter tamed inflation.

 


It was double digits before Carter. It peaked around 21% his 3rd year in office. Then plummeted his final year in office. It was 7% for his entire final year. If you extroplate his last quarter to a full year it would only have been 3%.

In fact, deflation was the scary word in economic circles the day Reagan was sworn into office. Inflation plummeted so rapidly in Carter's final year, people were afraid it would just keep right on diving.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ieoeja (Reply #116)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 05:12 AM

130. your numbers are just made up

 

http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates/united-states/historic-inflation/cpi-inflation-united-states-1980.aspx

look at the link above.
monthly inflation, 1980
September, 0.84%
October, 0.95%
November, 0.83%

................................

another link
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=2

annual inflation, month by month
1980, lowest, 12.52%,,, highest, 14.73%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 06:51 AM

76. Interesting thread kentuck

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to NNN0LHI (Reply #76)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 11:48 AM

103. ...

Yep. +1


Hound: A hound is a type of dog that assists hunters by tracking or chasing the animal being hunted. It can be contrasted with the gun dog, which assists hunters by identifying the location of prey and/or recovers shot quarry.

Gun Dogs

Method of Work

Pointers and Setters

Upon reaching the field, the handler often will cast or direct the dog in a wide circle. Experienced dogs will search the edges of the field knowing that birds are usually found there. This wide run helps to burn off the dog's initial exuberance and may help the dog establish its bearings and form a "background" upon which game smells will be processed. The dog then begins working back and forth, starting near the hunter and slowly ranging out. The dog repeats this process as the hunters move through the field. How far a handler allows the dog to range is a matter of personal preference. When a pair of dogs work as a team, one works close in while the other ranges out in larger circles. If either dog becomes birdy, the other dog works its way over to assist. Good bird dogs are alert to their handlers and to the disposition of other dogs in the field. They should readily comply if the handler casts them to an area of particular interest, such as a brush pile or shuck of corn.

When game is detected, a dog freezes, either pointing or crouching. If other dogs are present, they also freeze, "honoring" the first dog's point. The pointing dog remains motionless until the hunters are in position. Handlers give the command whoa, instructing the dog to remain still. What happens next depends on the dog's training. Some trainers train the dog to stay motionless while the hunter steps forward and flushes the game. Other trainers direct the dog to flush the game with a command such as get it! Pointing dogs excel on covey type birds such as bobwhite, quail, and grouse as these birds will hold in position well, allowing the hunter to approach and get into position.

If a bird is downed, the dogs are instructed to search for and retrieve it with the command dead bird, or simply dead.

Flushing dogs

When hunting upland game flushing dogs (spaniels and retrievers) work much more closely with the hunter. Flushers will not cover the same amount of ground as a pointing dog as the flusher must be kept within shotgun distance. Flushing dogs are often used on birds that run from the hunter. On such birds as pheasant, an aggressive flush is necessary to spring the bird to wing. Flushing dogs excel on these types of bird because they do not point the birds, giving them little time for escape on the ground. Pointing breeds are used on such birds, but must be well trained to know when the bird pointed has moved.

Once a bird has been flushed, the dog will sit or "hup" to watch the flight of the bird and mark the fallen birds for retrieval. The dog which does this successfully is referred to as steady to wing and shot. Steadiness is the hallmark of the finished spaniel.


Personally, I highly recommend the "Kentucky Varmint Hound" for its intelligence, and skill at flushing the enormous disease carrying rats and snakes that burrow underground and that sometimes undermine the foundations of human habitations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #103)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:57 PM

126. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 07:01 AM

78. He is all they have.

 

W. Bush is a complete failure.

H.W. Bush raised taxes and was rejected by their party.

Nixon resigned in disgrace.

Ford pardoned Nixon.

Eisenhower kept the top tax rate above 90% and expanded social security, among other things.

Go back and farther and you get to Hoover and the Great Depression.



They have no choice but to worship the one they can pass off as something other than a failure. Conservatives have nobody and nothing else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 07:22 AM

81. Because Reaganites know how to tell a story (especially a fictional one)

Like all con men through the ages, they tell a story a receptive audience wants to hear. It's simple, it has heroes and villains, heroic struggles against the odds, good folks like the audience coming together for a noble cause, and saving all that is good and right from the (swarthy -- shhh! Don't say that out loud!) hordes out to pick the bones of civilization. Who wouldn't want to be a part of that?

And if you label something "A True Story", some people will buy into just about any pile of crap tall tale. Just ask Amityville, New York.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHB (Reply #81)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 07:25 AM

82. Sounds like you have this figured out pretty well

I couldn't have said it better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 07:34 AM

83. He was inaugurated amid much uber-patriotic flag waving on the a split screen

with the Iran Hostages being freed and thus made himself look like the kick-ass who was responsible for the end of that crushingly depressing time for the US. His Presidency thus started on a high note of theatrically manufactured television touting American military might and superiority. After our pathetic exit from Vietnam his people understood that we had to win a war so they set out to invade Grenada and it worked. We were back on top by golly, even after having our asses handed to us when the barracks in Lebanon were bombed by suicide terrorists in a truck full of bombs in 1983.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing

His entire Presidency was pure propaganda and theater and it worked because it made Americans 'feel good'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 08:03 AM

84. lack of alternatives?

what, they gonna idolize poppy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 08:09 AM

86. Tell your GOP friends this one - that Reagan would never have endorsed free trade with China.


What we need to do is drive a wedge between the differences between Reaganism and today's wacky GOP ideology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 08:29 AM

88. I can't believe some poster hasn't claimed Reagan put the first man on the moon yet

We have had every other line of bullshit praising Reagan posted here already.



Don

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 08:45 AM

90. In CA it was believed

in my neighborhood that he let Mentally Ill people out of the hospitals and they were on the streets with nothing to eat.

I was a teen but I clearly remember seeing a photo in the LA Times of a lady sitting on a fence "howling."

Can't really put all the blame on RR according to the goggles.


My family always voted for the Democrats so it was easy for us to keep that impression.


Sorry Ronnie

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to goclark (Reply #90)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 02:19 PM

109. Indeed, he did have the IQ requirement dropped that included the mentally handicapped.

In other words, when he had the IQ requirement dropped from 72 to 68 or that vicinity, that put a lot of these people on the streets. So, in fact, he did put mentally ill people on the streets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 09:35 AM

92. He made all their right wing extremism marketable

People like Barry Goldwater had tried to get their right wing agenda across before and had failed. Richard Nixon governed to the left on several issues in the interests of triangulation. Gerald Ford was a moderate who didn't believe in much of the right wing agenda and actually wanted to govern in the best interests of the nation

Then came "the Great Communicator". Affable, good at one-liners, adept at managing and controlling the press and possessed with the ability to cloak extreme right wing measures in rhetoric that would appeal to the masses. Right wing welfare reform was justified on the basis of dealing with "welfare queens", anyone who criticized American foreign policy was "blaming America first" (in all fairness, the words of Reagan's UN Ambassador, not Reagan himself but was reflected in Reagan's marketing of his foreign policy agenda. Funding contra rebels was equivalent to aiding the founding fathers in America's revolutionary wars. And so on and so on. Reagan's ability to sell his right wing bullshit behind a mask of marketable rhetoric galvanized the success of the right wing agenda in many ways. And despite all the evidence of the corruption and ethics problems in the administration, Reagan still managed to con the American public into giving him high approval ratings and electing his VP when he left office

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 09:42 AM

93. On the 7th day he pardoned George Steinbrenner

And he didn't not trade arms for hostages

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:45 AM

96. The idiots loved his movies.n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 11:05 AM

99. Ronnie Was Essentially a Grifter Straight Out of Central Casting

 

selling trickle down voodoonomics like borax soap. The more puzzling question is why Obama and the mainstream corporate Democrats are almost equally in thrall to his misguided ideology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 11:27 AM

100. The question is did Reagan handle the press...

or did the press handle Reagan. If you look back at the history of 'the military industrial complex':

Nixon was ending Vietnam; Nixon was ended. His vice president was 'resigned' and Ford (the CIA's best friend) skootched into place just in time to step in when Nixon resigned.

Of course he wasn't reelected, but since Walter Cronkite (the most trusted man in America) was opposed to the Vietnam war; they needed to end that influence. The defense industry started financially taking over the burden of providing news to the masses.

If you look at the Carter administration (and Carter himself) they are actually pretty impressive. Carter's impressiveness never came through on television.

If you had to summarize Reagan's administration accurately in two words those two words would be 'defense buildup.' Then there is the selection of the former director of the CIA as his running mate.

I saw an interview with James Garner once and he said 'they' asked him to run for office. He said 'first of all; I'm a democrat'. I think that the forces that be we're looking for an actor to play president for a while.

Reagan was the one who finally played president for them; then they took over the television stations so that there wasn't much opposition to the saber rattling done for the defense industry.

Pretty good plan really. Then there's Fox News; kind of the icing on the cake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 11:37 AM

101. Reagan was anti-gun, so his minions followed in his footsteps.

 

James Brady (Press Secretary for Reagan) and Sarah Brady co-founded Handgun Control, Inc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 11:44 AM

102. He didn't even know he was president. He was a figure head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demosincebirth (Reply #102)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:54 PM

125. Towards the end Nacy was the Co - President

She would wisper the words into his ear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 11:51 AM

104. he could`t get the republican nomination today.

after he was shot the boys in the basement ran the government. he knew nothing about the cia`s role in the Afghanistan -soviet union war until he had to authorized the use of stingers. the boy in the basement ran the government and used reagan as their mouth piece. after he was shot he pretty much could`t really function as a president. nancy was so frightened that they would try again she used astrology to plan his movements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 01:47 PM

107. Because they had been trying to sell their crazy-ass "trickle-down" economics and racists BS

for over 60 years, and they finally found an "actor" who could portray a "kindly old Grandfather figure" to sell it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxrandb (Reply #107)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 01:49 PM

108. and

he showed them how to make "fascism" and "racism" mainstream

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxrandb (Reply #108)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:58 PM

127. Anti-unionism too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 04:58 PM

124. they wanted a post-Nixon era hero to worship

As you point out, we Democrats had JFK and FDR whereas the GOP was tainted with the stain of Nixon, plus Gerald Ford's very unpopular decision to pardon him. They needed a Redeemer, and Reagan fit the bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 11:30 PM

128. Who else can they worship???

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 01:26 PM

135. Short answer: because they were still ashamed of Nixon.

Watergate was a huge black eye for the GOP.

If they were to ever recover, they needed someone who was telegenic, could deliver sharp lines, and could be directed by others without questioning.

So they chose an actor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread