What a real leader sound like:
Replies sorted oldest to newest
“Let me state as plainly as I can: There was absolutely no justification, either legal or moral, for what the Soviets did. One newspaper in India said, "If every passenger plane…is fair game for home air forces…it will be the end to civil aviation as we know it.''
"This is not the first time the Soviet Union has shot at and hit a civilian airliner when it over-flew its territory. In another tragic incident in 1978, the Soviets also shot down an unarmed civilian airliner after having positively identified it as such."
“It was an act of barbarism, born of a society which wantonly disregards individual rights and the value of human life and seeks constantly to expand and dominate other nations,” Reagan later added.
“With our horror and our sorrow, there is a righteous and terrible anger. It would be easy to think in terms of vengeance, but that is not a proper answer. We want justice and action to see that this never happens again.”
Korean airlines flight 007 was shot down on September 1, 1983. Reagan gave that speech on September 5, 1983. Three full days to prepare a strong, and to the point speech. Obama makes a comment the very same day about an event, that we don't even know the full details, and is blasted into the ground by every single conservative outlet.
I'm so sick of the mud flinging from both sides of the aisle. Take off your 'fox-tinted' glasses, and quit spewing everything you hear on conservative talk shows.
In the case of the Korean airliner we didn't immediately know what had happend. In this case we have pro-Russian rebels taking credit. Where was Obama the day after our Ambassador was killed in Benghazi, delivering a campaign speech in Vegas. When he flew to Texas was it for a campaign appearance or to visit the border? You don't see a pattern? Maybe if the crisis was on a golf course.....
Also Reagan cancelled his vacation and flew back to Washington as soon as they were notified of the downed plane.
I thought this thread was comparing presidential responses to two similar events, rather than how out of touch the current administration is with world events? I agree with you on that point. But, I'm just not going to try and smear the opposite side of the aisle with tidbits spun out of context.
We all know what Obama will do - he will call for more sanctions and that will be it.
Reagan was an actor ...
by the standards of today's republicans.. reagan would be a democrat. i'm just sayin'.
by the standards of today's republicans.. reagan would be a democrat. i'm just sayin'.
By 80s standards you would be a woman - just sayin'
Reagan, wasn't that the name of the man who put 230 unarmed Marines in an undefended barracks in Lebanon, got them blown up and turned tail and ran?
wasn't it reagan who had a 'white house astrologer' helping make decisions?
Oh yeah, I remember us taking military action against the Soviet Union back in 1983 after they shot down a passenger plane. No, wait...that never happened...
That plane had a US congressman on it. How dare Reagan allow one of our government officials death to go unpunished. What did he do besides give a nice speech (written by his puppet masters)? He released intelligence reports we had on the SU which weakened our ability to monitor SU communications due to the fact that they then changed their codes and frequencies. Yep, it did one helluva job in handling that.
I guess it made it a whole lot easier to get away with our own "mistake" taking down of a passenger plane during his Presidency in 1988. He just kinda said "Uh oh...our bad...sorry" and no one blinked an eye. Of course it cost us over 61 million dollars, not to mention the lives that were lost.
Reagan, wasn't that the name of the man who put 230 unarmed Marines in an undefended barracks in Lebanon, got them blown up and turned tail and ran?
_______________________________________________
They were armed. Unfortunately, the navy's rules of engagement were flawed.
wasn't it reagan who had a 'white house astrologer' helping make decisions?
______________________________
No, that was Nancy. Get your story straight.
Oh yeah, I remember us taking military action against the Soviet Union back in 1983 after they shot down a passenger plane. No, wait...that never happened...
That plane had a US congressman on it. How dare Reagan allow one of our government officials death to go unpunished. What did he do besides give a nice speech (written by his puppet masters)? He released intelligence reports we had on the SU which weakened our ability to monitor SU communications due to the fact that they then changed their codes and frequencies. Yep, it did one helluva job in handling that.
I guess it made it a whole lot easier to get away with our own "mistake" taking down of a passenger plane during his Presidency in 1988. He just kinda said "Uh oh...our bad...sorry" and no one blinked an eye. Of course it cost us over 61 million dollars, not to mention the lives that were lost.
_________________________________
In case it escaped your notice, he, along with a few others, but the pressure upon the Soviet state's weaknesses. The USSR no longer exists. I doubt Obama desires to or will do this to Putin.
I know that you Reagan fanatics like to give him the glory for "bringing down the Soviet Union", but in reality he played a small role at best. He and every President before him that served during the Cold War tried to end not only communism but the Soviet Union especially. Gorbachev had more to do with it than Reagan did. The citizens of the Soviet Union can take credit for it more than either of them.
Reagan was not the hero you and others paint him to be. Those of us that remember the truth don't fall for your revised version of history.
Oh and Ronald did whatever Nancy told him to do. Yes, they both believed in Astrology and he followed her advice based on their astrologers predictions. This is well known and not denied by the Reagans. Did you ever read Nancy's book?
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05...y-up-to-a-point.html
Can you imagine the uproar if Mrs Obama used psychics to decide when and where the President gave speeches or attended functions? You peoples heads would explode! hahahaha
The Soviet leaders and people did not willfully end the Soviet Union, they collapsed because their system of complete central control of the economy failed. Gorbachev introduced Glasnost and Perestroika to stop the fall but it was too little, too late, and not close enough to capitalism. Reagan did greatly speed up the collapse by forcing the soviets into a new arms race that they could not win, an arms race of technology that would later fuel the Tech Boom of the 1990s' that would be squandered by sleep overs at the White House. Reagan did have help: the Saudi's lowered their price for crude which hurt the Soviet cash flow, prime Minister Thatcher helped as did a polish Pope. As to how a church leader could help bring down a corrupt empire: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...A28398-2005Apr5.html
They were armed. Unfortunately, the navy's rules of engagement were flawed.
There is disagreement on that. Some sources say no ammunition was available for the guns.
I'm sure you guys know more than Jack Matlock on the subject, but here is his recollection of the events just in case you are interested in what the Ambassador to the USSR during the Reagan/Bush administration has to say.
WWRD? Apparently exactly what President Obama is doing now. LOL
The downfall of our economic system started with Reagan.
They were armed. Unfortunately, the navy's rules of engagement were flawed.
There is disagreement on that. Some sources say no ammunition was available for the guns.
_____________________________________________________
There was an unsubstantiated rumor that the Marines were instructed not to place their magazines in their rifles, not that they possessed no ammo, They had .50 Cal MGs at the gate, but were not allowed to fire per navy instructions.
I'm sure you guys know more than Jack Matlock on the subject, but here is his recollection of the events just in case you are interested in what the Ambassador to the USSR during the Reagan/Bush administration has to say.
___________________________________________________
Then, I must, The cold war ended in two phases. First, the Warsaw pact collapsed as the USSR could no longer afford to keep troops in the near abroad. The CIA made two estimates -- that the USSR GDP was half that of the US and the amount of the USSR defense budget. They got the first wrong -- their GDP was only a quarter of that of the US. They got their defense budget right -- Russia was spending half their GDP on defense. It was not sustainable and KGB economists knew it. After the Soviet Union's retrenchment to their own borders, the internal politburo coup collapsed because the Army refused to intervene and the coup members didn't have adequate control of KGB troops normally used for internal control The president of Russia --Boris Yeltsin rescued Gorbachev and declared the USSR dissolved.
WWRD? Apparently exactly what President Obama is doing now. LOL
___________________________________________
Reagan forced the Soviets to increased their defense budget even more -- destabilizing their economy even further.
By your lights, then Obama must be sending experts to France, the UK and Germany to instruct them on fracking so they can quickly utilize their own resources . And, instructing the EPA and Energy Dept to quicken permits to develop infrastructure to send LPG to Europe, Haven't heard of such, but good on him if he's actually doing it.
Putin can threaten weaker nations like the Ukraine, Baltic states and Poland with cut off of natural gas. However, is he cuts the wealthier nations like France, UK and Germany, he's putting his own neck in a noose. He needs the revenue from sales to them to make payroll, Without that Russia quickly goes to third world status again and those near him will be his worst enemies.
The downfall of our economic system started with Reagan.
___________________________________________________
Seeweed,
This is an unserious post mainly to obfuscate. First, the subject is
Reagan, not the later Bushes.
Now, as to wars -- during the Reagan administration there was the invasion of Grenada -- are you seriously suggesting this had a major effect on the economy!
Now as to tax cuts, under Reagan, tax cuts resulted in increase tax revenue, just as it did in other tax cuts.
Of course, increased revenue, if not accompanied with reductions in spending will not cut the debt, The Dems promised larger cuts for enhanced revenue, but never delivered in their promise.
Progressives argue that Reagan's increased DoD budget caused problems. However, as measured by previous administrations, his was rather low compared with the GDP.
And, I certainly take the Reagan unemployment rate rather than the present one.
i'd just like to see some of the same 'cooperation' the democrats showed during the 'reagan regime', from the republicans.. maybe 'do nothing' bohner will have a change of heart.. if he has one! or perhaps obama can just hire an astrologer.
And, I certainly take the Reagan unemployment rate rather than the present one
.
Wasn't the unemployment rate about 5 or 6 percent when Reagan took office and it went up to 11 percent and did not fully recover until Clinton was in office? Since Obama has been in office, the rate has been going down slowly. It would have gone down faster if America's CEOs were not sending so many jobs overseas.
You don't know or remember what Reagan did to construction. Him and Bush Sr killed it. I was a construction worker, I remember.
Reagan, Reagan's policies, or something else did cut inflation down.
If anyone worked in or on the SDI program, they made more than they ever dreamed of.
Living in a Constitutional Republic is hard work. Too much individual responsibility, personal accountability and providing for your own needs is required. Much oo stressful for progressives nd their pawns.
i'd just like to see some of the same 'cooperation' the democrats showed during the 'reagan regime', from the republicans.. maybe 'do nothing' bohner will have a change of heart.. if he has one! or perhaps obama can just hire an astrologer.
________________________________________________
Damm little cooperation -- never received the budget cuts promised, or the border control.
And, I certainly take the Reagan unemployment rate rather than the present one
.
Wasn't the unemployment rate about 5 or 6 percent when Reagan took office and it went up to 11 percent and did not fully recover until Clinton was in office? Since Obama has been in office, the rate has been going down slowly. It would have gone down faster if America's CEOs were not sending so many jobs overseas.
You don't know or remember what Reagan did to construction. Him and Bush Sr killed it. I was a construction worker, I remember.
Reagan, Reagan's policies, or something else did cut inflation down.
If anyone worked in or on the SDI program, they made more than they ever dreamed of.
______________________________________________________
The massive stagflation and recession from the Carter era caused the unemployment. Reagan tamed the inflation and brought unemployment down. Mopping up after Dems takes time.
Under Obama, unemployment has staggered along -- the U6 rate still over 13 percent. With a flat lined GDP growth of 1.6 percent (worst since the depression) one can't expect much improvement. Bringing production back to the US is the trend -- driving their HQs overseas in the trend due to extremely high taxes and mountains of regulations.
Obama hasn't done anything for construction, like other workers. He's actively stopped construction of pipelines and mining.
Reagan doubled the GDP and tore down the Berlin wall. Obama doubled the debt and tore down our borders. Sorry you are emotionally vested in the worse president in American history.
reagan also doubled america's debt.. but, who's counting that? certainly not the conservatives.. they're too busy blaming obama for the same items for which they praise reagan. you just can't make this stuff up.. unless you're a conservative.. then, that's exactly what you do.. make it up as you go!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...gan-vs-Barack-Obama#
And it just keeps getting better.
Even the casual observer can’t escape the constant assault on Barack Obama. His dropping in popularity is easily understood when you listen to the constant droning of false indignation, false equivalency, false outrage, misleading, out of context, and specious misrepresentations and lies that sometimes contain a kernel of truth, but often little more.
Then there is Reagan.
Like many who call themselves liberal or progressive, I never liked Reagan as a President. On the good side he was charming. Others see more than charm and consider him to be as close to a god as can be without being blasphemous, worthy of solely representing Mount Rushmore. He is the measure of presidential greatness according to Republicans. Obama, on the other hand, is the measure of failure according to the same. Just how does their worst compare with their best?
This is what I found. (Of course, you must go past the loop-de-lu-squigle-thingy)
Conservatives speak of their three legs of their conservative stool: social conservatism (best represented by Evangelicals), foreign policy conservatism (best represented by NeoCons) and economic conservatism (best represented by the TeaParty)
I'll skip the first two, as these (particularly social issues) are are almost completely ideologically and partisan driven and without measure. (Oh, and considering Iran/Contra--the most horrendous of any scandal in the history of this country--almost single-handedly disqualifies Reagan from one leg, while his anti gay/anti AIDS sentiment (and treatment of the poor*) does the same for the other.)
Which leaves us with the economic. Here, we have numbers. And we have a similarity in that both Presidents entered office at, or near, the beginning of a recession. Of course one was inflation driven, correctable by raising interest rates, and the other (also the more devastating by GDP measures) driven by wealth devaluation, and correctable only by time.
Just how does this "horrible" Barack Obama compare to the god-like Ronald Reagan? The following comes from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED), Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the Census Bureau, the Treasury Dept, and US Inflation Calculator. The comparison is for the first four budget years (Oct-Sept) of each President.
The average Dow gain per year: Reagan, 11.81%; Obama, 11.72%
The average Unemployment Rate: Reagan, 8.58%; Obama, 8.69%
The average jobs (thousands) created per year: Reagan, 1638; Obama, 1645
Poverty Rate (3 years only): Reagan, from 14% - 14.4%; Obama, from 14.3% - 15%
By these measures, both Presidents are remarkably similar.
But then there is GDP, debt, and spending. Combining GDP relative to debt is the most common measure for these two.
Average yearly debt to GDP increase: Reagan: 7.83%; Obama, 4.84%
Average Federal government spending increase using Total Expenditure data from BEA:
Reagan: 8.89%; Obama 1.02%
Subtracting inflation: Reagan: 4.21%; Obama, -1.08%
Yes, the guy noted for “small government”, had a 61.7% greater rate of increase in the debt/GDP (that is the debt increased far more relative to GDP output), and outspent the communist (rate of increase) by nearly 9 times.
Some have remarked that Obama spent (via the early stimulus spending) $100B – $200B during Bush’s last budget year (2009). This is true, but this only changes the results slightly and we have no way of knowing just what Bush would have done since he was also stimulus prone. Besides, every President who goes full term is responsible for four budgets years—no more, no less. Also note, Obama is the only President since the Great Depression, besides Truman, to have a spending rate increase that is negative when inflation is factored.
So, if Obama were more Reaganesque, the debt by now would be nearly 22 trillion dollars, based on the rate of increase by Reagan, and would be 34 trillion by the end of the term.
Since he is not Reaganesque, since the debt is not $22T, since debt and spending are far more in control, relatively, then the clear winner is Obama. (Yes Congress is a factor, but only one person signs the budget). Obama has a better economic record (as the indicators are much the same but with less debt and spending), did not have Iran/Contra (deliberately violating law, funding murderers and rapists with money from terrorists who were provided weaponry, via Israel, essentially stolen from the US government), and did not ignore the more vulnerable.
* I leave with this. Everyone “knows” Reagan was a tax cutter. Few know that this is not entirely true. Based on CBO data (Pub 43373), the bottom quintile (fifth) paid 11% more in Federal taxes (all categories) during his two terms than the years immediately preceding. Also, approximately half to the next quintile (the third decile) also paid more. So, approximately 30% of Americans, due to the change in income taxes and payroll taxes, paid more due to Reagan’s “tax cuts”.
Jank's post is a mishmash, at best -- good examples of how figures may be used to support an untruth.
I will comment on one set later in this post. However, first to give the lie to Reagan's anti-gay agenda. From his children's accounts, he definitely was not -- knew many in Hollywood and did not make any comments against them. Did explain to his children the difference in their sexual preferences.
As to federal funds to research HIV/AIDS
http://www.nationalreview.com/...-again-deroy-Murdock
Hardly the actions of one who hated gays.
Now, as to how figures are used to confuse:
"The average Dow gain per year: Reagan, 11.81%; Obama, 11.72%"
The gain under Reagan was based upon real wealth -- companies were prospering and grew the GDP. The present Dow gains are based upon a bubble fueled by the Fed and the EU central bank. Under Obama the GDP has grown 1.6 percent -- the worst since the depression. The Fed has caused interest rates for savings accounts and CDs to drop to just about zero -- even long term CDs pay about one percent. Investors are desperate to place their money someplace where it will grow. The stock market is one of the few such places. Investors are bidding up the cost of stocks well above the actual value of assets. Recently, the EU central bank went the Fed one better -- depositors are charged a fee for putting money in savings accounts -- a negative interest rate. Money is fleeing Europe to the US further fueling the stock market bubble. Come 2015, the Fed is supposed to increase interest rates to deflate the bubble -- hope it works like a slow leak on a tire, rather than the pin ***** of a a balloon, To do Jank justice, I doubt she was familiar with what I just explained.
Yes, there is a drumbeat against Obama. However, it's spread from just conservative and libertarian publications to the MSM as they realize what an incompetent nonentity he is.
By comparison, the GDP average growth for Reagan's administrations was 2.8 percent. For the first 21 months, the average was 2.7 percent (Obama's is 1.6 percent). For the last four years of Reagan's administration, when his policies were more fully realized, it was 3.5 percent. One will never see this for Obama.
reagan also doubled america's debt.. but, who's counting that? certainly not the conservatives.. they're too busy blaming obama for the same items for which they praise reagan. you just can't make this stuff up.. unless you're a conservative.. then, that's exactly what you do.. make it up as you go!
Guess what? When you double the GDP doubling the debt isn't that bad!