Misc. Reagan Quotes...

[Alan D. Hyde]

http://www.citypages.com/blogmedia/pscholtes/ronandmarilyn.jpg

"Here's my strategy on the Cold War:
We win, they lose."

"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

"Of the four wars in my lifetime none came about because the U.S. was too strong."

"I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandment's would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress."

"The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination."

"Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other."

"The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program."

"I've laid down the law, though, to everyone from now on about anything that happens: no matter what time it is, wake me, even if it's in the middle of a Cabinet meeting."

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first."

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

"Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book."

"No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women."

"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."

- Ronald Reagan

* * * * * * *

FWIW,

Alan

[Phillip Allen]

Thank you

[TomF]

some of these beg for a bit of ironic updating ...

[huisjen]

"We start bombing in five minutes."

[ljb5]

Classic 'Cult of Personality.'

What about his social programs? What about the havoc he wrought on the economy and the massive budget deficits? What about Iran-Contra and the hostages? What about giving Saddam a wink and a handshake as he gassed his own people?

These things don't matter to the cloudy-eyed conservatives.

They remember him as charming. :rolleyes:

As if that mattered.

They say Ted Bundy was charming too...

[Willin']

The old codger got off some zingers when he wasn't nodding off at a cabinet meeting, didn't he?

[Memphis Mike]

He was an actor and not even a good one at that. I think most of his movies were classified as "B" movies.

[Phillip Allen]

he was making a living at acting...not a memorial

[peb]

Classic 'Cult of Personality.'

What about his social programs? What about the havoc he wrought on the economy and the massive budget deficits? What about Iran-Contra and the hostages? What about giving Saddam a wink and a handshake as he gassed his own people?

These things don't matter to the cloudy-eyed conservatives.

They remember him as charming. :rolleyes:

As if that mattered.

They say Ted Bundy was charming too...

Social programs? Which ones excatly were the problem. I know you are a liberal, so I assume you appreciate the welfare programs created from the 30s to the 70s. These were largely untouched by Reagan. They were not drastically modified until Clinton.

What about the havoc he wrought on the economy and the massive budget deficits? Well, in 81 and 82 we went throu a significant recession. They were common place from the late 60s until that point. Can't be blamed on Reagan. Can be blamed on the Fed, but it was medicine our economy needed. After that, the economty boomed until a relatively mild recession in 91. As for the deficits, our economy grew out of them quite nicely in the 90s. I don't like deficit spending either, but there was no economic havoc.

What about Iran-Contra and the hostages? Well, dealing with Iran to fund the contras was not good, BUT it would not have been done if Congress would not have cut off funding of the anti-sandinista forces in the first place. Opposing communism in latin america was something we should definitely have been doing. Have you looked at a list of millions murdered by communist regimes in EVERY country where they took power? Reagan's staunch anti-communism is why many of is consider him great.



What about giving Saddam a wink and a handshake as he gassed his own people? Not good, but an overstated myth. We did not arm Sadam to a great extent in the 80s. The soviets did. All of the capture military equipment from the first gulf war was soviet built. It was not US made products.

[ljb5]

Have you looked at a list of millions murdered by communist regimes in EVERY country where they took power?

Have you looked at a list of the people killed by the right-wing dictators who we supported?

We propped up some really sleazy regimes down there --- contrary to the wishes of the people. You can't suppress the will of the masses and call it 'democracy.'

This is some very poor reasoning: "Reagan wouldn't have had to break the law if Congress hadn't passed the law in the first place."

The law was passed, ergo the President should have followed it.

[Phillip Allen]

Regan was effective...liberals hate him for it

[peb]

Have you looked at a list of the people killed by the right-wing dictators who we supported?

Not even close to the same magnitude. The communists murdered over 125 million. You cannot come close to documenting this with right-wing dictators.

I do not deny we made some undesirable alliances in the cold-war. But if you are so critical of this, are you also critical of us allying ourselves with Stalin in WWII. Have you spend much time criticizing FDR for this? Just wondering our consitent you are?

[TomF]

Regan was effective...liberals hate him for itI disagree on both counts.

I don't think Reagan was exceptionally effective at policy. His largest putative triumph, over totalitarian Communism, had not much to do with him. More to do with flaws inherent in totalitarian Communism itself ... pretty much any US president would have "won" in the circumstance. "Reaganomics," or supply-side economics, did not produce the benefits touted. And he presided over the creation of the 2nd largest national debt in US history ... superceded only by the current Prez.

Reagan's real legacy, where he WAS exceptionally effective, was in re-defining the role of the head of state. He delivered his speeches and talks with an actor's facility, and in so doing, raised the bar 'round the world for the communications skills leaders must possess.

Reagan really touched people, even Liberals. In fact, as we saw when the man died, people from pretty much all political stripes rose up and all but beatified him with their expressions of love. ... Often in spite of their objections to his worldview, his policies, and his political/economic legacy.

[ljb5]

Not even close to the same magnitude. The communists murdered over 125 million. You cannot come close to documenting this with right-wing dictators.

That's just a question of scale.

If these Central American banana republics were as large as China and Russia combined, it's possible their dictators would have killed 125 million. They were every bit as brutal and ruthless. Thankfully, they didn't have the same size population.


The difference between FDR with Stalin and Reagan with Central America is that FDR did not create Stalin.

He didn't arm him and support him and suppress his enemies and force him into power and give him permission to purge his critics and give him clandestine support from shadowy CIA operations.

Stalin was terrible, but he wasn't ours and there wasn't anything practical we could have done about him. It would have been nice if FDR could have thrown him out of power and saved those tens of millions of people --- but that simply wasn't possible.

FDR was smart enough to use Stalin for what we needed (defeating Hitler), without crossing the line of endorsing him or propping him up.

Did FDR ever send CIA-trained assasins to Russia to kill Stalins enemies?

[Phillip Allen]

"He didn't arm him and support him and suppress his enemies and force him into power and give him permission to purge his critics and give him clandestine support from shadowy CIA operations."

indefensable

[peb]

TomF,

Reagan was effective in foriegn policy. The myth that communism would have fallen for any president cannot be supported. Totalitarian and economically inefficient regimes can last a long. Perhaps always on the edge of collapse, but not quite there. Communism stayed in power in China, Vietname, Cuba. And Cuba was predicted to fold really quick with a failed economy and no soviet support. It hasn't.

Reagan forced them into an arms race, and perhaps more importantly he convinced the people of Eastern Europe that they did not have to remain under communist rule. When the Hungarians revolted in 58, Ike did nothing and the Suez canal fiasco was going on. Eastern europeans determined the west would never help.

Reagan changed that mindset. People forget that befoe he came to power, the conventional wisdom was that we needed to learn to live with communism, it was here to stay. Reagan was considered dangerous because he said no to that line of thinking.

He really was somehhat effective on domestive policy. He was not able to reduce the size of government to the extend that it needed to be. Although he did reduce the income tax rates from rediculous levels.

[TomF]

"He didn't arm him and support him and suppress his enemies and force him into power and give him permission to purge his critics and give him clandestine support from shadowy CIA operations."

indefensiblePinochet. Marcos. The Argentine generals. Noriega. The Brazilian generals. Shall I go on?

I agree Phillip, it was indefensible.

[Landrith]

FDR did arm and support Stalin and Osama Bin Laden under the name Tony Osama spent time lobbying Congress in D.C. to restore funding and arms to his Saudi radicals in Afganistan. But I get your point.

[peb]

That's just a question of scale.

If these Central American banana republics were as large as China and Russia combined, it's possible their dictators would have killed 125 million. They were every bit as brutal and ruthless. Thankfully, they didn't have the same size population.


The difference between FDR with Stalin and Reagan with Central America is that FDR did not create Stalin.

He didn't arm him and support him and suppress his enemies and force him into power and give him permission to purge his critics and give him clandestine support from shadowy CIA operations.

Stalin was terrible, but he wasn't ours and there wasn't anything practical we could have done about him. It would have been nice if FDR could have thrown him out of power and saved those tens of millions of people --- but that simply wasn't possible.

Do you know anything about history? Do you not think we armed Stalin during WWII? And very few (if any) of these "right wing dictators" did we create. But they were the oppositino to the communist revolution and so we supported those who were fighting communist.

It is very similiar to FDR and Stalin. It is just that liberals have yet to realize that communism was just as evil as Nazism.

[peb]

Pinochet. Marcos. The Argentine generals. Noriega. The Brazilian generals. Shall I go on?

I agree Phillip, it was indefensible.

So then I repeat, if you are consistent you also think it was indefensible that we armed Staling during WWII.

[TomF]

TomF,

Reagan was effective in foriegn policy. The myth that communism would have fallen for any president cannot be supported. Neither position is demonstrably more true than the other. There is only one history, Peb - with no "control group" in a double blind study. Reagan HAPPENED to be at the helm, so he's given credit. Personally, I think it was the communist bloc's population's demand for consumer goods, fuelled by television broadcasts from Europe. The Soviet empire imploded from internal pressures; it did not explode due to pressures from without. The Arms Race was, yes, a contributing factor ... but not (I think) the decisive one.
He really was somewhat effective on domestive policy. He was not able to reduce the size of government to the extend that it needed to be. Although he did reduce the income tax rates from ridiculous levels.Among his first cuts were cuts to the Office of the Census. With the effect that the social impacts of his other cuts were more difficult to trace.

t.

[Phillip Allen]

the claim what FDR did not arm Stalin was indefensible...perhaps you missed that point

[GregW]

Stalin was provided arms from the west, USA included, so the Russians could effectively keep the German armies busy in the east while the allies advanced from the west. Every German soldier killed or otherwise kept on the eastern front, wasn't available to kill an Allied soldier. Providing arms to Stalin was simply in the USA's best interest, nothing wrong with that.

[brad9798]

We almost forgot my personal favorite RR quote: " ... I don't recall."

[TomF]

So then I repeat, if you are consistent you also think it was indefensible that we armed Stalin during WWII.I think that what's good for the goose ...

Phillip, if I misunderstood, I apologize. But I do think it was indefensible to arm, support, and teach torture techniques (School of the Americas) to the various R-wing dictators - even to oppose Communism.

The West stopped arming Stalin after WWII. Same can't be said for the various R-wing dictators.

[ljb5]

the claim what FDR did not arm Stalin was indefensible...perhaps you missed that point

If you read for context, you will see my point.

Although we were allied with Stalin against Hitler, and cooperated (as allies do) in fighting that war, FDR's support of Stalin did not extend much (if any) beyond our common objectives.

FDR did not engineer a coup to place Stalin in power. He did not send the CIA to assassinate Stalin's political enemies in Russia. He did not arm Stalin to fight the internal battles of Russia.

FDR's support of Stalin was limited (as much as possible) to acheiving our goals -- not Stalin's.

We didn't choose Stalin --- but since he was there, we figured out how best to use him for our goals.

This is very different than the situation in South America where the U.S. took an active goal in selecting, training and supporting right-wing regimes. We trained them, armed them, placed them in power and kept them there despite the will of the people.

------------------------------------


Peb, I realize that Communism was evil (I always have) --- it's just that I don't feel responsible for it. Not one bit. I'm an American Liberal, and that has nothing to do with Communism and I won't go around apologizing for something I never did.


---------------------------------

What alternative did FDR have? What if he had refused to ally with Stalin? How would this have helped?

Would that have defeated Hitler? No.
Would that have prevented Stalin from killing millions in Russia? No.

Is this what you want, Peb?

[Phillip Allen]

In general and without any specifics, I think the training and arming of various dictators was a mistake...I also think it was practiced by congress which at various times was under control of both parties but until recently it was controled for years by the Democrat party so they arn't off the hook.

[TomF]

In general and without any specifics, I think the training and arming of various dictators was a mistake...I also think it was practiced by congress which at various times was under control of both parties but until recently it was controled for years by the Democrat party so they arn't off the hook.Agreed. No clean hands.

[Dale R. Hamilton]

I always liked Ronnie in photographs with other world leaders- he towered over them. Yup, good representation of our country.

[Osborne Russell]

I always liked Ronnie in photographs with other world leaders- he towered over them. Yup, good representation of our country.

Simple things for simple minds.

[Phillip Allen]

just thinkin...didn't FDR (with others) devide up Europe the way he wanted and install "leaders"?

[ljb5]

just thinkin...didn't FDR (with others) devide up Europe the way he wanted and install "leaders"?


Not exactly. The war divided Europe. Not really FDR's doing.

After the war, they needed some leaders, so the victors did their best to establish a starting point. They gave them advice and assistance in rebuilding. That's normal after a war.

That's very different than the situation in Latin America where we created revolutions, instigated coups and suppressed democracy.

Again, what option did FDR have? (Especially considering he was dead)... Was he supposed to just walk away from Europe? Start a war against Stalin?

[paladin]

What about giving Saddam a wink and a handshake as he gassed his own people? Not good, but an overstated myth. We did not arm Sadam to a great extent in the 80s. The soviets did. All of the capture military equipment from the first gulf war was soviet built. It was not US made products.



not exactly so....most of the stuff was old soviet hardware with modern updates and modifications by the U.S.A. (RCA among others)

[Lew Barrett]

Probably as attributable to Nancy as Ron, the failed
"Just Say No" initiative. Resulting in:
No funding for rehab programs
No understanding of the reality of drug addiction
No sense of the real social costs
No progress on that particular front
-and finally-
No more "just say no" adds.

[High C]

just thinkin...didn't FDR (with others) devide up Europe the way he wanted and install "leaders"?

Not only that, but the military occupation he put in place is still there to this day.

[Lew Barrett]

FDR and Osama? In which century?







FDR did arm and support Stalin and Osama Bin Laden under the name Tony Osama spent time lobbying Congress in D.C. to restore funding and arms to his Saudi radicals in Afganistan. But I get your point.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

"Not only that, but the military occupation he put in place is still there to this day."

All of it, a lot of it, some of it, a little of it?

As an occupying force who is the US individual who tells the governments of the occupied territories what to do?

Can you point out the legal basis for occupying these territories for 60 years?

N.B. The American Battles Monument Commission has no arms so it doesn't count.

Hmmmm?

Charlie

[High C]

"Not only that, but the military occupation he put in place is still there to this day."

All of it, a lot of it, some of it, a little of it?

As an occupying force who is the US individual who tells the governments of the occupied territories what to do?

Can you point out the legal basis for occupying these territories for 60 years?

N.B. The American Battles Monument Commission has no arms so it doesn't count.

Hmmmm?

Charlie


Hmmm, what? Was there an actual question in there? Are you actually challenging my claim that our military is still in Europe, very substantially so in fact, or was that just one of those little burps that you don't catch in time?

[Gonzalo]

Chuck was challenging your implication that the US military in Europe is an occupying force.

[High C]

Chuck was challenging your implication that the US military in Europe is an occupying force.

Thanks for the translation. ;)

Whether it's an occupying force or not is a matter of perspective. Arguments can be found on both sides of that coin. It certainly was an occupying force at one time, and it's still there in great numbers, 20 plus bases in Germany alone.

[ljb5]

...20 plus bases in Germany alone.

You should see how many McDonald's we have over there!

The point is that not all military forces are invaders. There is a legitimate role for cooperation with allies.

Can you really not tell the difference?

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Translation?
Is this some kind'a trick question? Din't I put the question marks in da right places?
As far as I can tell the first line, in quotes was gotten from your brain. Well, I think it was from your brain. You didn't steal it, did you?
Yea, the "Army of Occupation". Got any names, numbers, shoulder patches, tables of organization? Anything at all to make this transparent to everyone. You do want to be understood don't you?
I sure hope this works. I'm running out of interogatives!
Ein, zwei, drei, spiel. And, like that.

your buddy in Ahia,

Charlie

[High C]

Chuck, buddy, I know this will come as a great shock, but half the time, no, make most of the time, you rant and ramble such that nobody has any idea what the heck you're trying to say, or ask. I guess there may five or six others here who speak fluent rant. I suppose they might understand you pretty well.

Just slow down, give it some thought, streamline the hysteria, and get to the point. Yeah, that's the ticket. ;)

[ljb5]

Neither Gonzalo nor I had any trouble understanding you, Chuck. ;)

[PeterSibley]

"No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women."


- Ronald Reagan

* * * * * * *
This .may be becoming a little more obvious as time goes by.

[Phillip Allen]

the time for such courage may be closer than we know