Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Anyone is welcome to join. Sign up here

Arnie for President

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No. Reagan was a brilliant president.

    Can't agree with that, at all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    briggi wrote:
    Can't agree with that, at all.

    Fair enough.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    it seems he only became the main man of california because he's famous
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No. Reagan was a brilliant president.
    LOL!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ballerina wrote:
    it seems he only became the main man of california because he's famous

    And because his predecessor wasn’t up to the job.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    LOL!

    Are you getting Reagan and Carter confused? It was Carter who was the joke...(Nice guy though)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As opposed to Reagan, a truly nasty piece of work who:

    - supported terrorists and fascist death squads in Latin America

    - sold weapons to the Ayatollah Khomeini to finance his dirty murderous wars

    - completely destroyed the already weak and underfunded welfare system in the US creating unparalleled hardship for millions and an ever expanding gap between rich and poor in the US

    - supported the Apartheid

    - supported other odious murdererous regimes in Latin America and elsewhere

    - and last but not least, was an ally and friend of the evil milk snatcher.

    He fucked up the US economy good as well. In fact, I cannot think of a single good thing he ever achieved.


    Do you want to give us your reasons as to why do you claim Reagan was a good President?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Reagan didnt know what he was doing though, he was a President who left the big stuff up to other people and he was the happy face who focused on summits and negotiations and meeting other world leaders. Although the Reagan administration did many horrible things and had many amazing cock ups, he himself can only be held accountable for been the leader, he didnt make the decisions himself. He was more of a, "I want this, this and this to happen, now make it happen!" kind of President and the result of getting what he wanted included the monumental fuck ups. Thats why so many people happilly fell on their swords for Reagan when they wouldnt for any other man.

    Also, Carter was amusing, but not as much as Ford!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ^^^^^

    :yes: Nicely summed up there, Aladdin. I'd actually [almost] forgotten that he was a shameless apologist for Apartheid.

    Not to mention the despicable way he happily pretended AIDS didn't exist for a sweet six year stretch during which an epidemic pretty much exploded.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I forgot about the AIDS epidemic in the States. The Thatcher Government here did such a good job promoting safe sex and warnings about sexual diseases, i forgot that Reagan's Government didnt do anything about it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    and last but not least, was an ally and friend of the evil milk snatcher.

    He fucked up the US economy good as well. In fact, I cannot think of a single good thing he ever achieved.

    To quote Baroness Thatcher actually, "Ronald Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot." Although I guess perhaps you don't see the demise of the Soviet Union as a good thing.

    Intersting stats from wikipedia on the economy for Reagan:
    During the Reagan presidency, the inflation rate dropped from 13.6% in 1980 (President Carter's final year in office) to 4.1% by 1988, the economy added 16,753,000 jobs and the unemployment rate fell from 7.5% to 5.3% (although it increased at one point peaking near 10%). In addition, the poverty rate fell from 14% to 12.8%.

    Reagan wasn't perfect and the methods he sometimes used to fight the evils of communism were misguided - as some of the instances you list display but as presidents go Reagan was pretty good.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To quote Baroness Thatcher actually, "Ronald Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot." Although I guess perhaps you don't see the demise of the Soviet Union as a good thing.
    Only Thatcher's claims are bonkers beyond description.

    Even if you were to entertain the loony idea that the Soviet Union collapsed because keeping up with America militarily ended up bankupting it, the Cold War was a 40 year affair. If anything Regan could claim 1/5 or 1/6 of the credit- the Soviet Union did not start to spend money on its military after Reagan got in.

    The whole idea is simplistic rubbish anyway.
    Intersting stats from wikipedia on the economy for Reagan:


    Reagan wasn't perfect and the methods he sometimes used to fight the evils of communism were misguided - as some of the instances you list display but as presidents go Reagan was pretty good.
    Interestingly you choose not to comment on his disgusting human rights record and his support for one of the most despicable regimes in the history of mankind.

    But's what all that compared with with a few economic figures (for the benefit of the rich only, but never mind) eh? Let's not allow disgusing alleagances with evil regimes, murderers and terrorists and the destruction of the welfare system get in the way of inflation figures.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    But's what all that compared with with a few economic figures (for the benefit of the rich only, but never mind) eh? Let's not allow disgusing alleagances with evil regimes, murderers and terrorists and the destruction of the welfare system get in the way of inflation figures.

    For the benefit of the rich only? Lower inflation, lower unemployment and a lower poverty rate – all achievements of Ronald Reagan were of universal benefit. How do only the rich benefit from less people in poverty?

    And for the record Reagan didn’t support apartheid in South Africa. He opposed economic sanctions because he believed they would create economic hardship for those they were designed to help. I don’t agree with him but I don’t see any difference between that position and people who opposed sanctions against Saddam’s evil regime for similar reasons.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:

    But's what all that compared with with a few economic figures (for the benefit of the rich only, but never mind) eh?

    Why do you assume that?

    Don't bother answering actually because it is quite obvious. You believe because you want to, not because you actually possess any information to substantiate.

    and you the one that is the scourge of the fundamentalists and champiion of rationality......... :rolleyes:
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    No. Reagan was a brilliant president.
    Alladin wrote:
    LOL!

    Quoted for truth there.

    If Regan is a good President, then surley that makes Takuma Sato a good F1 driver?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ballerina wrote:
    it seems he only became the main man of california because he's famous


    Quite a few famous people entered their names to be governer, although the vast majority of them were TV has been's that just wanted some free publicity.

    He was probabaly one of the few people that entered the race knowing if he won he'd actually lose millions in potential earnings (i.e. from not having the time to do future movies) .. although if you want power then governer is the right way forward to the most powerful job in the world.

    Like someone I saw said .. if he manages to fix all the problems in California over the coming years .. then maybe he does deserve to be president.

    It might be interesting to see a guy born a European running the USA!!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Quite a few famous people entered their names to be governer, although the vast majority of them were TV has been's that just wanted some free publicity.

    They entered as Independants.

    Arnie entered as a Republican boosted by public dissaray for the Democrat Davis.

    He really hasn't got a clue, what was that shit he was going on about economic sissy girl or some shit.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Arnie will never become president, he might not even get re-elected as governor of California. Amending the constitution (to allow a foreign born US citizen to become president) is difficult, it requires 2/3 in the Senate and the House + 3/4 of state legislatures. It won't happen.


    they're always trying to get flag burning made illegal, okay they still fail


    and surely that law preventing foreign born presidents is undemocratic, since if theyre a citizen they can run for office
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Arnie brought some good policies into California. The state is setting an example to the rest of the US in terms of cutting greenhouse gas emissions and reducing pollution.

    As for anything else he's done, I'm not sure. I think he lost popularity because of some old flames coming back to haunt him, or some Nazi-thing? Can't really remember.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    His dad was a member of the Austrian SS.

    Some of his policies have been smart and effective, some have been poor. He is the same as all politicians, no worse, no better.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    and surely that law preventing foreign born presidents is undemocratic, since if theyre a citizen they can run for office

    It's outlined by the founding fathers in the Constitution.

    It’s not ‘undemocratic’ since the Constitution can be amended by elected representatives. As far as I know the natural-born citizen requirement only applies to the presidency.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Arnie brought some good policies into California. The state is setting an example to the rest of the US in terms of cutting greenhouse gas emissions and reducing pollution.

    .
    doesn't arnie own half a dozen humvees?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    doesn't arnie own half a dozen humvees?

    Yep, if i remeber well he was the first one to order the non-militar version of them...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yep, if i remeber well he was the first one to order the non-militar version of them...
    same old bullshit then innit mate.
    heres a good idea for all the people to follow ...but not me ...i'm not one of the people ...i'm the king!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    For the benefit of the rich only? Lower inflation, lower unemployment and a lower poverty rate – all achievements of Ronald Reagan were of universal benefit. How do only the rich benefit from less people in poverty?
    Fewer working rights, shittier working conditions, no help for the unemployed, no help for single mothers, no access to health...

    Do you really think you can measure the wellbeing of a society by a few figures only?
    And for the record Reagan didn’t support apartheid in South Africa. He opposed economic sanctions because he believed they would create economic hardship for those they were designed to help. I don’t agree with him but I don’t see any difference between that position and people who opposed sanctions against Saddam’s evil regime for similar reasons.
    Oh please! Reagan went far beyond than those who oppose strangling sanctions against Saddam. I can't even believe you tried to equate the two. There are so different at so many levels, for so many reasons.

    Reagan was an Apartheid apologist scumbag. Just as his great friend Thatcher's husband.

    And funny how you do not mention his involvement with death squads and fascists in latin America- not to mention his dealings with Jomeini. It would seem that mad Iranian ayatollas are dangerous scum that deserve our contempt... so long as they don't happen to have any dealings going with your beloved Republicans.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    . It would seem that mad Iranian ayatollas are dangerous scum that deserve our contempt... so long as they don't happen to have any dealings going with your beloved Republicans.
    Youch! :thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Arnie brought some good policies into California. The state is setting an example to the rest of the US in terms of cutting greenhouse gas emissions and reducing pollution.

    As for anything else he's done, I'm not sure. I think he lost popularity because of some old flames coming back to haunt him, or some Nazi-thing? Can't really remember.

    He is partial to the occasional stiff right arm and yelling "******" at black people...apparently.

    I have seen photos of him giving the roman salute - and some black bodybuilder claims he was given racial abuse.

    He's also said that he dreams of becoming "some kind of dictator".
Sign In or Register to comment.