Ronald Reagan: The Greatest President Ever

I'm not interested in Reagan's numbers. I couldn't give two hoots about his popularity. You play that game with others, not me. Greatness and popularity are not the same.

My points are made concerning the claim that Reagan was the decisive factor in bringing down communism. This is bollocks, I have detailed the arguments extensively. You show no signs of having read or understood any of them. Read the thread. Tell me what you disagree with (by quoting it not misrepresenting it) and I'll respond. If you can.

 

I warned you. They ask you for sources and unless you give them Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, they then just trash your sources. When will you learn that this wilfull ignorance is a manifestation of totalitarian ideology?

 

Read the thread. Specifics are highlighted. Someone invited 12th Man into the debate and she censored me. After that I reported all your personal insults. Before that I was just fine as all your personal attacks did was vindicate my position and the poverty of your arguments. Once my posts started to get deleted, my attitude changed.

 

Yes, but it is Murray (*)(*)(*)(*)ing Rothbard!! The mental gymnastics of that one is astounding. I expected that for Krugman, even though he is Nobel Prize winning economists currently employed by Princeton. However, Rothbard? I didn't think even the right wingers of this forum could even make a claim that absurd!!


PS. Though I imagine our friend just has no idea who Rothbard is. Which is less surprising....

 

Of course. They probably don't know who Milton Friedman is either (Krugman and he agreed on some issues) so he's obviously a ******* too!

This is how books get burned, universities get purged and we lose our freedom.

 

There have been several sites referenced and several books by credible authors that refute what you are claiming.

If you are going to assert that your opponents are picking and choosing arguments then it would be advised that you deal with the overwhelming evidence against you.

Check. Mate and match.

 

Books yes, credible authors????? Only in the right wing dream land of fairy tales, free markets, and no minorities are those authors credible!!

 

Now I understand. The facts are there, 49 states out of fifty and there is STILL the claim that somebody else, unspecified, of course, somehow won.

Now that is denial.

 

What? A secret cabal?

It's a good thing there is no paranoia in here.

 

What? There is objectively a social club that exists where this happens. It has been observed by people at this forum. Something that is observable and provable is by definition NOT secret!! I thought that would be obvious even to you, but then again you think Murray Rothbard is a left-winger, so nothing surprises me really!!

 

You and your friends talked earlier in this thread about how terrible FDR was, and how he is overrated, but try to appeal to popularity(a logical fallacy) to prove Reagan was great. Do you want to make a guess about who the only post civil war president in history who won a larger percentage of the electoral votes is? That is right, it was FDR!! He only got fewer total electoral votes, because there were only 48 states at the time!! On top of that, FDR also got a larger percentage of the popular vote in 1936 than Reagan did in 84. So proof FDR was greater, or does this logic only work for Reagan? I imagine it is the latter.....

 

While among Republican Presidents, I would rate Lincoln 1, Teddy Roosevelt 2, Eisenhower 3 and Nixon 4, I would even prefer Reagon, a President not worthy of being named on the same page as any of the above, to any of the dwarfs running now. How far the Great? OLD party has fallen to even consider this crew.

 

Debating with certain liberals is a waste of time. It's like trying to explain how to drive a car to a cat.

 

Debating with conservatives is a waste of time.

They cannot argue based on facts, logic and specifics, but resort to making retarded, generalized, irrelevant statements like "It's like trying to explain how to drive a car to a cat."

 

Thanks. It was appropriate for your post.

 

You're welcome. You proved my point very nicely.

 

You didn't have a point!! Just silly ignorant abuse, with no argument anywhere to be found!! Don't worry, it is no more or less than what anyone of intelligence expects of you and your ilk!!

 

Of course I had a point. Certain liberals are not worth debating because they lack the capacity for debate. This has already been demonstrated by several liberals.

A few more exclamation points, next time. They are very effective.

 

More abuse, still no argument!!! This time punctuation abuse... Is that really the best you are capable of? The liberals on this thread have made clear arguments, which people on the right have not contradicted using reason or evidence. You could of course break that trend now if you chose, but I won't hold my great...

 

Ordinarily, one might (quite reasonably, I think) be tempted to respond to a rant that attempts to caricature, and then dismiss, those of another political-philosophy persuasion.

The above rant is so poorly constructed, however--and so intellectually vacuous--that it hardly seems worth the effort...

 

I have not followed the thread. No doubt it is plagued by the same copy+paste scatter-shot from DemocraticUnderground or the other left-wing forums and blogs designed to propagate arguments for the dishonest and lazy leftists on this forum to claim as their own.

 

You are 100% correct.

 

What are you talking about? The post of mine you quoted was the discussion I had with PN about the meaning of the word mitigate. You didn't even read the post did you? You just chose a post with the word Reagan in it and launched your abuse!

The first thing you have to do in this debate is read and understand your opponents argument. It seems to be a point of principle of some of the conservatives on here NOT to do that. Hence all the juvenile fratboy drivel!

 

That was the debate in your head. The real debate was about the Cold War and the vote is a PF vote. I am not Walter Mondale. Walter Mondale was an arse. Walter Mondale being an arse does not mean Reagan is the greatest. Sigh. Tedious stuff dealing with such inept drivel!

 

The thread has been a case study in Trollery from the Right. It's quite an exquisite piece of Trollery, whether on purpose or by accident. Where serious detailed arguments have been made these are ignored. Basic erroneous conservative positions which have been answered by liberals over and over again, are just repeated. Sources are loudly demanded and then dismissed out of hand. Taunting and incitement have been included. The conservatives on here have clearly gone for help in numbers asking friends who are non particpants to weigh in with more personal abuse. Here you all are now refusing to answer the serious points about why the USSR and Eastern European communism really did collapse. I am surprised to see that series conservatives seem incapable of going past "it was Reagan, otherwise communism would still be there". They can't deal with historical fact or debate any other possibility. It's a mark of how totalitarian the Right us becoming (not Reagans fault, he did actually understand nuance and was not as extremist as the trolls). This of course means that it is extremely difficult to have a serious debate with a conservative on PF because debate is not something that they value. Abuse, trolling, personal wind ups, is the order of the day.

If anyone knows of a site with conservatives who like ideas and discussion, where you feel challenged and have to do real research, and where the focus is on discussing the real argument but where each side has to understand the kther's position first, please let me know. These jock fratboy trolls are fm fir a while but you don't learn much.