Tanked

Smelly hippies and Reagan

hazardgrl — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:31:51 GMT

The reason the people at the conference are only going to see their influence decline.

No one my age cares about either. In fact, we rather do not like Reagan's legacy and see his ideas as being the cause of much of our (and everybody's) current distress. The Democrats have moved on from that era for the most part. If the smelly hippie line is still getting laughs at the AEI (not surprised at all by that, btw), that just shows how terribly out of touch they are.

I saw the historical presidential ranking list that came out yesterday, and Reagan was far too high. He'll fall pretty far once the boomers aren't the majority of historians doing the rankings.

Jesus, let's HOPE he's not another Reagan

Horus — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:28:48 GMT

One of the worst Presidents in American history? We just lived THROUGH one of those! We sure as hell don't need another one in succession...

ratshit raygun ?? why would he imitated that

iwasme — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:43:24 GMT

as time goes by ratshit raygun will drift into mediocrity.

unbalanced huge budgets.

unwarranted militarism.

evil foreign policy in nicaragua, chile, and iraq.

the teflon will wear off and the world will see the rusted pan.

without clothes it will be seen that ronnies penis was very very small.

REAGAN

UNION MAN — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 03:18:57 GMT

MOST OF YOU CAN NOT HANDLE THE TRUTH. QUIT LISTENING TO THE "RIGHT" RADIO AND TV CHECK IT OUT FOR YOURSELF AND BE EMBARRASSED! THEN EDUCATE YOURSELF.

JUST TRY IT!!!

Obama as great as Reagan

jhi — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 05:00:52 GMT

The left can only hope. He has set himself up to be another Jimmy Carter- disastrous economic policies, and worthless with our enemies over seas. His administration already has serious ethical issues. Hopefully the public will elect some real conservatives (NO MORE RINOS) that will straighten out the economy, military, and social issues.

President Obama being compared to President Reagan

MANFRED — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 04:20:28 GMT

For the life of me I cannot understand the fascination with quoting President Reagan as having been such a great president. I think quite the contrary is true. He followed the Republican bible "The wealth of nations" whose author I think was scizophrenic. First of all to compare President Obama to President Reagan is way to premature and insulting. The Republicans constantly quoting and referencing to President Reagan is not doing themselves a great service.

Attack

cbmro — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 03:59:32 GMT

Reagan began the all out attack on New Deal Policies. An attack which has quickened until the election of Barack Obama. The American Interprise Institute seems very confused about policy. That is not surprising for an organization that spends its time trying to rewrite history.

Reagan inspired confidence in those who can create change

gmajesko — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:41:54 GMT

Obama inspires hope for people on the dole who want more handouts.

THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE.

Both are capable of reaching people and maintaining popularity. However, contrary to the Obama theory, you build America from the top down, not from the bottom up. Those with assets will take risks to fund the bottom who have a good idea or business plan and that will never change. Giving handouts to delay failure and welfare to those who are deadbeats make America weak. Giving incentives to risk takers will yield better return on the Gov money.

As the Gov continues to expand socialism, the smart folks already with money will figure out a way to tap into the windfall. There are more Madoff's out there and I expect that that at least 30% of the stimulus will be wasted and another 30% will be stolen. DO YOU AGREE?

Never forget if you get a tax rebate it is just a portion of YOUR money being returned and if you get no benefit it is reditribution of YOUR wealth.

REAGAN

UNION MAN — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 03:07:18 GMT

WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO EVEN WHISPER THE 2 NAMES IN THE SAME SENTENCE? REAGANOMICS WAS THE START OF THIS WHOLE CONVULUTED SCAM. RONNIE SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVESTAGATED AS WEL SHOULD GEORGE THE DUFUS.

ALL THEY KNOW IS CUT THE TAX AND STEAL THE MONEY.

REAGAN

UNION MAN — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 03:12:01 GMT

WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO EVEN WHISPER THE 2 NAMES IN THE SAME SENTENCE? REAGANOMICS WAS THE START OF THIS WHOLE CONVULUTED SCAM. RONNIE SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVESTAGATED AND PROSECUTED AS WELL SHOULD GEORGE THE DUFUS.

ALL THEY KNOW IS CUT THE TAX AND STEAL THE MONEY.

NOBODY I know loves Reagan

candoxx — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:33:21 GMT

NOBODY! Its all TELEVISION hype! Its real only on television and in Washington and the halls of some corporations!

Even the regular republicans I know do not love Reagan...they tend to hate almost everyone in government anyway...all authority figures except the religious. They might love the Pope or their church or something like that.

People I knew and know LOVED Franklin Roosevelt. That is the last president we really loved.

We love Obama, but we are checking him out.

Ronald Reagan was seen at the time as nearly insane! Almost everyone always knew that the whole Cold War deamonization of the Soviets was insane...hardly anyone wanted communism, but as long as we didn't have to fight the Russians, we were ok with whatever...but the entire scene was totally isnane, and people were just afraid and are still afraid to even discuss or say what they really think. Afraid and its just not worth it, anyway.

I cannot believe how stupid most politicans and the media are...they just don't get ANYTHING. I guess they really believe we are so subhuman as they think we are, just putty in their little hands. Hey, suckers, we make the machine run, we know what it means if the damn thing breaks! If we are going to do that, it better be worth it, but you are STUPID if you think we buy your BS. We don't.

How Obama could inherit and undermine Reagan's legacy

pneal56 — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 02:33:07 GMT

What a fairytale we have here! Are liberals seriously this delusional? I know they are desperate to show what they can do...the problem is still exactly that...what they can do...which is completely destroy our freedom, our democracy, our free enterprise, and our domestic safety. Undermine Reagan and Reagan's America...yeah right! You believe in the Easter Bunny too I suppose?

What ought to worry us...

tonygumbrell — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:07:08 GMT

What worries me is that he will merely prove to be another Clinton.

obama

michaelp — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:19:46 GMT

regan was elected to two terms, this guy is a one termer, by by obama.

obama and past Presidents

Still Standing — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:17:27 GMT

In my opinion all this "talk" about obama being compared to past Presidents is just more smoke to confuse every body, obama is nothing like JFK, Reagn or even FDR. This is an attempt to provide obama with the credibility that he lacks. While we are all jambed up with the stream of BS being put out about obama, the markets are still falling, more people are out of work each day, business people still have no confidence and obama while pushing more of his left leaning ideas, quietly ordered 17,000 more troops to the Afgan War with out even one question by the media as to why or the risks. What happened to all the anti war people, where are they???

Obama needs to redistribute

GreenwichJ — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:58:46 GMT

Republican governments hand money to the rich. The rich invest in America, building new factories and labs - the economic pie grows bigger.

Democratic governments hand money to the poor. They divide up the economic pie to ensure that the gap between rich and poor does not grow too large.

If you just had Republican governments, the United States would turn into a banana republic. It would be like Venezuela or Brazil - the rich would never invest in their own country, because they are terrified of the restless poor and the possibility of nationalisation.

If you just had Democratic governments, the US would be like some mouldy post-communist basket case.

When Obama won, Dick Cheney (of all people) welcomed him as the natural product of this beneficial interplay within America's two-party system. Obama, redistribute - it's your job.

Reagan for president?

JackHughes — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:23:14 GMT

When studio boss Jack Warner first heard Ronald Reagan was running for president, he had a better casting idea:

"Nah, Jimmy Stewart for president. Ronald Reagan for best friend."

Now really?

Oliver Snow — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:45:16 GMT

Old smoke and mirrors Reagan was just a desperate attempt for conservatives to attribute the demise of Socialism to themselves. They made sure that "Mr Gorbachov, tear down that wall" got as much air play as possible when anyone who understands knows Grobachov's Glasnost, Peristroika and Lech Walehsa had much more to do with it. Saying that he saved the economy is like trying to convince someone of your affluence when all you did was show up with a Mercedes Benz that you sold everything you own for. He was your basic republican invalid thug as it turned out.

We'll Need Another Jim Jones......

RealConservative — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:53:20 GMT

if Obama becomes another Reagan. Drink that cyanide laced Kool-aid and get it over ASAP.

Better than slowly starving to death if anyone should ever emulate that incompetent again. 80% of the problems of today are the result of his Alzheimer addled brain and fetid hands plus the corrupt, incompetent criminals he had working for him.

I'm not seeing it

Fezzik — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:55:15 GMT

Reagan told the same stale jokes for years, claimed he could tell your character by your jellybean selection, based decisions on astrology, couldn't remember anyone's name, called his wife 'Mommy', was estranged from most of his family and children and spent a lot of his presidency taking naps. His PR staff had a hard time convincing the public that Reagan knew anything about policy. Just prior to the Reykyavik summit they 'leaked' that the President had been actually reading his policy materials and would be able to keep up with Gorbachev in conversation. No one believed the 'leak'.

Reagan made stuff up for his speeches. He'd pull out a fictional 'welfare queen with a Cadillac' if the crowd was right. Once he related a fictional war story (from Boy's Life Magazine) to a room full of living Congressional Medal of Honor winners. He was the first President to be called a liar on the Congressional Record.

Work ethic, intellectual ability, family values, basic honesty. Obama has them, Reagan didn't.

If you can't see the difference between Reagan & Obama,

Nick_Danger — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:48:22 GMT

you're not seeing either man too clearly. And no, I'm not just talking about ideology.

If you put Ronald Reagan on-screen long enough...

Mmmmm — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:14:16 GMT

"If you put Ronald Reagan on-screen long enough, it's going to be a great film."

How odd that this never once proved to be the case during his Hollywood career.

FDR, Reagan, Obama Maybe

jack_cerf — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:35:32 GMT

What FDR and Reagan had in common was style and temperment. Both were amiable, eccelectic, optimistic, and well liked by the public because they were at home in themselves -- unlike so many recent Presidents, who seem to be using the office to work out some deep seated personal problem. Neither man needed to be the smartest guy in the room. Both could project moral indignation without bitterness or loss of control. Both were able to communicate with the public in an informal, popular level tone.

Obama and Libertarians

IMKessel — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 22:12:44 GMT

Libertarians have little hope for Obama and his administration. From his Inauguration speech, we, American citizens and all who looked in on us on the inaugural, already know that he is not of the "government that governs least" mindset. Libertarians don't look for the government to solve problems; we look to the Constitution to limit the trouble making government can do -- at least legally. Between Article One of the United States Constitution section 8, clause 18, aka “The Necessary and Proper Clause,”, stating: “The Congress shall have Power -- To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof,” and the Tenth Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” refute President Obama's a priori assumption implied in his own words: "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end." The Prez/Savior is letting the public know, the age of big government is back -- with a vengeance.

Libertarians find little truck with this. We were not happy with Bush's (neither father's nor son's) large government programs and we will not be happy with Obama's. Occasionally the Libertarians and Democrats can find common ground, but rarely do we arrive from the shared points of origin.

If one begins with the wrong questions, one cannot arrive at the right answers.

Soooo Michael Newman. you are saying that Libertarains

Demcon — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:05:07 GMT

are whakadoodles and that's the real reason that they are pro-Obama? Well, thanks for clearing that up. But, really now, who the hell didn't already know that Libertarians were crazy?