Chaos (I know her as Deuce) can't post anymore? WHY???:mad:

I want to know who barred her and why and I am serious.

Now whomever has the ability and inclination to do so can move this to the appropriate forum and you can resume your nostalgic discussion about Ronald Reagan, but I would like someone to either PM me or answer this question.

While I don't see why you would post this in this thread, here we go.

1) AIDS. How much more did AIDS spread since he "REFUSED to fund any AIDS research"? Why didn't he? Think about it.

2) When you don't have money and the economy is in the tank you cut programs OK? He didn't do it on his own. This isn't a dictatorship. Those tax cuts and raises aren't passed by him alone. How would you have supported those programs? Hard answers.

CON 4.1) Why did it increase? Since you're doing research why don't you tell us? What happens if immigration into the country increased? That's just something I'm throwing out there and I'm not saying it's that at all. I'm just saying you're throwing things out and not doing any research at all. You just copied and pasted. Good for you.

CON 5) You talk about a deficit as if you understand economics. You don't. Just stop. It's not a partisan thing. Funny how you want to support social programs and think the money just comes from nowhere. Yes tax breaks often go to the rich. Why? Do the research and tell me what percentage the rich pay in taxes.

Con 6) So what?? When and how is this measured?? Again, so what? What does that show? Do you know? No your research is copying and pasting. Good for you.

Con 7.1) Why don't you explain a capital gains tax to me Mr./Ms. Researcher. Hmm what does this have to do with Reagan doing something bad?? It's not even a con even though it's a poor statement to make to start with.

Con 7.2) Again, how is this something bad about Reagan? And what economists praised it? You're the researcher. Do you know? No your research is copying and pasting. Good for you.

Con 8.1) Again, how is this something bad about Reagan?

Con 10.1) Why is savings not rising a bad thing? If money goes into another good that is an investment such as a house, it's not saving. Do you even have any clue at what saving does in the economy? Do you even understand a simple statement like "the Fed raised rates"??? Yes that's all related.

Con 11) Clinton did nothing. If you want to make irrelevant statements then deal with the fact that a recession followed the boom of businesses that thrived under Clinton when their bubbles burst.

-Rudey
--Good job resear...I mean copy-and-paster who knows nothing.



I have a degree in Political Science and will soon begin working on my JD so I don't know too much, other than the basic level that the students at Chicago receive, about economics and to be honest, most American's don't. What MOST Americans DO know about is everyday life and I know that everyday people in large numbers in this country (like my parents) were not happy during his administration. So you and ktsnake can talk all day long about providing proof, researched data etc. and while I, too, respect those qualifyiers when talking about history and other parts of society, I also feel that peoples' general livelihoods determine whether or not a pres. is "good" or successful. If you and your's prospered during the "Reagan Revolution" great, but that does not mean every other section of the nation did as well and you shouldn't talk to or treat people who had differing experiences or memories badly just because you feel the way that you do.

Oh, and not to put you out there, Rudey, but didn't you say that you only recently moved to the U.S.? Were you even here during the Reagan Administration?

Let me see if we can't define what we're disagreeing over. Are you trying to say that Under Reagan/Bush, the economy was worse off than it was during Clinton?

If not, what exactly, specifically do disagree on as far as saying that Reagan's tenure was good for America? In just about every measurable area, it was good for America -- you might have a difficult argument to prove here unless you just want to talk about subjective BS.

This actually reminded me --

When I was a little girl (before I was old enough to understand or be concerned w/ partisan issues), I had such a deep respect for our country and President Reagan, that I asked my mommy what political party the president belonged to. She told me he was a republican. I said, "Then that's what I am too!"

Haha, funny how time changes things!

As I said, I don't have all the intricate information regading the economy that would be required to do the comparison. I was/am speaking as a "lay" person, so to speak. I have, however, heard varying accounts of the ecomony and it's viability during both administrations and I think it's safe to say that it (the verdict on that) could go either way.

My reference point was as an average American citizen who, while young, can remember my family discussing things over dinner and recall my parents having hard days trying to deal with Reagan's decisions and policies. I do remember the Clinton years vividly and remember lots of communities improving and people being very happy and prosperous during his administration.

Have whatever views you wish about social programs and assistance, but those who badly needed some help in any form at that time was able to get it and their lives improved. THAT was hard data!

In the couple years since completing my undergrad education, I worked in the field of Adult education and saw a lot of information about public assistance, welfare, education, child care, etc. etc. etc...all these areas that "conservatives" and republicans (at the risk of generalizing) get a bad taste in their mouths when hearing. My mom also works in this field (actually she has been in this field for over 30 years and has a Master's in it). She told me, and I consider her as a pretty reliable and unbiased source since she's lived through many presidencies, that it was the Clinton administration who really made some feasible changes in the welfare system. He made it where it wasn't even possible for women (the very women Reagan referred to as welfare queens) to sit around and collect a check. They couldn't receive any form of aid unless they were either working or looking for work. Their children were cared for while doing so, so that THAT wouldn't be an excuse either. Under Clinton, the welfare rolls decreased somewhere around 70%. This actually, in my opinion, was great for the economy in my limited knowledge of how everything ties together in this country. Because these women (and other individuals) were being mobilized to work and investments were made in them and their children at that time, there were eventually going to be fewer dependant woman later, which is what happened.

Also, what do you mean, "good for America"? Is America not simply a compilation of millions of different people, including you and me? If I say Reagan was not a very good president for ME or MY FAMILY, how can you say he was and feel thawt your opinion is more valid? As I said, if you prospered, great, but don't impose your views onto me.

"In just about every measurable area, it was good for America --"

That's one heck of a generalization.


" you might have a difficult argument to prove here unless you just want to talk about subjective BS"

I'm not trying to prove anything, AS I SAID BEFORE ( reread my initial response, I'm not like others on here who don't mind repeating thelmselves...I WON'T do it) I am stating my opinion.

When indicators in the economy improve, America in general improves. There's more tax revenue, more jobs, etc. That's what I'm talking about. Show me something that shows that Clinton did a better job other than what your mother said (subjective BS).

no she doesn't. people who have low self esteem seem to think that she does, though. maybe they need to go look inward because she isn't the source of the be-littlement.

and with that, I'm done with this conversation. Especially since you continue to beg for numerical data when I have said now three times that I don't have and won't provide you with any. I spoke from a different vantage point and that's that. You take your data, or lack thereof and do whatever you want with it. My opinion does not change.

Also, you can call my mother a subjective bullshitter if you want, but I know her personally and have much respect for her career and knowledge. I don't know you from Adam and could care less what you think.

And I'm out.

I only ask for numerical data because that's really the only way you can prove any of those assertions that you seem to agree with on the con list. While what your mother may have seen in her field was probably true, it was limited to what she personally saw and experienced. It is rare that one person's experience is a valid indicator for what everyone else experiences.

It is rare that one person's experience is a valid indicator for what everyone else experiences.


WOW, funny, that's exactly what I told you.

How many times must I say to you that it was never my intention to prove anything. One more reason why this going back and forth is pointless. You seem to be one of those people who rigidly want cold hard facts, data, proof etc. etc. That kind of thinking leaves very little room for human emotion which is a legitimate factor in much of life's situations, including politics and the ECONOMY. People usually can't talk to folks like you and this is why. I really am done with the conversation. Have a good one.

My apologies for being so obtuse. So what you're saying is that just you and your mother viewed some tough times during Reagan, and everything got better during Clinton.

Got it.

You did no research. You copied and pasted. Nothing. In fact you don't even understand most of the economical terms. You can't even respond other than make comments about me now.

As for me, I wasn't in the play pen. Reagan affected me. I didn't just cling to him as a party gesture. But you wouldn't understand that because you are...just a copy-and-paster. You lived in a military area so what? You saw your friends fight? So what? What does that have to do with the conversation??? You can't answer a single thing so you post that. You didn't fight your friends fought. Great.

-Rudey

I don't have anything to do with Chaos. The same people that hate Chaos hate me. And name my one liners. PM me about them if they so concern you. But you don't know anything. You can't even respond to the comments I made about Reagan. Good job copy-and-paster.

-Rudey

A) No I put it out there that I recently received my citizenship. Quote me and yes I was here for the Reagan Administration. Furthermore since we want to play the relevancy game, I came from Iran. Perhaps you've heard of the Iran-Contra scandal? Yes? No? Maybe so? So basically while you lived with the domestic consequences I will forever live with the foreign consequences. Thanks for making my points seem more relevant.

B) As for you knocking all the proof away and making it a popularity contest: I never came on trying to make Reagan to be the best of the best. People assume. You assume. If we were to do it on popularity, Reagan wins hands down.

C) I understand some may not have been touched by him but don't put lies out there. In fact don't come into a thread where they're remembering him through praise and post this stuff - most of it irrelevant or lies. People have a choice what they want to see on tv, switch the channel. Do that here. Nobody told you that you couldn't speak.

-Rudey

I don't try and bring personal emotions into arguments. You seem to. You tell me it's about what people feel and not what they know. I feel like I'm watching Dr. Phil when I read things like that.

Perhaps I shouldn't post my mother's PERSONAL opinions because evidently people have this idea that I'm fresh off the boat and don't know America from Africa.

-Rudey