Ted Nugent for President!

[TAB]

lets not forget ADA.  the most anti biz bill ever passed.

[fightingquaker13]

Actually, based on the results, Reagan sucked as President.
Sure, he was a great guy personally, But all of the problems we have in the Muslim world today with Al Queda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood are the direct result of Reagan's policies toward the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the rest of the worlds problem spots of the last 20+ years ( Bosnia, Somalia, West Africa, Dharfur, etc. ) are the indirect result of his forcing the Soviet Union to implode.
On the domestic front he didn't do so hot either, massive increases Govt in the name of the "War on Drugs", coupled with major infringements of Constitutional safe guards, increased the size of the bureaucracy, and increased Federal spending to pay for it.
In short, Ronny was another TR, love the guy, detest the results of his administration.

I agree with everything you said except this. From the day I was born, until 1989, I was under the threat of nuclear annihilation in an exchange with the USSR. Reagan didn't defeat them, that was the work of a generation and their own flawed ideology, but recognized a rotten tree when he saw it and knew enough to give it a good kick. That buys him lots of points from me. If it weren't for that, I'd not be so generous.
FQ13

[twyacht]

Reagan was the the right POTUS at the right time. Post Carter,......right or wrong lowering the tax rates, capital gains tax, walking out of the Russian consulate during Parastroyka, "Tear Down This Wall", spanking the childish MSM, and famously remarking:

"Before I refuse to answer any of your questions, I have a brief statement."

He was the right guy at the helm ar that time. No POTUS will have infallibility. But I'd take a Reagan today compared to what we have currently, in a New York minute.

[Badgersmilk]

Good, or bad.  You guys do know Reagan based all his decisions on astrology.  Right?















Astrology says we're all dead next year...  

[tombogan03884]

I agree with everything you said except this. From the day I was born, until 1989, I was under the threat of nuclear annihilation in an exchange with the USSR. Reagan didn't defeat them, that was the work of a generation and their own flawed ideology, but recognized a rotten tree when he saw it and knew enough to give it a good kick. That buys him lots of points from me. If it weren't for that, I'd not be so generous.
FQ13

Your stupid FQ.
 I don't know any kinder way of phrasing it.
During the "Cold War" Nuclear arms were held by 2 sides who used them as bargaining chips in their geopolitical maneuvering while keeping strict control over access to such weapons.  We never gave nukes to unstable allies such as Turkey, and by the same token the Russians never gave them to Ho Chi Mihn, even when they deployed the missles to Cuba the remained under strict Soviet control, Castro never had any more say in their use than Willy Brandt had in the use of our nukes in Germany. Both sides cooperated in keeping them away from countries like Libya, Egypt, and Syria.
Neither side planned on direct confrontation as anything but an absolute last resort, both sides, on several occasions, pulled back to avoid direct confrontation between forces of the opposing primaries, ( US & USSR) which would have been the only case that would have lead to a nuke exchange.
The fall of the USSR, meant that restraining influence was removed from half the world. The result is  nukes have turned up in the hands of such icons of stability as ,  Pakistan, Iran, and N Korea.
If that makes you feel safer it explains why you voted for BO.

[Sponsor]

[fightingquaker13]

Ok, where to start....... First we did put nukes in Turkey (though not under Turkish control), part of the settlement of the Cuban missile crises was our removing them after the Sovs removed the missiles from Cuba.
Secondly, while in retrospect a bipolar world held together by a policy of MADD looks stable, all it would have taken is one idiot, one miscommunication, one incident that got out of control and could have ended badly. Don't believe me? Try Kissinger, who ordered the military (orders that were accepted) to route any launch orders through him when Nixon was collapsing in '74. Sorry Tom, I don't share your benign view of things and won't refer to the Cold War as "the Good old Days".
That said, things are more complex now, but the principal of deterrence still works. The only difference is that there are more players in the game.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

Ok, where to start....... First we did put nukes in Turkey (though not under Turkish control), part of the settlement of the Cuban missile crises was our removing them after the Sovs removed the missiles from Cuba.
Secondly, while in retrospect a bipolar world held together by a policy of MADD looks stable, all it would have taken is one idiot, one miscommunication, one incident that got out of control and could have ended badly. Don't believe me? Try Kissinger, who ordered the military (orders that were accepted) to route any launch orders through him when Nixon was collapsing in '74. Sorry Tom, I don't share your benign view of things and won't refer to the Cold War as "the Good old Days".
That said, things are more complex now, but the principal of deterrence still works. The only difference is that there are more players in the game.
FQ13

Didn't I just use that example ?    
Hell, we wouldn't even share nuke technology with France, that's why DeGaulle pulled out of NATO.
Of course you do not share my view, you aren't particularly well informed about the behind the scenes activities of the Cold war, and you are , at best, naive in your understanding of current events.