I know I'm gonna pay for this, but...

[**DONOTDELETE**]

What really makes Reagan such a great president? I think he was, by purpose, and through inaction, one of our worst. How's that?

We haven't seen greatness in a president in 150 years or more. I don't know when the last great president held office, but it hasn't been since the time before Lincoln.

I'll just cite a couple of examples of why I feel this way.

For starters, he helped perpetuate the myth that America is a democracy. He used that term to describe our form of government more than just a few times, and even in the more famous of his addresses.

In order for a president to be considerd great, in my book, he needs to FULLY understand our form of government.

The second bone I have to pick is that a senate subcommittee did a report on the 2nd amendment in 1982. I'll try and post a link to it later on. In that report, they detailed major abuses of American citizens by the ATF, and recomended sweeping changes in ATF policy. This recomendation came during Reagan's tenure in office, obviously.

Why did he not take measures to address the senate's concerns? If he had, Ruby Ridge, Waco, and even the OKC bombing may never have occured.

It is for the fact that he did nothing, that a whole bunch of Americans are dead. I hold him accountable, directly. He was forwarned, and did zero, nada, zilch, zippo, NOTHING.

OK, While I'm looking up the link to the report, go ahead, flame away. images/icons/smile.gif

What a first post for a new member, huh?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Here's the link: 2ndLawLib.org Sub Committee Report (http://www.2ndlawlib.org/other/other/senrpt/senrpt.html)

Pay particularly close attention to the section titled "Enforcement of Federal Firearms Laws From the
Perspective of the Second Amendment" at the end of the page.

Here's just an excerpt:

Complaints regarding the techniques used by the Bureau in an effort to generate firearms cases led to hearings before the Subcommittee on Treasury, Post Office, and General Appropriations of the Senate Appropriations Committee in July 1979 and April 1980, and before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Judiciary Committee in October 1980. At these hearings evidence was received from various citizens who had been charged by BATF, from experts who had studied the BATF, and from officials of the Bureau itself.

Based upon these hearings, it is apparent that enforcement tactics made possible by current federal firearms laws are constitutionally, legally, and practically reprehensible. Although Congress adopted the Gun Control Act with the primary object of limiting access of felons and high-risk groups to firearms, the overbreadth of the law has led to neglect of precisely this area of enforcement.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Another excerpt:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>These practices, amply documented in hearings before this Subcommittee, leave little doubt that the Bureau has disregarded rights guaranteed by the constitution and laws of the United States.

It has trampled upon the second amendment by chilling exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by law-abiding citizens.

It has offended the fourth amendment by unreasonably searching and seizing private property.(p.23)

It has ignored the Fifth Amendment by taking private property without just compensation and by entrapping honest citizens without regard for their right to due process of law.

The rebuttal presented to the Subcommittee by the Bureau was utterly unconvincing. Richard Davis, speaking on behalf of the Treasury Department, asserted vaguely that the Bureau's priorities were aimed at prosecuting willful violators, particularly felons illegally in possession, and at confiscating only guns actually likely to be used in crime. He also asserted that the Bureau has recently made great strides toward achieving these priorities. No documentation was offered for either of these assertions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[**DONOTDELETE**]

The good economy enjoyed by the Klintoon administration is due to GREENSPAN, oh where did get him....could it be Raygun, could it be he also preceived the need for a missle defense system(star wars?)Did you know for the first time an administration with a successful economy was voted out??? Speaks volumes.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Are you saying Reagan is great because of the great economy under Clinton?

That would be a stretch. Besides, I don't measure greatness in dollars.

I'm not sure if your post is a serious defense of Ronnie or not, so I'll reserve further judgement.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I am stating the truth, the economy enjoyed by the Clinton administration, is due to GREENSPAN. Oh please read a book,where did Greenspan come from???????????For the first time in history an administration with a successful economy was voted out.Drop dead democraps

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I understand the message, I just don't understand the point. So Ronnie hired Greenspan? OK. Does that make him great? No.

He let a rogue agency remain rogue. So did Bush Sr. We all know Klinton wasn't going to do anything about the rogues. But why not the conservative's god, Reagan? Why didn't he do something?

Why did he refer to our form of government as a democracy? Why? Democracy sucks. I don't want to live in a democracy. I like our republican form of government, as it should be.

There are a few other shortcomings of his I can pick on, but these two REALLY bug me. These are the two that keep him off the great, or even good list, as far as I'm concerned.

BTW, I am a former Republican, turned pro life Libertarian, just in case the democrat comment was aimed at me. And I voted for Reagan, in both elections, and Bush Sr. in both of his, and Dole in his.
I did not vote for Bush Jr. I will never vote republican again.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

WELL BEING A NEW MEMBER HERE I JUST THOUGHT I WOULD WEIGH IN ON THIS DISCUSSION CRITTER NO OFFENCE BUT I THINK YOU ARE WAY OFF BASE. BUT MY OPINION IS THAT RONALD REAGAN WAS THE BEST PRESIDENT THIS GREAT COUNTRY HAS EVER HAD BAR NONE. HE DID ALOT OF GOOD FOR THIS COUNTRY ALL REPUBLICANS HAVE THE DEMOCRATS NEVER HAVE AND THE GOOD ECONOMY THAT WAS ENJOYED BY ALL DURING THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION WAS ALL DUE TO REAGAN IT JUST TOOK A WHILE FOR IT TO TAKE HOLD. ONE LAST STATEMENT TO LIGHTEN THE MOOD REAGAN WAS ON HIS DEATH BED AND HE WANTED BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON AT HIS BEDSIDE AND THEY WERE AMAZED THAT REAGAN WANTED THEM THERE AND THEY ASKED HIM WHY AND HIS RESPONSE WAS THAT JESUS HAD DIED BETWEEN TWO THEIVES AND THAT IS THE WAY HE WANTED TO GO OUT. I AM SORRY FOR THE WAY THIS POST IS TYPED I HAD THE CAPS LOCK ON AND I DID NOT FEEL LIKE TYPING THIS WHOLE THING OVER.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Being a new member here, you cd write in normal font and we'd be a lot happier (e.g., can the all upper-case stuff). images/icons/frown.gif

I'm not a huge Reagan fan either; he coulda been a contender, but he surrounded himself with the same CFR/Trilateralist toadies that have plagued our Gubm't forever, and never measured up to his potential. His last couple of years were egregious (Donald T. Regan, Richard Darman, James Baker at Treasury, yuck).

I liked his 80/81 Cabinet, with Meese, Richard V. Allen (non-CFR) as National Security advisor, and James Watt at Interior. But old Dutch didn't have the balls to tread where no Prez. since mebbe Harding/Coolidge dared to go.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Like i said greatspectacular the caps lock was on and i did not feel like typing the whole thing again. i did not reqalize the caps lock was on. is this alot better.??????????????????

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Iran Contra.

[DesertFox]

Reagan came into office with a handful of overriding objectives: Get rid of the Soviets; get rid of inflation; get American spirits up again after the years of Carter malaise that followed the Nixon falldown and the national disgraces of running out on an ally in Vietnam, wringing its hands over the situation in Iran and standing around uselessly as Soviet military mischief expanded into Africa and Afghanistan.

Reagan achieved all his objectives despite unremitting, ferocious criticism from a hostile, jeering press; a Democrat-controlled Congress bent on frustrating his every move; and an America in retreat around the world and very unsure of itself.

The gripe about Reagan calling America a democracy is just silly. The measure of a president isn't what he says, but what he does. Jimmy Carter, supposedly one of the smartest guys ever to hold the office, said "nucular" instead of "nuclear." Drove me nuts, but it didn't matter. What did matter was that Carter couldn't handle the job. Talk's cheap, as Bill Clinton proved all over again.

The criticism is also wrong. America IS a democracy in one of the two normally-accepted usages of that term -- a "democracy" isn't just the mechanism of democracy, but also any govt that uses that mechanism to choose its representatives.

The other criticism is fair, but one man can only do so much. I have much more serious criticisms of Reagan than what I've seen in this thread, but IMO, if Reagan wasn't great, no one was.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Wow Fox... First post I've seen where you've talked about anything in depth... I'm impressed.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

ooopppsss... idiot me.... double post.

[RogerFGay]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by J.A.:
I am stating the truth, the economy enjoyed by the Clinton administration, is due to GREENSPAN. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a rumor I started during the last election campaign, while Gore's inept Demoncrats tried to make points on the upswing in the economy during the first half of 2000. The fed has an effect on the economy through macro-economic policy, but they don't run the whole thing like a computer game.

If you look back at the economy in four year cycles, you'll see a long history of economic upswings during election years, followed by decline.

Greenspan's involvement in the economy is much better than if the economy was under direct control of elected officials, but his primary concern for many years has been a fight against inflation -- i.e. slow steady growth. At times I believe the fed has leaned to heavily toward slowing the economy.

I also believe that the fed has been concerned about stabalizing the economy to deal with the percieved complexities of aligning with the new world economy, including reorganization due to NAFTA and the European Union / euro as well as broader (nearly) world-wide open market agreements.

[RogerFGay]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DesertFox:
The criticism is also wrong. America IS a democracy in one of the two normally-accepted usages of that term -- a "democracy" isn't just the mechanism of democracy, but also any govt that uses that mechanism to choose its representatives.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't understand your point. If the mechanism is not used ....

Also; do you regard communism as an acceptable form of democracy? Communists elect representatives.