Last American Leader

I miss him so much you guys
>He BTFO the USSR ending the dark chapter of Judeo-Bolshevism
>Unemployment by 1989 5% compared to 10% in 1982
>Tamed Inflation back to Pre-Nixon days
>Opposed the sanctions on Apartheid South Africa, because they were loyal American allies being intimidated by communist apes.
>Placed an Arms embargo on Israel on Israel for invading Lebanon telling he kikes to get out
>regarding Israel Reagan said "It is not the business of other nations to make American foreign policy,'' Merchants on suicide watch!
>Never visited Israel while President!!!
>Said Israel should return to pre-1967 borders as a start for negotiations
>Regarding the Germans and their holohoax guilt Reagan said"I feel that they have a guilt feeling that's been imposed upon them I just think it's unnecessary."
>Slowed the growth of progressive cancer in America
>Didn't care about Fag and their AIDS/GRIDS degeneracy
>Survived an assassination attempt breaking the Curse of Tippecanoe and joked about it like a Boss

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Détente
youtu.be/fa8Qupc4PnQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

He wasn't perfect and definitely not someone I would idolize (like the GOP does) but he was way better than anything that followed.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts about him

...

>no-fault divorce

Yeah, no thanks. All that other stuff should be a given.

Not sure if you're autistic or not, but Reagan was loved by Israel - the kikes still talk about him.

Capitulated w USSR
Amnesty for illegals
Double digit inflation
Double digit national unemployment
Unsustainable, ponzi-tier voodoo economics
Iran Contra gun sales to terrorists to fund govt drug smuggling
Called his wife Mommy
Helped create Bush dynasty

>Shall i continue?

most based president ever

>double digit inflation

?

That's literally not true at all.

Over his two terms there was a drop of inflation from 12.5 percent to 4.4 percent.

unemployment down to 5 percent.

Increased real GDP

you are seriously misinformed

>forced to take GHW Bush as VP or not get the nomination

he was a little bitch

>muh jelly beans

>capitulated with USSR

Wow, it's really easy to spot the kid that has no idea what hes talking about. I was born in 1975, so I grew up during the Reagan years. They were some of the best years of this nation, you stupid little shit.

>Gun grabber
>No fault divorce
>Granted 5 million illegals amnesty
>Iran-Contra
>Armed and funded Al Queada
>Destroyed half a continents because MUH KOMMIEZ
Literally one of two presidents worse than Obama

I was born in 1965, so I grew up during the Johnson years.

Im over a decade older than you son, and wasnt still pooping my dipes while reagan was in office. Well, not literally, anyway.

He nevotiated w the soviets. It was called "detente," and conservatives today dont do it, calling it capitulation.

So why dont you suck my dick then fuck off out of my life like a good girl should?

Wrong, wrong and wrong

>trickle down
>AKA "If you give rich people more money, it will boost the economy! What's the incentive for the rich people to use this money to boost production in a slouching economy with poor consumers who don't have the money to buy the products that they would produce instead of just pocketing it? Haha, why don't you just run along and go watch talk shows or something!"

More like one of the nails in America's coffin.

He's idolized for a reason; because his act hasn't been followed since. Too bad too, because it would have taken about 5 Reagans to keep the country from falling apart.

bad goy

>He destroyed marriage more than fags, and liberals ever could by popularizing no-fault divorce
>He granted amnesty to illegal immigrants, diluting America, giving the Democrats more votes, and betraying the most vulnerable class of Americans.

Shit President.

>supply side economics

Thanks for the money, goy.

fuck OFF

>Wow, it's really easy to spot the kid that has no idea what hes talking about
Generous of you, because Reagan threads invariably brings out the out right liars, like the user who can type out the laundry list (the same screwy list lefty detractors--and recently alt-right ones--have been pushing for years about Reagan that tries to pin everything bad they see about the country on him as if they were throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what'll stick) while not being able to correctly identify Reagan's foreign policy, the chief known thing about his presidency. "detente" was a Nixon era policy. It was a policy forced on the country when we were on the strategic defensive, having gotten tied down into a losing ground war in Asia that we were attempting to extract ourselves from. It ended around the same time Reagan took office.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Détente

Hear hear. The last proper president this benighted shithole ever had, now that the Clintons and Obama's have torn down all the great work he did and fucked us all over.

>Horrible actor
>Senile
>Muh trickle down

Man, you Right Wingers are a bunch of fucking retards

...

Trickle down economics would work if you lefties and niggers weren't so lazy and greedy.

>the problem isn't globalist plutocrats and their enabling politicians
>it's duh dam durty libruls!

"Trickle down" is itself derisive terminology used to describe Reagan's attempt to bring back some basic economic principles which were in place when the country grew from a tree-filled shit hole wilderness to be the supreme economic powerhouse of the world (it was never used by Reagan, or on the right). Which is around the time the progressive movement popped up to drag us back to being a shit hole. Please refrain from reinforcing the left's derisive attacks on capitalism.

News flash, commie...

The world doesn't owe you a living.

You have to work in order to earn money so you can buy things you want.

Collectivism is theft.

>poor people who want more wealth are lazy and greedy
>rich people who leverage their wealth to push for regulations that allow them to get more wealth are capitalists

Go away. Wanting the wealth distribution back to 1960 levels, widely considered thwme golden years for America, isn't being a commie.

You're too much of a chck to realize you're fighting against your own interests.

Everything was fine until lefties like you handed everything over to the niggers and spics.

>Wanting the wealth distribution back to 1960 levels, widely considered thwme golden years for America, isn't being a commie.
No, it's giving a single damn about "wealth distribution" what makes you a commie.

>besides your gross misinterpretation of what America's golden years were, but that's a failing of more than just commies

>giving a damn about wealth distribution makes you a commie

I wonder who is behind this post

Reading polacks talk about foreign policy is like hearing grade school kids talk about sex, they know something is going on but the finner points escape them

This, Sup Forumsacks are mentally retarded when it comes to this grown up stuff

Reagan was the worst president since Nixon. I don't know why people think he was so great.

>I wonder who is behind this post
An idea more substantial that your memetastic evasions.

But then there's this

An economist?

They tried wealth redistribution in Russia, Cuba, China, North Korea, and Venezuala. It is a discredited failure. It wrecked the national economies of everyone except China, who saved themselves from the abyss by adopting free-market reforms.

Laissez-faire Capitalism is the only proven system for growing wealth.

>an economist

Please, point to any economist who believes policies that only grow the wealth of the top 10% of Americans is a health long-term solution.

To say that we should just ignore where the country's wealth is going is ridiculous. The point of government is to grow the economy for everyone, not institute policies that only griw the wealth of the top 1% that finance their campaigns.

Don't come at me with any "its just the market or a coincidence" bullshit. That amount of wealth doesn't change hands without the powers that be having a say in it.

>wealth redistribution doesn't work

Tell that to the 1% of Americans who have seen their wealth distribution double under American policies over the last 30 years.

>laissez-faire

Get out of here with that garbage. American corporations lobby and benefit from government intervention all the time. Laissez-faire is a fantasy like communism.

Of course wealth belongs to the elite. They're the only ones who know what to do with it.

>people are too stupid to handle money, they should give it all to the elite

How is that any different than the "dirty commies" you detest?

>The point of government is to grow the economy for everyone
The point of government, by the original American ethic, is to protect against violations of individual rights. It is by the environment established therein that there was great wealth creation in the first place for you to worry about who had a bigger haul than another.

See, this kind of conversation is going to get pointless awfully quick if there is a lack of agreement on such a fundamental thing.

>American corporations lobby and benefit from government intervention all the time
If you believe this to be the case (so do I), and a bad thing (I do too), then why do you do everything possible to empower the tool of their success? Is there some key point you've overlooked that power corrupts and that ever increasing concentrations of power will lead to an ever growing culture of corruption?

Because capitalists re-invest it in things that make America great, according to personal inclination, not government mandate.

Look at Viagra. Would that have been possible without the capitalist system you despise? Would that be possible under Obamacare? Of course not! The Free Market works!

>I don't know why people think he was so great.
Then you have done a staggeringly bad job of informing yourself, in consideration that the option has always been available to you to find out why people like him. From those who did, that is, because it would be another grossly poor decision on your part to turn for information from those who from the start shared your conceits.

I know why Reagan was great, because I lived through the Eighties.

I should clarify that I meant the point of American econonic policy shouldn't be focused on encouraging growth for the top 1% at the expense of the rest of the country. Low taxes on the wealthy, low minimum wages, and massive corporate welfare have all done this over the last 30 years.

>for you to worry about who had a bigger haul

I find it a bit absurd, almost on the jewish-hollywood level, that people aren't allowed to point out the obvious without being some comic-book bad guy. Are we really not allowed to question a system that ignores 90% of its population? We live under a system when the 20 riches Americans control more wealth than the bottom 160,000,00 but I'm a communist if I point this out?

As to your second point. I agree completely. Vast concentrations of wealth are the enemy of freedom. This makes a wealthy 1% that enriches itself through manipulation of government policies all the more dangerous.

I think you should look at the subsidies that the government gives to big pharma before you put them forth as a bastion of free market economics.

The government picks winners and losers all the time. The government subsidized the computer industry through research grants and military contracts for 50 years before it was economically viable.

Get off your talking points and engage in real conversation.

> Missing an unqualified actor who got to play politics because he was rich and well connected

This board is full of faggots. Even if you are a conservative, how the fuck can you tell me that man was ever fit to lead?!

>He BTFO the USSR ending the dark chapter of Judeo-Bolshevism
Yeah, but the thing is.
We were kinda good at keeping this deasise in check, by killing people.
Thx reagan best leader of US-A, now whole west is a fucking commie crackpot.

Again, I lived through the eighties, and Reagan made immediate, substantial improvements over the failures of the Carter administration.

He got Iran to release the hostages

He removed the regulatory shackles from American Enterprise, enabling us to grow go unprecedented levels of wealth, and defeat the specter of global communism.

That's something. Anectodal genetic fallacy, but still something.

>This board
It's more than just the board, guy. pic related.

>Sup Forums should hate Reagan because Sup Forums is contrarian
Sup Forums is an open, mostly unmoderated forum. It's not just one guy.

>pic related

>As to your second point. I agree completely. Vast concentrations of wealth are the enemy of freedom
Yeah, well I was talking about concentrations of power in government. Talking past each other here.

Talking points, talking points.

The Iranians waited to release the hostages to undermine Carter. Reagan did nothing to get them released.

>regulatory shackles

The wealth from removing those "shackles" went almost exclusively to the top 10% of Americans, while the removal of the regulations led to S&L crisis and inspired the deregulation of banks that led to the 2008 crash.

How are concentrations of wealth in private hands any better than government's?

The guy was a true motivator. They should play his speeches for military recruitment adds instead of this SJW bullshit with blacks and Latinos and diversity.

He's not perfect by today's standards. Even he admits reagan omits was a failure. But judged by the period he was our leader, he was far and above exactly what we need.

The same could be said for Hitler in 1939. Great, but terrible.

He was anti gun
>Brady bill
>Closed machine gun registry

Didn't he go senile by the end of his time in office?

This graphic proves that Reagan was on the side of angels an that Obama is the devil. How he made it this far without being impeached, I'll never understand.

no, he went senile after he left office.

A vicious slander propagated by the DNC and its adherents.

He had nothing to do with the Brady bill he was out of office by then

Commies. Commies everywhere.

Reagan sold weapons to Iran in order to deliberately violate Congresses blocking of aid to the Contras. Hardly an angel. Nixon went down for much, much less.

And yet, the people approved of the job he did, a luxury that the current tenant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave does not enjoy.

And he sold arms to the Contras to stop godless communists. He, at least, recognized that third-world goat-herders are not a realistic threat to anyone.

>naturalised a fuck load of spics making the country irreversably more nonwhite
>banned firearms

dont worship him

Nobody's perfect except Jesus, but Reagan was certainly a better president than anyone since. Especially our current nigger-in-chief.

>constitution doesn't matter as long as you have a high approval rating

He broke the law and got away with it. The contras that he funded went on to perform numerous human rights violations.

Reagan had far more respect for the Constitution than Imperial President Clinton, or Executive Order Obama. He answered to a higher law - the laws of God.

>implying anything could make up for sending the wetbacks back ("amnesty" is a misnomer -- if someone kidnaps someone and still has him locked up in his basement letting the perp off scot-free is called licence -- in Reagan's case, invasion licence).

"not sending"

Reagan's flagrant disregard for the Constitution is emboldened Clinton's, who emboldened Bush, who emboldened Obama. At any point someone could have stepped up and said "hey, maybe I should care more about the rule of law than my own political agenda."

Obama is almost identical to Bush in his disregard for the rule of law.

>How are concentrations of wealth in private hands any better than government's?
Because governments have to them the force of law. You can always not reward certain business practices with your purchasing power, chose to ignore market trends, etc.. You cannot ignore a government that would imprison you for running afoul of any of a million laws or regulations they craft, or is intent to abuse its power to target individuals or groups in furtherance of its own ends. The true enemy of freedom is the concentration of unrepresentative power. This is simple stuff. It's also what you're for. What every redistributionist strives towards; a government empowered to coerce, in violations as to the principles this country was founded upon.

Better that you'd just gone out an gotten a job.

>signed gun ban
>flooded US with illegals and gave them amnesty

Right, right, and right

Quit calling it amnesty! What he granted was an invasion licence. Amnesty would have been, "you go back to Mexico and there will be no criminal or civil penalties for your illegal act and you'll have leave to apply for residence just like anyone else". What Reagan did was like letting a bank robber keep the loot.

Was clinton a good president?

>What Reagan did was like letting a bank robber keep the loot.

well he did that as well

Great politician. Terrible president.

>unrepresentative power

Are you seriously suggesting that we have more power over corporations than we do over our government?

Most of our industries have less than a dozen real players. In true capitalism there is a real power that is held by the consumer, but most of the current industries have so little competition that there really is no good choice out there.

Free markets inherently produce monopolies, or at least oligarchies. To prevent this, it is necessary to have a strong government that can counter pressure by the large corporations to break them up.

>redistributionist

The concentration of wealth is always fluctuating, so this word is meaningless. The difference between you and I is that you prefer policies that lead to an entrenched corporatism that is allocated the wealth of the country.

I wouldn't say terrible, that surplus was fucking great.

No, no and no

Yes, yes, and yes

I'm really interested in 80ies America. Can anyone that has lived in that era tell me how was it? Must have been a great place and time.

Y'all niggas missed it

youtu.be/fa8Qupc4PnQ

>Are you seriously suggesting that we have more power over corporations than we do over our government?
Of course this is so. Nobody is legally required to frequent any particular business. Unless we're talking about insurance companies, no thanks to the likes of you. Also unless you mean to say that "the collective" should be empowered instruct businesses how those business should be run. Which shows (again) a fundamental lack of appreciation as to what basis the country was founded; the protection of the individual from whims, of the potentially abusive lord or of the "collective."

Now, as to our government, you can change that every two years. But you won't.

>Most of our industries have less than a dozen real players.
Those that can afford the massively expensive process of navigating government regulations, and imposing on their own industry restrictions against competition. You damn capitalism for the ills of socialism,...
>but most of the current industries have so little competition that there really is no good choice out there.
...an environment you create and support. Were we to have capitalism, under a system of limited, constitutional governance, you would have the power (in association with your countrymen) to decide through your purchases which businesses thrived and which failed, and representative power to greater affect the fates of our political leaders over the designs of would-be corrupting industrialists. For if these (politicians) were KEPT true to their proper roles, you would judge them by that criteria, and no amount of money thrown against them would dissuade you.

Yet you've already proved an inability to properly hold accountable those responsible for society's ills. Likewise the thread, which similarly wants to hold Reagan solely responsible for either the greater political trend which his short term in office did not appreciably dampen, or the excesses of succeeding presidents in operating outside the scope of their powers.

>Free markets inherently produce monopolies, or at least oligarchies
It's the other way around. The free market encourages competition and presents continual challenges for oligarchical minded individuals of the business world to overcome. The free market in combination with a limited government lends to a society a large amount of social mobility, which is what ACTUALLY is in the best interest of the common man, for he is then not bound by artificial restrictions, but only by his own limitations. Your "strong government" is what lies behind social stratification, reduced opportunity and even the concept foreign to natural law of "wealth inequality."

>prefer policies that lead to an entrenched corporatism that is allocated the wealth of the country.
By a system you politically support.

>The concentration of wealth is always fluctuating, so this word is meaningless
It's hardly meaningless. You came to the thread singing the praising of redistribution, seeing it as the reason government exists. Nor are you by a far shot alone, because there are a gaggle of demagogic politicians out there who've learned one simple trick to manipulate people's cultivated feelings of base jealousy into their own power.

>banned the sale of new machine guns to civilians in 1986

dropped

>>Gg+ePUZ+
You couldn't be more of a drone even if you tried, you've reached the very maximum.

This idea of capitalism with limited government is no different than communism, its an unachievable utopia. The last time we had anything resembling that was during the 19th century. Government-guided capitalism has been the economic model of choice for Western countries during the last 100 years, the most innovative period in history.

>singing the praises of redistribution

The idea that government policies don't redistribute wealth is absurd. Changes in tax codes, environmental regulations, military contracts, subsidizes, wage laws, etc all move wealth from one area of the economy to another. The exchange of wealth is the very foundation of economics. The question is whether these government policies move wealth from the poor to the rich, as they have been since Reagan, or they allow for wealth distribution to return to historic leveks and the reasonable rates of other western countries. As it stands there are 20 men in America who have more wealth than the bottom 160,000,000.

>by a system you politically support

I don't. It's the policies of the government since 1980 that have lead to the massive redistribution of wealth to the top 1%, not any government system of mine. Other countries gave significantly larger governments (as a percent of gdp) without the inequality that has stifled the middle class in America.

>social mobility

Again, other countries have larger governments with more social mobility. We actually rank almost dead last in social mobility amongst industrialized countries. Government is a tool to be used, not an inherently evil institution.

Reagan sucked. Should be condemned for trickle-down economics alone, but his administration also had stupid shit going on without his knowledge. One of the worst modern time presidents only topped by Nixon and Bush Jr.

Not really. Trickle-down economics has been elongated by Obama for continuing the Bush tax cuts. Clinton will probably continue this trend.

Nixon got us out of the Democrat war in Vietnam. Bush Jr. was in an office at a bad time. Obama is shit, Clinton was shit, and Gore would have been shit.

I like how you assume I was Democrat/Liberal. Seems you're projecting seeing as how you've even gone to the point of defending Bush. I'm neither a fan of Obama or Clinton, but they were/are the lesser of two evils in a country that continues to vote against their own interests. Good Job.

>This idea of capitalism with limited government is no different than communism
It's not the same you fucking moran:
capitalism = God and apple pie
communism =Atheism and slavery

>As it stands there are 20 men in America who have more wealth than the bottom 160,000,000.
>muh 1% corporate greed
Survival of the fittest bitch *unsheathes Winchester 1873*.You youngsters need to man up.It's grit that make our glorious US of A great.

>Other countries gave significantly larger governments (as a percent of gdp) without the inequality that has stifled the middle class in America.
Exactly, this is why they are poorer and lack freedom.

>Again, other countries have larger governments with more social mobility. We actually rank almost dead last in social mobility amongst industrialized countries. Government is a tool to be used, not an inherently evil institution.

Bullshit.

>I like how you assume I was Democrat/Liberal.
Because politics come in bipolar absolutes, look at the first paragraph, you either 1 or 2.
> you've even gone to the point of defending Bush.
Why wouldn't he, he ain't no blue pilled Judeo-Bolshevik

>serbian talking about survival of the fittest

kek

He lost the Cold War.

>This idea of capitalism with limited government is no different than communism, its an unachievable utopia
It's an unachievable utopia that we once had, that led to a veritable explosion of personal freedom and wealth creation, the likes of which the world had not seen before, lifting the state of man across the globe from one almost wholly subject to the power of a hereditary ruling class to one in which they are mostly free to follow any idea, good or bad, according to his will.

In that, it's "just like communism."

>Government-guided capitalism has been the economic model of choice for Western countries during the last 100 years, the most innovative period in history.
Going back to your earlier misnomer of what period represented America at its greatest, yours can more accurately be termed the period in which government grew belatedly off of the largess created by that time when we were great. It has taken a great while, about 100 years, to whittle down American ingenuity and entrepreneurialism in the people to the point at which the average user sees the success of some in society as something they should tear down, or try to appropriate for themselves through government that they can share in another's greatness. Your "great period" is the symptom of the disease, progressivism inspired marxism, which would kill the great experiment, and return man to a state of subjection.

>I'll again bemoan inequities created by the policies that I support in everything else I say

>Government is a tool to be used
kys

>blue pilled Judeo-Bolshevik

Holy shit, you sound like a fucking libetrian sovereign citizen conspiracy moron. I can't fathom a reasonable person defending Bush's administration solely on the fact that he never publicly declared supporting a canard that stems from ignorance and racism. Go you. Good job. Gold star. I'll go back to my Illuminati club and ask for a new fez, for you sir/madam have knocked mine off so well that it achieved escape velocity and is currently en route with colliding with Saturn.

>which we once had

When would that have been? The 1800-1900s were the last time we had anything resembling the small government capitalism you propose. The advancement of the modern economy was done almost exclusively by government directed capitalism starting during the new deal. Even the computer age can be traced back to the government grants and subsidies given to IBM and other military contractors.

> try to appropriate for themselves through government that they can share in another's greatness

But this is exactly what the wealthy have done. They've given themselves tax cuts, corporate welfare, and regulations that allow them to shave off a larger share of the American economy. If you want small government capitalism, then the first institution you must get rid of is the current multi-national corporate oligarchy. I don't understand why you don't see the current system as dramatically different than the communism you deplore. The economic elite have manipulated government policies to enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of economy.

>gubermint evil, corporations good

kys

>Government is a tool to be used
You say this. You support this. You promulgate this view, that others come to see government in the same way that you do. You vote to ensure that this is the case. You work to see that others do as well. You hold this to be true, and good.


And then along comes some guy who has a lot of money, who uses this tool that you created better than you and then you call bullshit.
Seriously, kys.

>why do conservatives always vote against their own best interests?