English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Then Clinton lied, was impeached and disbarred.

Will Reagan soon be on Mt. Rushmore?

2007-09-05 05:25:14 · 34 answers · asked by Duminos 2 in Politics & Government Politics

courtesy of PNAC Penelope

2007-09-05 05:29:07 · update #1

34 answers

True, and yes let's get Ronnie on the rock

2007-09-05 05:31:24 · answer #1 · answered by espreses@sbcglobal.net 6 · 3 8

History can be reduced to farce especially when used for political purposes. The picture you painted is less than historically accurate and a shame to human intellect.

Your cartoonishly simplistic characterization of a historical event paints a picture in which the American victory over the Soviet Union was not a result of a forty five year long bi partisan political effort utilizing every tool in our national arsenal from the military, to the intelligence community, to Americas international legitimacy and credibility and moral leadership, but instead because of one man who, beyond the Governorship of California, had no experience as a statesman whatsoever.

Your idiotic assertion is as follows: There once was an evil empire called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics who sought to tyrannize the world. Just before democracy was destroyed the prince of the democratic republic of freedom and justice, Ronald Reagan slade the beast and liberty lived happily ever after.

Clinton did lie and was impeached in the house not the senate and was disbarred, but Reagan (who did indeed play his part) will not, nor should he, be carved onto mount Rushmore. You should expand your intellectual horizons a bit.

2007-09-05 05:36:11 · answer #2 · answered by billy d 5 · 1 1

False, you obviously want to see what you want, so I'll do this for the people who aren't closed minded. And teaming with PNAC~ Penelope only straightens my case against the right wing nuts:

Reagan did not bring down the Soviets. It was 40 years of American foreign policy that brought down the Soviets. Reagan was the one there when it finally ended. If it was a baseball game, Reagan "got the save", but he is not solely responsible for winning the game. Several things happened that had nothing to do with Reagan.

Hard liners Andropov and Chernenko died only months into their reign as Prime Minister. Neither one of them would have ever admitted to defeat and the Cold War might still be going today.

Gorbachev was a lot more open to negotiation as he realized that the Soviets could not keep this up indefinitely. Reagan should be given credit for being receptive to Gorbachev and helping to end the conflict (wow, a diplomatic solution with a sworn enemy. If George Bush actually could read this might prove a useful concept to him).

Oh, and Clinton was one of the greatest Presidents we ever had. Eight years of peace, booming economic prosperity, 20 million jobs created, number of people living in poverty decreased by 8 million, created a budget surplus.

2007-09-05 05:37:03 · answer #3 · answered by Mitchell . 5 · 2 1

Reagan didn't bring the Soviet Union to its knees. He was just in the right place at the right time (same thing with the Iranian Hostages). The worst thing is, people still give him credit for doing these things, when in reality he did nothing but play with his Star Wars program. Oh, and use an economic theory that was completely bonkers and does not work. Ask any economist. (Both of these probably aided him in creating a huge deficit.) He also was pretty bad with his military excursions as well. Maybe that's why Dubya and the republicans like him so much...

Clinton, on the other hand, may have had sexual relations with an intern, but he was good at what he did. He gave us a HUGE surplus and kept us pretty peaceful with the rest of the world. He also was trying to track down Al Quaeda before Bush ever got into office (and therefore before 9/11). So before anyone starts blaming Clinton like the neocons enjoy doing, remember it was Bush who ignored Clinton's intelligence and the intelligence of the time...not Clinton.

2007-09-05 05:34:23 · answer #4 · answered by Amy 2 · 4 2

Yes, Clinton was impeached and YES, he was disbarred but WHY???? Because a bunch of puritanical Republicans took incidences that SHOULD have remained the PRIVATE domain of Mr. and Mrs. CLINTON and the women involved and made it PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.... men have cheated on their wives for CENTURIES... and I would suggest that a LOT of men who have acted HOLIER THEN THOU over Bill Clinton's indiscretions have ALSO played around with women NOT their wives...... Clinton wasn't impeached or disbarred due to ANYTHING he did while runing the governement---he was impeached and disbarred because he had a couple of AFFAIRS OF THE HEART and did not want to publicly humiliate himself and his family---ANY man who has had an affair had LIED about it at one time or another... His having affairs did NOT make him a bad president---it might have made him a BAD MAN, but NOT A BAD PRESIDENT.... oh yeah and Reagan was president when Russia toppled, but had NOTHING to do with it... it was as much of a surprise to HIM as it was the rest of us... I was in my 20's and 30's back then and remember every newcasts and photo from that time--- Was Reagan a good president? Yes Ok in MANY ways he WAS but so was Bill Clinton---don't forget Reagan had an affair once TOO---it was called NANCY DAVIS because he was married to someone ELSE at the time.... people tend to forget that..... but HIS affair didn't make HIM a bad president....... George Washington slept EVERYWHERE but he's up on Rushmore---Thomas Jefferson had kids of every race, creed and natural origin from all of HIS affairs yet HE is up there on Mt. Rushmore... but Bill Clinton has a couple of affairs that should have been KEPT A FAMILY MATTER and not NATIONAL NEWS and he is chastized for LIFE..... We have a president in the WHITE HOUSE now who has done MORE to hurt the American people then any other president in recent HISTORY and yet he is STILL thought of BY 28% of the country as a "good president".... maybe the other 72% of the country should be taken into consideration on THIS one--don't you think?

2007-09-05 05:47:32 · answer #5 · answered by LittleBarb 7 · 1 1

Reagan will never be on Mt. Rushmore...so forget it.

And when are you people going to stop obsessing over the Clinton Administration. He served 8 years, he has been gone almost 8 years....and he has continued to do a lot of positive things since leaving office. Will Bush do as much when he is gone?

2007-09-05 05:44:36 · answer #6 · answered by Becca 4 · 2 1

The only thing Reagan did to bring the Soviet Union to it's knees was to support the Taliban in the Afghanistan War. Reagan was also responsible for arming Saddam Hussein. In the Iran Contra deal he traded arms for hostages with Iran. It was a criminal and unconstitutional maneuver. Reagan probably did more harm to the US and the world than any President in history.

2007-09-05 05:45:54 · answer #7 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 0 1

Clinton brought more than just his intern to her knees. One of his other "great accomplishments" was the woman that played Highlander the Raven also got on her knees before Clinton.

2007-09-05 06:32:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

True
I was a Ronald Reagan supporter but I do no want him to be put on Mt Rushmore, there are other honors we can give him.

2007-09-05 06:41:18 · answer #9 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 0 0

Larry Craig brought a grown man in a mens room to his knees - or was it that the good Senator was on his knees?

You choose!

2007-09-05 05:50:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

It was funny when the comedian said it 10 years ago.

Turn the page. Keep it moving. Unless you're Hilary, quit worrying about where Bill is sticking his junk. OK, Senator Craig? And quit tapping my foot in the stall!

2007-09-05 05:35:37 · answer #11 · answered by Deep Thought 5 · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers