Replies

Did R. Reagan when he pushed through full amnesty (with no requirements) when he had a LARGE majority of Republicans in the Senate to boot?

First, this isn't about R. Reagan, but I'll address the issue. When Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million illegals, it was supposed to come with a new fence and strict enforcement at the border. Congress changed the rules AFTER Reagan signed the bill. This is the part of the story you left out or dodn't know. Today, Bush wants to grant amnesty to to (at least) 4 times as many illegals as Reagan without any additional enforcement on the border. In addition, those illegals are responsible for more Americans deaths in the US, than have lost their lives in the Iraq War. Where's the outrage from the political hacks in Congress who wring their hands over the Iraq War!!??

Did RR when he flip-flopped and not only abandoned the idea of private accounts but raised FICA taxes on all American's (thus burdening an entire other generation to the largest wealth stealing scheme known to man)

C'mon, Reagan addressed a fiscal reality. SS is, has been (and probably always will be) the "third rail of American politics". As the direct result of Congress robbing SS, Reagan did what was practical to try to salvage SS. Congress saw it as cover to not only continue robbing SS, but steal even more, causing additional increases. I don't consider Reagan part of the problem but, apparently, you do.

Did RR when he cut-n-ran from Beirut (after putting those warriors there in harms way).

Those Marines were there to try to bring some stability to Lebanon after years of civil war. Following the Khobar Towers bombing (since having been shown to be an act of more Muslim terrorism), Reagan pulled out of Lebanon because we had no strategic interests in Lebanon and he wasn't ready to declare war on a religion. There is a distinct difference between Beirut in the 80s and Iraq today.

Did RR when he appointed the terrible SDO to the SCOUTS simply because she was a women and it was the PC thing to do??

SDO was appointed to the SC on the basis of having a solid conservative record prior to her appointment. She turned AFTER having been approved by the Senate. The same is true for Souter. SDO simply provided Bush with a template to thoroughly vett his appointments. That's how we got Roberts and Alito - one other thing I give Bush credit for.

Did you excuse R.R of losing our large majority in the Senate in 86 because he "wasn't a leader" or a "true conservative".

We have to remember that Reagan was unpopular with the press and the Democrats who successfully underminded him in '86. His tax cuts also fueled a hot economy that spawned 'yuppies' and gave birth to the overpriced MBAs. Like Bush's tax cuts, Reagan's tax cuts outraged the Dems who believe that it is THEIR money.

First, this isn't about R. Reagan, but I'll address the issue. When Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million illegals, it was supposed to come with a new fence and strict enforcement at the border. Congress changed the rules AFTER Reagan signed the bill. This is the part of the story you left out or dodn't know.

Oh, don't give me this "Old Ronnie was tricked BS". R. Reagan was a smart as hell man who knew the games of Washington and understood America better then 99% who make a living there. R. Reagan knew full good and well security measures that were "supposed" to be put in place were no guarantee at all -

Or didn't he learn from all those "supposed" cuts in spending that never occurred after his tax-cuts of 81?? No - R.Reagan was very aware of what his full amnesty program was and wasn't.

Furthermore both immigration and Soc. Sec were at much more manageable levels in the 80's...and the time to do something with both would have come much easier....Then trying to do things now. Yet, both huge issues, were simply passed on down the line to become much large issues / problems....with even fewer good options.

C'mon, Reagan addressed a fiscal reality. SS is, has been (and probably always will be) the "third rail of American politics". As the direct result of Congress robbing SS, Reagan did what was practical to try to salvage SS. Congress saw it as cover to not only continue robbing SS, but steal even more, causing additional increases. I don't consider Reagan part of the problem but, apparently, you do.

Get out of here with this - Soc Sec taxes (FICA) had been raised over 40 times prior to RR time in office. Did any of these tax increases help to solve the problem (the wealth stealing gov't scheme of Soc Sec?). No, it only grew the problem larger, while stealing more wealth from each and every American.

The correct path is to look for private accounts (which will return a far higher ROI) and within a generation 80% of American's will opt out of the scheme of Soc Sec.

Again, R. Reagan had a large majority in the Senate (Republican)...and the "Ds" during the 80's had a large segment of "southern Ds" - Which were more conservative then plenty of RHINO's today.

Trying to compare Rs and Ds simply has letters is meaningless. Yes, "Ds" had more in Congress in the 80's...but in the House plenty of those Ds were conservative southerns (on a great many issues).

SDO was appointed to the SC on the basis of having a solid conservative record prior to her appointment.

There were plenty of more qualified conservatives then SDO. She was appointed because she was a women plain and simple. It was a PC choice.

We have to remember that Reagan was unpopular with the press and the Democrats who successfully underminded him in '86.

Very true. But R. Reagan never had the 24/7 agenda driven MSM we have today (that GWB has been faced with non-stop). The MSM of the 80's...pale in comparison to todays openly and overtly factless MSM.

R. Reagan did not have to deal with the DEM 527 groups of today (moveon.org and such). The RNC was never outspent in elections when RR ran for office. The DEMs with 527s outspent the GOP in the last 2 elections.

Reality is GWB is being held to a much higher standard then was R. Reagan.

Both are great men & great POTUS.