>conservatives:"DUDE HE WAS THE GREATEST PRESIDENT EVER!"
>liberals: "DUDE HE WAS THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER LITERALLY SATAN!"
Enough of the bullshit. Was Reagan a good president or not? It seems like the real story of his life got lost in the party politics of turning him into a mascot for things you like or things you hate
...
He introduced some terrible trends into American politics, particularly "trickle down economics" which continue to haunt the US to this day. He exploded the deficit by cutting taxes for the upper class without any plan to pay for while at the same time increasing military spending to absurd levels.
>specifically ask for a level headed view of Reagan
>post a liberal bullshit meme about him
>REEE HE SUPPORTED SADDAM!
isnt it hypocritical for democratic shill to bitch about this when their god FDR supported arguably the most brutal dictator in recent history?
>Stalin
>brutal
You'd be brutal too if your country was riddled with spies and wreckers
Literally everything in that cartoon is true, though. The Reagan Administration did things far worse than anything Nixon did. The difference is that while Nixon resigned when he got caught, Reagan just told a quick joke and pretended it never happened.
Simpson–Mazzoli Act
End of discussion.
not to mention kulaks
The full extent of Stalin's crimes were not understood at the time, but I'll admit that FDR was rather naïve on that front.
Just because a view clearly comes down in favour of one side of a debate, doesn't mean it isn't "level headed" or supported by evidence. What do you want, someone to tell you some banal shit about "oh there was some good and some bad, see I'm moderate therefore I'm smart" regardless of if it's actually true?
I don't see what FDR could have done differently?
Second best president in last 100 years after Nixon of course.
>b-but muh excuses
fuck off
typical liberal hypocrisy at its finest. FDR even called him "Uncle Joe" like they had some creepy sexual relations to. EVERYONE knew what Stalin was doing
They were, it's just that most people, even nowadays, don't even consider kulaks to be humans.
He opened the doors in the American right for neocons and cuckservatives.
One day not even conservatives will like him.
And precisely was FDR supposed to do about it? Go to war? Would have killed more people than Stalin ever did.
>gave half of Europe to communism and it still hasn't recovered to this day
>allows communists to get nukes instead of BTFO of Europe
>Reagan helped some nobody in SA
who fucked up here?
>legalized certain seasonal agricultural illegal immigrants
Da fuck? Is this still a thing?
The best thing would have been to deny lend-lease to the USSR and let them fight it out with the Nazis, at which point the US and Britain come in later and sweep both of them.
>Reagan is literally hitler for helping some literally whos in south america and supplying some two bit dictator in the middle east!
>FDR dindu nuffin! he a good boy! Stalin needed mo money for dem programs!
you are only proving your hypocrisy even more
Which still would have killed more people than Stalin every did.
If you can't tell that godless liberals are faggots and fucking commies by now, you need to go back. Only faggots and commies hated Reagan.
You're forgetting about the Khmer Rouge, who were also supported by the Reagan Administration.
Not an argument
the mods should put a 100 year limit on political history.
it actually is an argument you stupid faggot
If you bitch about Reagan helping some south american and iraqi assholes, yet excuse FDR and him helping Stalin, the most brutal dictator in the 20th century, you are a giant hypocrite
FDR was pretty naïve when it came to Stalin. That's a legitimate point against FDR. However, FDR had many positive aspects to make up for this whereas Reagan pretty much just had scandal after scandal but laughed it off each time while exploding the deficient at the same time.
>don't help stalin
>russia gets taken over by the germans
>roll into berlin ending the war and liberating the occupied russians
>kill two birds with one stone
Not really, because they aren't equivalent situations.
>don't help stalin
>russia gets taken over by the germans
The USSR would have won even without lend lease.
And even if true, still would have resulted in more deaths than what happened IRL
>The USSR would have won even without lend lease.
Nice joke.
>The USSR would have won even without lend lease.
I wouldn't be so sure about that.
>my babushka killed 500 germans with her sniper rifle!
Modern fair and balanced means you give an equal number of pros and cons to both sides, even if reality isn't balanced. The appearance of balance is more important than actually being balanced. It's basically like meme equality communism in news now. If the two sides aren't equally represented and neck in neck, it's biased even if that isn't reality.
He was a meme. He's been canonized by those he made incredibly rich but his policies are self destructive and they continue to fuck the United States to this day.
He blew up the deficit by giving massive tax cuts to the wealthy while at the same time bloating defense spending and crippling the middle class under the brunt of taxes, forcing more people to require federal assistance.
He sold the american public out to the lobbyists he let run the show, he refused to acknowledge the AIDS epidemic, he started the utter failure called the war on drugs, he undid most of Carter's efforts to make us more energy self sufficient, and he's fucking cursed us with the myth of muh trickle down economics.
He wasn't the worst president but his administration was utter rubbish.
>supporting a neoLIBERAL
t. historically ignorant freedumbs
The USSR was consistently overproducing Germany in every factor of industrial production throughout the war. The American aid helped but wasn't decisive.
And even if Germany beat the USSR, that's a much worse scenario than what happened IRL. The Germans would genocided millions more people in Eastern Europe (look up Generalplan Ost), and the Americans couldn't have just traipsed into Berlin: the Germans always had way more men on the Eastern Front facing the Soviets than in the West. If they had defeated the Soviets, they could have put more troops into fighting the Americans, which would have resulted in higher casualties for the US and even more destruction in Western Europe.
I know, Stalin was much worse which makes it even more laughable when liberals just completely ignore it.
...
>he refused to acknowledge the AIDS epidemic,
>1000 fags get a meme disease
>"""""""""""""""""'epidemic"""""""""""""
And Nixon started the war on drugs. thanks for the cookie cutter liberal spiel on Reagan though. into the trash it goes
solid argument
>Supporting a regime being invaded by a foreign power that is also invading several close allies
>Supporting regimes that are violently oppressing their own citizens or invading foreign states
There is a slight difference in policy.
Are you illiterate? I literally said it was important, just not decisive.
en.wikipedia.org
nationalww2museum.org
Even without the Americans the Soviets vastly out-produced the Germans.
And I not no one has been able to show why any of this would result in better outcomes than reality.
Ler Russia and Germany bleed eachother dry then swoop in and smash those fucks.
>large amount of people begin in a short amount of time ending up with a disease isn't an epidemic because i say so
also
>aids is a meme disease
i'm sure all the people that fucking died from it would be glad to know all their pain and suffering was just a meme as proven by an anonymous shitposter
>>Supporting a regime being invaded by a foreign power that is also invading several close allies
so literally the Iran-Iraq war? Stop beign a little baby brain retard who doesnt understand siding with asshole dictators in order to further your own goals.
Reagan did what literally everyone else does, yet liberals single him out because hes their boogeyman, completely oblivious to the fact that FDR did the same thing with a much worse dictator.
youre flustered and giving these shitty excuses because this thought has never even crossed your bird brain
Typical conservative deflection
>Let's talk about how shitty this guy was
>b-but liberals! *talks about someone else*
>Aids is a meme because I say it is
>so literally the Iran-Iraq war?
SADDAM A GOOD BOY
HE NEVER TOUCHED THEM IRANIANS
NEED MORE PESTICIDES FOR DEM ROLAND MISSLES
*tips ushanka*
Ironically it's exactly what commies used to do to deflect from criticism of their atrocities.
"And you are lynching Negroes"
>AIDS was a super huge problem because I heard liberal opinion makers say so
a few thousand people had it. It was fucking NOTHING compared to shit like Cancer and Heart Disease. the literal ONLY reason you or any other liberal cares about it is because it was a "gay disease" which was ignored because big bad evil cis scum didnt care.
Stop being emotional retards who have clearly done NO research on something and are just spewing out virtue signaling talking points
That's not the conversation at hand you twit.
We're trying to talk about Reagan and for whatever idiotic reason we're talking about FDR instead
>SADDAM A GOOD BOY
cool strawman, but I already said Saddam was a piece of shit. you are the one shilling for Stalin.
>THIS GUYS A PIECE OF SHIT! HE STOLE $50!
>yeah, but didnt the guy you like steal $250?
>...THATS BESIDES THE POINT HE NEEDED THAT MONEY FUCK YOU!
Thats you right now.
They're gonna latch on you using the word "virtue signalling now". Just like they didn't address your point but latched on to the word "meme"
Its to point out what hypocrites liberals are when they bitch about Reagan. Your emotional hissy fit none argument doesnt change this
Yes, because rather than trying to defend Reagan the cuckservatives ITT decided to channel the commies and deflect the conversation elsewhere
Typical liberal deflection
>Let's talk about how shitty this guy was
>b-but conservatives! *talks about someone else*
Typical communist deflection
>Let's talk about how shitty this guy was
>b-but capitalists! *talks about someone else*
Typical Capitalist deflection
>Let's talk about how shitty this guy was
>b-but communists! *talks about someone else*
>Thousands of people die and the president refuses to even acknowledge it but that's okay because it wasn't killing as many people as cancer
What the fuck are you actually talking about? 9/11 didn't kill as many people as cancer but that doesn't mean Bush could've just fucking ignored it.
Yes when a disease is killing thousands of citizens the president ignoring it because he's too busy taking notes from his wife's astrologer shows how inept he was.
>9/11 didn't kill as many people as cancer
I forgot islamic terrorist hijacking planes and flying them into buildings was a disease
youre retarded user
...but the guy who stole $50 is still a piece of shit, the guy whole stole $250 being a bigger piece of shit doesn't change that. You literally just explained why your own argument is trash
>1000
Throw a few more zeroes on there and you'd be right
>a few thousand people had it.
It KILLED almost 17,000 people by 1987
where the fuck are you getting your information from
>a few thousand people had it.
If it had been addressed properly when it first emerged, it might have been less than 100.
Then start your own thread about the hypocrisy of liberals and lets get back to the way that Reagan armed terrorists and granted illegal immigrants amnesty while raising taxes, blowing up the deficit, and taking credit for Paul Volcker's monetary policy
>cool strawman
>then the rest of your post
the ironing.
comparing the land lease and reagans foreign policy and saying they're the same because OMG Stalin killed more people : ( (( is retarded.
Supporting the USSR against the Nazi Germany is a completely sound decision whilest support of the contras, Saddam, operation cyclone etc etc etc were all terrible decisions and have had nothing but terrible results.
>Thousands of citizens dying only matters if it's done by Islamic terrorists
You seriously can't call anybody retarded when you're this fucking stupid.
No, the president doesn't get a pass on knowingly letting citizens die because of his failure to enact policy on it, choosing to ignore the issue instead.
>the guy whole stole $250 being a bigger piece of shit doesn't change that.
it does when you worship him as the greatest person ever and call the guy who took 50 the worse person ever.
pure hypocrisy by the left
>You seriously can't call anybody retarded
yeah, I can specifically call you a retard for not only making that comparison, but failing to understand why its stupid to compare a disease outbreak to a terrorist attack
just stop posting because your enger has clearly clouded your ability to form a coherent argument
>it does when you worship him as the greatest person ever
who the fuck besides retarded commies considers stalin the greatest person ever
Strawman. Not everybody who criticizes Reagan likes FDR.
And liberals being hypocrites doesn't make Reagan a good president. You're argument is shit. It's called tu quoque
I agree with most of this post but Operation Cyclone wasn't bad except in retrospect. Nobody could have predicted that the Mujahedeen would become such an issue later.
>it does when you worship him as the greatest person ever
You are fucking delusional.
Nobody. NOBODY besides Slavoj Zizek actually supports Stalin. And he only does that to trigger emotionally unstable conservatives like you.
>Then start your own thread
I started this thread retard. With the specific goal of having a none biased discussion about Reagan which was IMMEDIATELY flooded with biased liberals deriding him as pure evil for doing something a guy they worship did on a much larger scale
you do know it was a democrat and not an evil republican who was behind supplying what would become the taliban, right?
>coherent argument
Because strawmen, appeals to hypocrisy, whataboutism, false equivalencies, video game logic (lel just let them beat each other up then come in after lel) are such coherent arguments. Just stop user, you're embarrassing yourself.
clearly talking about FDR. Stop being so obtuse on purpose because you cant accept the fact that you are a giant hypocrite
Cancer and heart diseases aren't infectious.
>Wah wah I don't want opinions I don't like so i'm going to derail my own fucking thread instead of arguing about why reagan was good
>Because strawmen, appeals to hypocrisy, whataboutism, false equivalencies, video game logic
nice non sequitur. why dont you just leave the thread for a while and come back when you've calmed down
Charlie Wilson didn't do anything wrong in my opinion. Operation Cyclone had some unfortunate consequences, but nothing that anybody involved could have predicted. In retrospect, it may have been the wrong choice, but with the information they had available to them at the time, it was the correct decision.
Literally no one has said Reagan was pure evil ITT
Literally no one has worshiped FDR ITT
I'm sure by "none biased discussion" you mean an echo chamber where people who agree with you and you would all take turns sucking off St. Ronnie.
OP's opening post was actually pretty unbiased and taking shots at both sides.
not an argument. You are stubbornly refusing to accept the fact that FDR did something on a much bigger scale than Reagan, which is supply brutal dictators, while also deriding only Reagan for doing so.
I simply pointed this out before you all threw a shit fit.
>clearly talking about FDR.
no, that is not at all what this sentence implies
>it does when you worship him as the greatest person ever and call the guy who took 50 the worse person ever.
you need to go back to elementary school if you can't figure out where you went wrong
this was the only post I felt I needed to make after scrolling through this thread but you beat me to it
>OP says he wants a neutral view of Reagan not from the people he mentioned in the OP
>butthurt fags can't handle criticism so they derail his thread
That isn't what "unbiased" means.
People admire FDR because he led the nation through two enormous crises (the great depression and WW2) and managed to bring the country out of both stronger than before. Reagan didn't face any major crises in office except ones he helped create.
>Operation Cyclone had some unfortunate consequences, but nothing that anybody involved could have predicted.
Just like everything Reagan did and FDR did. My whole point, before all the liberals had a shit fit because I dared question their god, is that its sort of a moot point to bitch about a president helping out someone who in the future turns out to be an enemy and hindsight is 20/20.
So basically he wanted a threat, but not with people who disagree with him?
He was neither sucking Reagan's dick nor saying he was literally satan and even took shots at people who thought both those things.
OP is butthurt as fuck
>no, that is not at all what this sentence implies
yes it does. You failing to understand it on purpose and bitching about semantics doesnt change this.
cool. FDR also supplied and helped the most brutal leader in recent history and you gloss over it because you like him, while you also bitch about Reagan for supplying and helping 2 bit dictators.
Im not saying you have to love reagan, but you cant really complain about his foreign affairs when the guy you love did the same thing but on a much larger scale
> You are stubbornly refusing to accept the fact that FDR did something on a much bigger scale than Reagan, which is supply brutal dictators, while also deriding only Reagan for doing so.
Completely different situation and FDR made a sweet superpower position in the process.
If we are talking about strengthening a future enemy to fuck over a current one lets talk about our bearded friends in the middle east.
Nobody ITT has said either of those things, so he should be happy
I have repeatedly said that FDR was naïve about Stalin. I haven't glossed over anything.
>>conservatives:"DUDE HE WAS THE GREATEST PRESIDENT EVER!"
>>liberals: "DUDE HE WAS THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER LITERALLY SATAN!"
>Enough of the bullshit. Was Reagan a good president or not? It seems like the real story of his life got lost in the party politics of turning him into a mascot for things you like or things you hate
please tell me which part of this is biased
Except his later comments have revealed he clearly believes anyone criticizing Reagan is the same as saying he was literally satan
It isn't. But none of the other posts in this thread have been either.
Hint: bias doesn't mean "having an opinion"