= = = "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
= = = link.net...
"Telamon" wrote:

(snip) The best that can be said
about you is that at least you had
the decency to wait until he was
buried to denigrate him.


The truth doesn't denigrate. I was there at the time to see that shift in
European thinking. And, by leaving this country not long before Reagan took
office and returning not long after he left, I was also able to more clearly
see what eight years of his presidency had done to this country. I returned
to see homeless people in the streets of even small towns (something I had
rarely seen outside the larger cities before), violent crime like I had
never seen before, stagnated wages for workers (most were earning no more
than when I left), sharply increased prices for most everything, shocking
corporate greed, jobs moving overseas, a growing immigration problem, a
declining military, declining political freedoms, a country growing more
politically divided then I had ever seen it before in my lifetime, and so
on. In my opinion, anyone who actually thinks Reagan was good for this
country doesn't really give a damn about this country. The same could
probably be said of Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush Jr. Each have taken this
country to a new low.

Stewart

DS,

Sounds like you should have stayed "Over There !"

As for Me - I Am Glad to be 'right here' in America ~ RHF

..

"RHF" wrote:

Sounds like you should have stayed
"Over There !"

As for Me - I Am Glad to be 'right
here' in America ~ RHF


I'm also glad to be 'right here' in America. However, my employment with
this government took me out of the country many times over the last few
decades. And, since it gave me a relatively unique perspective of events
around the world, I'm glad I had that opportunity to travel and work
overseas for extended periods.

Stewart

In article . net,
"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote:

(snip) The best that can be said about you is that at least you
had the decency to wait until he was buried to denigrate him.


The truth doesn't denigrate. I was there at the time to see that
shift in
European thinking. And, by leaving this country not long before
Reagan took office and returning not long after he left, I was also
able to more clearly see what eight years of his presidency had done
to this country. I returned to see homeless people in the streets of
even small towns (something I had rarely seen outside the larger
cities before), violent crime like I had never seen before, stagnated
wages for workers (most were earning no more than when I left),
sharply increased prices for most everything, shocking corporate
greed, jobs moving overseas, a growing immigration problem, a
declining military, declining political freedoms, a country growing
more politically divided then I had ever seen it before in my
lifetime, and so on. In my opinion, anyone who actually thinks Reagan
was good for this country doesn't really give a damn about this
country. The same could probably be said of Bush Sr, Clinton, and
Bush Jr. Each have taken this country to a new low.

I can only agree with your first sentence "The truth doesn't
denigrate."

Unfortunately for you and your last post that you sniped the contents
of the world leaders of that time and current time do not agree with
what you call truth.

My best guess as to why you don't try to defend your last post because
it is indefensible and that this post is just a continuation of a
baseless rant.

Again as with the last post by you I would argue that except for a very
small group of far left wing looneys you are pretty much by yourself.

Don't forget the second election of Reagan for president carried 48 out
of 50 states. Don't forget the massive outpouring of affection for this
man upon his death. Don't forget most of what you pose as factual is
just BS.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote:

(snip) My best guess as to why you don't
try to defend your last post because it is
indefensible... (snip)


Since you didn't contradict anything said in that first post, there is
nothing to defend.


(snip) Don't forget the second election of
Reagan for president carried 48 out of 50
states. (snip)


In an election where only about half of the eligible voters in this
country even participated.


Don't forget the massive outpouring of affection
for this man upon his death.


From his supporters? Certainly. But, for the rest, you're confusing
politeness with affection. Or do you truly believe most non-Republicans are
just gushing with "affection for this man?"


(snip) Don't forget most of what you pose as
factual is just BS.


Most? Well at least you do admit some of what I said is factual. In
reality, it all is - even if that is difficult for you to admit to. Take
care, Telamon. Perhaps we'll have another discussion in this newsgroup
sometime in the future.

Stewart

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
news



First of all, Reagan didn't defeat the USSR. Instead, he severely
weakened
our relationship with our European allies, and that was the real key to
the
events that followed. His endless rhetoric, his decision to place even
more
nuclear weapons in Europe, his attack on Libya, his rhetorical threats
towards France following that attack on Libia, and a number of other
questionable actions, convinced many in Europe the Russians were not all
that bad in comparison. As a result, it was the efforts by European
leaders
to reach out to the Russians, such as decisions by France and Germany to
help Russia build an oil pipeline to Europe and England's decision to
increase trade with Russia, that truly caused Russian leaders to rethink
their positions.

As others have pointed out, there were certainly other factors
influencing
Russia's decision (declining economy. political unrest, and so on), but
these alone would not have, and had not in the past, caused Russia to
change. The key ingredient, missing in the past, was a shift in European
thinking. And that shift was caused by a widespread rejection of Reagan's
war mongering attitudes - attitudes that were a throw-back to the early
days
of the cold war and, like Reagan himself, very much out of place in the
world at that time.

Stewart


Surely you don't want to confuse the average right wing , slightly fascistic
American with an intelligent evaluation of what really happened, especially
if it happened out side the borders of the US and Hollywood TV

Pete

As the majority of Americans will agree, I think Pres Reagan was one of the
best, if not the very best, President that America has ever had.


On the other hand, I can see why so many liberals would hate him. The reason
for this is that the liberals oppose all of the decent pro-American things
that he stood for. One can't hate America and the ideals of this country
without hating Pres Reagan.

--James--

"James Nipper" wrote in message
...


As the majority of Americans will agree, I think Pres Reagan was one of
the
best, if not the very best, President that America has ever had.


On the other hand, I can see why so many liberals would hate him. The
reason
for this is that the liberals oppose all of the decent pro-American things
that he stood for. One can't hate America and the ideals of this
country
without hating Pres Reagan.

--James--


We often wonder how Hitler managed to get into power and convince so many
otherwise perfectly normal Germans. Well, this is exactly the kind of
thinking that can do that, ie. if someone voices a different opinion, it's
anti-American. That false path has been followed by many countries and
civilizations before.
Pete

"Pete" wrote:

We often wonder how Hitler managed
to get into power and convince so many
otherwise perfectly normal Germans.
Well, this is exactly the kind of thinking
that can do that, ie. if someone voices a
different opinion, it's anti-American. That
false path has been followed by many
countries and civilizations before.


Exactly, Pete. It's fanaticism devoid of all rational thought. In all
honesty, I suspect if George Bush announced tomorrow that he was disbanding
Congress and assuming all control of this country, the vast majority of
Republicans would support him, would openly argue (even right here in this
newsgroup) in defense of that, and would be willing, without hesitation, to
go to war and kill Americans who opposed his takeover. Indeed, something
very much like this may actually be the future of America - perhaps not with
Bush, but a very real possibility with some Republican leader in the not so
distant future.

Stewart

= = = "Pete" wrote in message
= = = . rogers.com...
"James Nipper" wrote in message
...


As the majority of Americans will agree, I think Pres Reagan was one of
the
best, if not the very best, President that America has ever had.


On the other hand, I can see why so many liberals would hate him. The
reason
for this is that the liberals oppose all of the decent pro-American things
that he stood for. One can't hate America and the ideals of this
country
without hating Pres Reagan.

--James--


We often wonder how Hitler managed to get into power and convince so many
otherwise perfectly normal Germans. Well, this is exactly the kind of
thinking that can do that, ie. if someone voices a different opinion, it's
anti-American. That false path has been followed by many countries and
civilizations before.
Pete


PETE,

"if someone voices a different opinion, it's anti-American."

NO - If someone voices an anti-american opinion, It Is Anti-American [.]

~ RHF

..

= = = "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
= = = link.net...
Ronald Reagan. The man who defeated
Soviet Communism (no wonder liberals
hate him). May he rest in peace. (snip)


First of all, Reagan didn't defeat the USSR. Instead, he severely weakened
our relationship with our European allies, and that was the real key to the
events that followed. His endless rhetoric, his decision to place even more
nuclear weapons in Europe, his attack on Libya, his rhetorical threats
towards France following that attack on Libia, and a number of other
questionable actions, convinced many in Europe the Russians were not all
that bad in comparison. As a result, it was the efforts by European leaders
to reach out to the Russians, such as decisions by France and Germany to
help Russia build an oil pipeline to Europe and England's decision to
increase trade with Russia, that truly caused Russian leaders to rethink
their positions.

As others have pointed out, there were certainly other factors influencing
Russia's decision (declining economy. political unrest, and so on), but
these alone would not have, and had not in the past, caused Russia to
change. The key ingredient, missing in the past, was a shift in European
thinking. And that shift was caused by a widespread rejection of Reagan's
war mongering attitudes - attitudes that were a throw-back to the early days
of the cold war and, like Reagan himself, very much out of place in the
world at that time.

Stewart

DS,

So you are one "Democrat Party Apologist" and Revisionist for
the Anti-American One World Vision of the OWLES.

Remember that about 90% of American Citizens relatives turned
their BackSides on Europe and other 'foreign' lands for the
Promise and Dream of America.

I Believe in the Promise and Dream of America and the Global
Vision of President Ronald W Reagan for the USofA.

Proud to Say: I Am An American ~ RHF

..