 |
| |
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:35
|
|
I dunno Ted, do you think either 'axis of evil' or 'shining city on a hill' were related to any concrete differences?
I'd say a big difference was that Reagan didn't violate the constitution as seriously as Bush continues to do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:35
|
|
As Ted crudely put it, one reason was Reagan said America was a shining beacon and we should use our might to smack down Communism, while Bush is saying America should be afraid of terrorists. Big differences in what how they believe America should react to a stressful situation. And it ISN'T just packaging and rhetoric, but informs a totally different view on how legislation should be structured. Reagan's optimist led him to push for less governmental intrusion in the lives of people. Now, reasonable people can disagree on abortion, but in other aspects he was good at trying to get the government to pull away. Bush's fear leads to him to have a more and more overbearing government, driven by USA PATRIOT and USA PATRIOT II.
And that comes from the type of 'Wars' they decided to fight. Reagan's fight against Communism (which, btw was never the 'War Against Communism' TM) was a Cold War, mostly, fought using diplomacy and proxy wars. It was a 'war' built on containing the recognized enemy. Bush's "War on Terrorism" is incredibly vague built on exterminating a non-defined enemy.
While Reagan was not perfect on civil liberties, he was immensly better than Bush. When his cabinet was considering a national ID card, Reagan shot it down almost immediately. I think that if Bush is reelected, he'd push for a national ID card before his term is up.
The Reagan 
The Bush 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Natalinasmpf
|
|
I detest Reagan, anyhow. He was one of the worst hypocrites ever, even though he was a really good leader.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:35
|
|
Why are your presidents so controversial all the time? Great country, Great problems? I don't believe in this. If there are Great problems, then there must be Great solutions, or the leader isn't Great and being so doesn't deserve to be in the driving seat. With me, the new America will be respect all over the world and be known as the bringer of good and not the benefitor, with me, America will benefit and the core of it, the middle and lower class, I will raise the minimum wage to 9 dollars an hour, I will stop the tax breaks for big companies, and transfer those to tax breaks for lower income households for them to be able to join the spending party and raise the level of our small independent businesses and compete and challenge the private service sector as well as the public sector. With me, I would have not used the lives of many citizens to bring down Saddam, when one sniper bullet could have done the job better, with me, you will not get free healthcare, but you will get better quality and lower cost healthcare that is affordable for the lower income as well, and new healthcare plans that carries you over the bad times. With me, the new America will leave no child behind, with me, we can all get naked and smoke pot in our own living rooms in our own privacy, and we will reap the rewards and control the sales and quality of the product. With me, we can show nipples in TV, and we stop bleeping the curse words.
So why do you keep up with these controversial folks?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:35
|
|
Reagan was the great communicator. Plus, he was the star, not anyone in his cabinet. Reagan changed America fundamentally from the malaise of Carter primarily by killing price controls, reducing taxes, increasing the military and giving us a new hope that communism could be defeated. His "Evil Empire" speech and the Pershing missiles in Europe had the radical left and the average European going bonkers. Mass demonstrations were the norm, just as they are now. But, in his second term, Reagan gave us real nuclear missile reduction treaties, just as had Nixon did in the early '70s.
Bush is somewhat inarticulate when not delivering a speech. He also was (is?) somewhat hamstrung on foreign policy because he has major stars in his cabinet and as VP who seem to be at war with each other. The war on terror is an example. The neocons (Rumsfeld, Cheney) saw the war on terror as more than just al Qaeda from the very beginning, and believed the solution was to bring democracy to the world of Islam. Powell was far more conservative in his foreign policy approach and was behind the somewhat inconsistent views expressed by Bush in his first years. Since Iraq, Powell has had no choice but to join the neocons because there was no backing out of Iraq.
On the domestic front, Bush is far more radical than Reagan, opting for an aggressive program to remake our social programs to allow more individual control over our lives.
This aggressiveness domestically distinguishes Bush from Reagan, as Reagan ended up doing nothing domestically other than the tax cuts in his first months.
Anyone who is aggressive and visionary is going to create reactionary enemies. We see a lot of that from the left who seem shell shocked by how aggressive Bush has been across the board. However, only the bold can be great. I think Bush is one of our great presidents and will be so judged by history.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shi Huangdi
|
 |
Pittsburgh, PA
Apr 1999
time: 00:35
|
|
"Now, reasonable people can disagree on abortion, but in other aspects he was good at trying to get the government to pull away. Bush's fear leads to him to have a more and more overbearing government, driven by USA PATRIOT and USA PATRIOT II."
But Reagan stepped up the War on Drugs, which was more intrusive then USA PATRIOT.
"And that comes from the type of 'Wars' they decided to fight. Reagan's fight against Communism (which, btw was never the 'War Against Communism' TM) was a Cold War, mostly, fought using diplomacy and proxy wars. It was a 'war' built on containing the recognized enemy. Bush's "War on Terrorism" is incredibly vague built on exterminating a non-defined enemy."
Well, it's not BUsh's fault who chooses to attack us, and that this time our enemy doesn't have a border, a capital, and a flag.
BUt you know, people bring up the dilpomacy issue. But the invasion of Grenada also angered alot of people, including our allies, and much of Europe was Anti-American during this period just like it is npw.
"Bush seems to divide people against each other."
This country was very devided under Reagan, leftists really despised Reagan.Remember Katherin Grahm, head of the Washington Post, had that quote that she was suprised that Reagan could have possibly won in 1984 since nobody she knew voted for hi m.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OzzyKP
|
 |
Rockville, MD
Oct 1999
time: 00:35
|
|
Quite a good question, Boshko. I've wondered the same, and I like Reagan and dislike Bush.
Reagan - Cut taxes, ballooned the deficit, increased the military, talked about spending cuts but never really did them
Bush - Cut taxes, ballooned the deficit, increased the military, talked about spending cuts but never really did them
Maybe it is all a matter of packaging. Maybe its because I'm living through Bush and not Reagan. I dunno. Though while Reagan failed to really cut as much as he hoped, he never did go as far to increase spending (I may be wrong) as Bush. Bush championed the largest expansion to medicare since Johnson, and lots of federal spending for education.
Reagan actually beat the communists, Bush I fear is only making the problem worse with the terrorists. Though I suppose history will be the judge.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-09-2004 13:07
So the force is not with Bush.
|