Actually he didn't make that up and it has been proven so. Also I grew up in California and during that time a welfare recipient using all of the programs available to them would get in cash and cash equivalents more money than 53% of working people. Everyone knew somebody that was living on welfare and doing so quite comfortably.
That's not what a "welfare queen" is. Reagan implied that there were people buying brand new luxury cars and living wealthy lives on welfare. Please give me one non-anecdotal case of this happening. You won't find it.
Reagan was pretty infamous for making up stories that he used in his speeches.
Second point is a welfare queen has no racial status attached to it, only people who are inherently racist would think so, that might say something about you more than Reagan.
No, Reagan was quite demonstrably a racist, or playing to that crowd. He opposed the Civil Rights Act, and Voting Rights Act, calling them a slap in the face of southern governments. He actually tried to weaken the Voting Rights Act while in office. He opposed the creation of Martin Luther King Day.
He kicked off his 1980 presidential campaign in Philadelphia Mississippi, a town know for pretty much one thing: The murder of 3 civil rights workers in 1964. Furthermore, he gave a speech on state's rights, which is a well known way of subtly speaking about segregation.
Let's not forget, he also supported apartheid, a point I had in my list, which you appear to have deleted.
Now lets speak about dog-whistle politics. "Welfare cheat" is a well known dogwhistle to closeted racists, just as "state's rights" is, and calling the president "Hussein Obama" during the election, while not calling McCain "Sidney". I'm not talking about the kind of racism where you come out and say that you "don't like niggers", but rather the kind where you're pissed off about minorities taking all your tax dollars in welfare fraud, while ignoring the systemic racism that puts them in welfare.
And welfare fraud is not really a significant issue, statistically speaking.
Actually the regimes he supported were far less brutal than the ones they replaces. In this case it's the idea of being for extremely bad or just bad. Reagan chose bad, I take you would chose the extremely bad?
I can't think of a single case where this is true, so I'm going to need some examples.
While you do that, consider this: Stalin was better than Hitler, or vice versa. They were both pretty bad. Why would you support either? You aren't required to support murderous dictatorial regimes. Why on earth would you think we were?
This is so monumentally false I don't know here to begin. During Reagan term spending on HIV was huge. It was the fastest that the government had ever reacted to a new virus like this, plus they spent more money on it than anything else in the past. To say otherwise is simply tripe. LOOK up the history.
Honestly, you must not be familiar with the history of HIV....Reagan's silence and inaction on the issue is pretty notorious in the community, and was a cause for a great deal of anguish at the time.
You can look
here for one article on the issue, sadly there are many more.
Massive huh, actually there were only a few industries that had de-regulation but many more that had more regulations placed on them. Again rather than spewing a talking point look up the data. Regulation went up overall under Reagan not down. That's verifiable.
Cool, I'd love to see the data. Please point me to it. To me, it looked like a ton of banking and telecom deregulation.....
He did, a trade off with Tip O'Neil, the Dem's get much more funding for social programs and entitlements and Reagan got his increases in defense spending and his economic stimulus package through. A deal with the devil as he called it and was never happy about it.
What can I say? Out of your own lips, you point out that Reagan would rather spend money on guns than people, swords over plowshares.
As opposed to massively increasing the debt solely by spending it on guns, of course.
Labor was already in decline the only thing he did was to stand up to the air traffic controllers. You do know that many of those guys make over 100K a year, no offense, I know their jobs are important but that seems a little high especially when you consider the incredible government benefits they also get.
First of all, why the fuck do you grudge other people what they are making? Median wages have been flat for over 40 years now, and people like you are the reason why.
Second, you say "labor was in decline" as if it magically was getting weaker without any pressure form industry. I hate to burst your bubble, but unions are hated by corporations because they allow the worker to have some sort of power in the equation, other than the ability to quit. Labor was in decline due to a concerted effort of big business and government, especially Reagan. What kind of message do you think he sent with his actions? Also, I believe your timeline is off, as Labor didn't really start a major decline until his administration, for obvious reasons.
And don't think I didn't notice you trying to sidestep the whole issue.
He did, I take it you were a big proponent for the Iraqi war and the removal of Saddam Hussein then?
No I wasn't. I'm interested in seeing the logical leap that would make you think that....I guess if you don't support Reagan, you'll have to support the guy who was ideologically similar to him(Bush II)?
Way to avoid even responding to that point though. It's pretty indefensible, I agree.
Iran-Contra has risen to legendary status with people, most of them cannot even give you the basic facts behind it. But one thing is clear even Lawrence Walsh admitted that he had no evidence that Reagan knew of or was involved with it. Nice try.
Um it's pretty simple? Sold weapons to Iran, used money to fund rebels in Nicaragua.
So your defense for Iran Contra is that his administration was balls deep in it,
but he personally maybe didn't know about it. What does that say about him? Not that I believe it, nor should you.
Hardly worthless, it caused Russia to spend tons of money to enlarge their already installed missile shield over Moscow to cover the whole country. Many of the technological advancements from star wars have benefited our soldiers.
LOL, you're making shit up again. Gorbachev is the main reason the USSR fell, not Reagan. And as much as you wish he was, he was not a puppet of Reagan. I love how the president in office during the collapse gets all the credit, even if you cannot put together a coherent narrative of how he did it.
Please, give me some examples of star wars technology benefiting our soldiers? Either you've confusing what Star Wars was, or your confusing what technologies our soldiers use.
This is really a case of talking points (sounds like from Will Bunch) vs reality, Reagan had faults as all presidents do, but to spin it this way is the work of extreme ideologue and brings nothing intelligent to the table.
I'm not the one doing the spinning. Please, ask me to support everything I've said.
I didn't even mention the parts later in his term, where he started confusing reality with movies he had been in(this is, hilariously, actually something that happened).
