Zguy28 Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Who was a bigger "agent of change" in our country? Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 The USSR crumbled under Reagan's watch. Clinton was lucky to be President during the tech boom. Nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 I have to say Reagan. Although Jimmy Carter was an important part of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 I think people will be surprised with this, but I believe it was William Jefferson Clinton III. As much as I love many of the things that Ronald Reagan did and believed in, his influence was gone within a few years of the end of his term in office. The changes that he put in place were, for the most part, TEMPORARY. They were good changes, but they did not stand the test of time.... including the destruction of the Soviet Union which now appears to be very quickly reforming itself. I was not ever and will not ever be a fan of Bill Clinton. I don't think that's surprising to anyone here. However, the destruction and chaos that he visited upon our society and our country is pretty much engraved into the fabric of our culture now and probably will continue to be for decades to come. It's wasn't POSITIVE change, but it was definitely change and it's going to be with us for a lot longer than anything Reagan ever did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Both were actually pretty moderate Presidents. Clinton was more willing to be defined as such. Reagan realistically used very conservative rhetoric, but goverened more from the middle. In that sense, I don't think either were real large agents of change during their terms. But historically, you'd have to say Reagan right now. It has been almost thirty years since his first term of President, and he is still the person candidates are trying to compare themself too. Every Democrat is pretty openly running to the left of Clinton's rhetoric and policies. Maybe in another 10 to 20 years Democrats running for President well decleare themselves to be Clinton Democrats and talk about how they got excited by Politics due to Clinton, but I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 I'd say Nancy Reagan brought about more change than either of them. I saw her on that Very Special Episode of Diff'rent Strokes, and it changed my life. Now when Congress tries to take away my Constitutional freedoms, I "Just Say No." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_cavalierman Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 The USSR crumbled under Reagan's watch.Clinton was lucky to be President during the tech boom. Nuff said. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: So I guess the actor from California should get all of the credit for that even though the Military, CIA, FBI and others stood against Russia for 50+ years. You don't think Reagan was lucky to be POTUS when the Soviets ran out of money? How non-partisan of you:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGreenistheBest Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Well, since AIDS became a national epidemic under Reagan's watch, I'm going to say Reagan. That's quite a change, isn't it? http://www.zmag.org/ZMagSite/Jan2004/bronski0104.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Well, since AIDS became a national epidemic under Reagan's watch, I'm going to say Reagan. That's quite a change, isn't it? http://www.zmag.org/ZMagSite/Jan2004/bronski0104.html :doh: :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 The level of complete 'asinineness' around here has reached truly epic proportion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGreenistheBest Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 It's so easy to push your buttons, Repubs. You have no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_cavalierman Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Reagan: Dealt with terrorist Cut and Run from Lebanon Is falsely credited with the fall of the USSR (happened to be POTUS when USSR ran out of money) Armed equipped and legitimized Saddam in Iraq Authorized the recruiting of whacko islamofascists to fight in Afghanistan (Osama Bin Laden and friends) Raised Taxes during his presidency...a republican no-no Ran up a galactic debt unmatched by all president until another republican (Bush 43) Clinton: Got a blowjob in the whitehouse and lied about it Happened to be POTUS when the budget got balanced with a surplus Reagan's presidency makes everyone elses except Washington, Lincoln and FDR's look boring by comparison but not in a good way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbiggs Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Clinton was lucky to be President during the tech boom. This says it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 It's so easy to push your buttons, Repubs. You have no idea. I'd be proud. We look for honest debate, you look to 'push buttons' and create division. Thanks for motivating our base against your cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGreenistheBest Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 I'd be proud. We look for honest debate, you look to 'push buttons' and create division.Thanks for motivating our base against your cause. How about "honestly debating" my AIDS claim then instead of saying I'm assinine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 You don't think Reagan was lucky to be POTUS when the Soviets ran out of money? Well that's another way to look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_cavalierman Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Let us hope that both bases are motivated to do what is best for America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 It's so easy to push your buttons, Repubs. You have no idea. We are all Republicans. We are all Democrats. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 How about "honestly debating" my AIDS claim then instead of saying I'm assinine? OK. Your 'source' was a FICTIONAL movie, in which the author ADMITTED to fabricating that portion. Next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Let us hope that both bases are motivated to do what is best for America. Ours is. Yours is content to believe that if Reagan had devastated military funding like Clinton did, that the Soviets would have still run out of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGreenistheBest Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 OK. Your 'source' was a FICTIONAL movie, in which the author ADMITTED to fabricating that portion.Next. " In 1981 the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported the first known cases of AIDS, at that point known as gay cancer or Gay-Related Immune Deficiency (GRID). According to press reports, Reagan never publicly addressed the disease until September 1985 when a reporter at a news conference asked him whether he would support government research initiatives to fight the disease. According to the New York Times Reagan answered by saying that AIDS "is a top priority with us" and explaining that since he had taken office he had provided or appropriated about half a billion dollars to fight the epidemic. Yet Reagan continued to clash with lawmakers and activists on his AIDS policies. According to press reports Reagan requested $85 million in 1986 for AIDS research, but Congress bumped that figure up to $244 million. Reagan unsuccessfully tried to rescind $50 million of that figure, according to the Boston Globe, but he ultimately agreed to Congress' figure. At the time the Globe reported that AIDS patients were dying at a rate of about 80 per week. In 1987, Reagan proposed cutting the research budget for AIDS down to $214 million. Congress again responded by raising it to about $400 million, and Reagan again agreed to sign that figure into law. In 1986, Reagan ordered Surgeon General C. Everett Koop to prepare a major government report on AIDS. Critics attacked Reagan for ordering the report on the same day he submitted requests to reduce the AIDS budget, according to the Globe. Koop's report called for mandatory sex education for children as early as elementary school, but Reagan's education secretary, William Bennett, and his undersecretary of education, Gary Bauer, strenuously opposed those efforts, calling for abstinence-oriented education." http://www.aegis.org/news/bayw/2004/BY040605.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_cavalierman Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Ours is. Yours is content to believe that if Reagan had devastated military funding like Clinton did, that the Soviets would have still run out of money. Fact: The Soviets were in financial trouble long before the actor from California stepped on the scene which the CIA (the people that actually know the deal) verifies. Fiction: Reagan's bolstering of the US military was the reason the USSR collapsed. Putin even said that the USSR knew star wars was a boastful program that was big on dreams and short on substance. I think Putin knew what he was talking about. I am in full agreement that Reagan's presidency had more change related to it that Clinton's presidency, but I happen to believe Reagan was not the agent of positive change. Infact one could successfully argue that the world has been less safe since the collapse of the USSR. More wars, more military deployments, more ethnic violence and other assorted bad things.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabR Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 The USSR crumbled under Reagan's watch. no it didnt, undrer bush's watch and Reagan had very little to do with it. That is the most over hyped BS around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 I don't believe either President was an agent of change. They were both culminators and moderate IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted February 18, 2008 Author Share Posted February 18, 2008 I don't believe either President was an agent of change. They were both culminators and moderate IMO.The reason I posted this poll was because I watched a clip of Barack Obama this morning on youtube talking about it and I wanted to see what you all thought on the subject as well. I'm liking Obama a little more each day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.