But, would being tight with her give him a lot of hate over there? I never understood the whole love/hate thing with Thatcher.

Working class and poor people hated her. Snobby, rich folks adored her!!

Okay, makes sense now. Thanks

BAM Thatcher polarized a lot of Brits, but to me she was the best Prime Minister since Churchill. Had that British Bulldog spirit about her which is sadly missing in today's weak, leftist country.

Iran Contra scam ... Oliver north ... REAGAN brought drug's in every city in the nation .remember all the criminal's he took off the hand's of Cuba . MIAMI was never the same !

Ronald Reagan declared war with working Americans the second he took office. He used animated patriotism to get people in the working class to support him, despite the fact that his cabinet and lobbyists were set on taking just about everything away from them. When American businesses began to purge jobs on Reagan's watch, Reagan told the American worker to just wave the flag and everything would be fine. Reagan Republicans have ruined the American middle class, and they're not finished. They still have influence over not only the Republican party, but even the outer so called "libertarian" wings of the party ( I quote libertarian because they're not true libertarians, they just hijacked the name).

At a state level, Ronald Reagan is the father of California's strict gun laws. He pushed the Mulford Act in the 1960s in order to disarm black civil rights groups like the Black Panther Party. What a short memory California Republicans have.

I thought Regan was pretty good. A lot better then carter that Knucklehead. I remember the black panthers a bunch of jerk offs.

California democratics think times are good? They are about to go bankrupt.

And remember what Iran Contra was all about, funding a war in Nicaragua that congress already voted against. Congress did the right thing by refusing to fund a war that was not in the interest of protecting the US homeland. Also, Iran Contra shouldn't be the complete name. It should be Iran-Drug Lord-Contra, as we later found out the secret war to overthrow Nicaragua's socialist government was also funded by Nicaraguan drug dealers being allowed to sell drugs in America's poorest neighborhoods. You might note that this was around the same time that the crack-cocaine epidemic hit, and when LA street gangs that were once relegated to city's ghettos began to move about the country with their lucrative drug profits and start satellite gangs in many of America's smaller cities and towns that had never seen anything resembling gang violence. Yes, this too is part of Reagan's legacy.

The Black Panthers believed in black people having the same rights in this country as white people. They were disbanded, and no group has replaced them. We now live in a country where right wing groups that border on terrorist agendas can bring AR-15s and hold signs that threaten to kill government officials and fellow citizens, and it's all protected speech. Meanwhile, if black people assemble and hold up signs demanding that police stop shooting them, the riot police are sent in.

There you go again with the straw man claims. Will the misrepresentations ever stop?

I don't think that's a misrepresentation, faithful, Reagan was
instrumental in bringing down the middle class, he broke many unions, and despised poor people, the rise of gangs in inner cities started under Reagan, and his draconian policies.
he was a sick man in the head long before he was diagnosed
with alzheimers.

Binnie, I know it's a misrepresentation and I'm sorry to see that you're agreeing with a poster known for pulling "facts" out of his ass.

Here's some facts dealing with economics gathered by Joseph Perkins back in 2004: Just as an example, let's consider Black income and education during the Reagan era. Andrew Brimmer, the Harvard-trained black economist, the former Federal Reserve Board member, estimated that total black business receipts increased from $12.4 billion in 1982 to $18.1 billion in 1987, translating into an annual average growth rate of 7.9 percent (compared to 5 percent for all U.S. businesses.

The success of the black entrepreneurial class during the Reagan era was rivaled only by the gains of the black middle class.

In fact, black social scientist Bart Landry estimated that that upwardly mobile cohort grew by a third under Reagan's watch, from 3.6 million in 1980 to 4.8 million in 1988. His definition was based on employment in white-collar jobs as well as on income levels.

All told, the middle class constituted more than 40 percent of black households by the end of Reagan's presidency, which was larger than the size of black working class, or the black poor.

The impressive growth of the black middle class during the 1980s was attributable in no small part to the explosive growth of jobs under Reagan, which benefited blacks disproportionately.

Indeed, between 1982 and 1988, total black employment increased by 2 million, a staggering sum. That meant that blacks gained 15 percent of the new jobs created during that span, while accounting for only 11 percent of the working-age population.

Meanwhile, the black jobless rate was cut by almost half between 1982 and 1988. Over the same span, the black employment rate – the percentage of working-age persons holding jobs – increased to record levels, from 49 percent to 56 percent.

The black executive ranks especially prospered under Reagan. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported that the number of black managers and officers in corporations with 100 or more employees increased by 30 percent between 1980 and 1985.

During the same period, the number of black professionals increased by an astounding 63 percent.

The burgeoning of the black professional, managerial and executive ranks during the 1980s coincided with a steady growth of the black student population at the nation's colleges and universities in the 1980s.

Even though the number of college-aged blacks decreased during much of the decade, black college enrollment increased by 100,000 between 1980 and 1987, according to the Census Bureau.

Meanwhile, the 1980s saw an improvement in the black high school graduation rate, as the proportion of blacks 18 to 24 years old earning high school diplomas increased from 69.7 percent in 1980 to 76 percent by 1987.

On balance, then, the majority of black Americans made considerable progress in the 1980s.

More of us stayed in high school, graduated and went on to college. More of us were working than ever before, in better jobs and for higher wages.

The black middle class burgeoned to unprecedented size, emerging as the dominant income group in black America. And black business flourished, creating wealth in the black community.

(Thanks to Joseph Perkins of the San Diego Tribune, June 11, 2004.)

As for unions, the one notable case was the firing of flight traffic controllers when they went on an illegal strike. Per their contract they were not allowed to strike and did anyway, so Reagan did the correct thing in firing them.

He did not despise poor people, you've been brainwashed from too many left-wing news rags that have an agenda. Please show me a single quote from anything he said during his two terms in office where he said he hated or despised poor people.

The rise of gangs in inner cities was around way before Reagan. The first New York gangs started in the 1830s and the earliest Los Angeles gangs in the 1880s. Reagan wasn't that old.

As for draconian policies, what would that be? Having a dress code in the White House? That's kind of a subjective standard. Since you're a Reagan hater maybe everything he did was draconian. I could say that Obama's policies are draconian. Provide an example and we can discuss it.

He worked that senility thing pretty good when the Iran-Contra hearings hit, Junior Soprano style. The Gipper suddenly knows nothing.

ok, faithful, you have the data, and it may be all factual, still my belief is Reagan was the 2nd worse president in us history....
George w. bush being the worst.

he never knew what was going on in his white house, he was nothing but a puppet for the right wing maniacs.

he was completely detached from reality.

We could claim that Clinton and Obama are puppets by left wing maniacs. It's just an assertion that gets made without evidence.

No, he wasn't detached from reality. Maybe he didn't micromanage. Maybe there was a thing called plausible denial. There are other explanations aside from those made by left-wing extremists who hate Reagan because of who he was. If you're a left-winger then Clinton and Obama walk on water and do no wrong, and Reagan and Republicans are worse than Hitler and Satan combined. Left-wingers hate Republicans more than they hate ISIS. It's simply not possible to look at those that they disagree with nuance and understanding since that might create too much cognitive dissonance, too much intellectual discomfort. It's so much easier to hate and misrepresent.

good post faithful, as always very well thought out, however as years go by more, and more, will come out about Reagan, and more people will have to admit what he really was,

just an opinion.

F1,
(no kindle)

Political leanings aside, I think Reagan was as much of a figurehead as any president in post WW2 era.
Nobody becomes president without being well educated and accomplished in politics or another field.He was the gov. of California after all but I think I can recall several interviews and books from people who are from conservative political backgrounds that paint Reagan as more media icon than leader.
Tall, full head of hair, great speaking voice.Charismatic "strong"authority figure...who came into office after Carter who was seen as weak,particularly after the Iran Hostage crisis.

I think I can find some of these books,interviews by people with no political bone to pick who wrote essentially what Binnie wrote about Reagan being more telegenic pitchman than leader.

I think most of these books were written after he left public life and before he passed away.

Most of the books written about Reagan were by those with strong political disagreements and made a point to distort every motive he had in the worst possible light and could not demonize him enough. I graduated high school a few months after he was inaugurated and can recall the wild-eyed insanity from the Left back then. Scare stories about how he was going to start a nuclear war and how he hated the poor became the memes for the 80s. When I went to the University of California I'd see all kinds of scare-mongering posters and protesters. The campus newspaper had moronic cartoons of "Ronald Ray-gun" (I'd give a zero for creativity on that one).

Books written on him changed the narrative to make everything he said and did epitomized evil. One of these was "Sleepwalking Through History" by Haynes Johnson of the New York Times. Since 90% of the media is on the Far Left to the Center Left of the political spectrum, it's only natural that most of Reagan's biographers are going to be biased.

The fact is that Reagan earned a degree in economics and was not only president of the Screen Actors Guild, but re-elected an astronomical seven times. He was a leftist until 1952 and worked on the campaign of Helen Douglas. What changed him was his personal observation that Communists were working behind the scenes behind the candidacies of some Democratic candidates and in the film industry. (Later research into the Soviet archives verified that Josef Stalin had an extensive network in the United States and was active in film and politics.)

After he switched parties he began giving motivational speeches. He wrote them himself and they reflected a familiarity with the top economists of the day, such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. The speeches reflect an intellectual depth worthy of any economics professor. Because of a speech he gave in favor of Barry Goldwater he was encouraged to run for governor. He served two terms and was a popular governor, although he regrets signing some deceptively named bills into law.

So if you want to bring up some books I would be glad to discuss them. I do have to wonder who these books claim for the identity of the puppet master behind the throne. Was George H. W. Bush secretly giving him orders? Was it his wife, Nancy? Was it Margaret Thatcher relaying orders from the UK? I'd really love to see this conspiracy theory.

My personal opinion is that I don't agree with everything Reagan did, but I think he's been much maligned, his record distorted and his intentions demonized. I can say that George W. Bush was wrong for invading Iraq without demonizing his motives, that he "did it for the oil" or that he was manipulated by Dick Cheney.

Bush wasn't the best public speaker, but that shouldn't be taken to mean he had a low IQ. The campaigns of Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004 regularly demeaned him as an idiot, and the media helped push that narrative and mocked him at every opportunity. Yet when Al Gore's grades were released it showed him to be just as average as Bush, and Kerry fared even worse, showing him to be a D student. Michael Morell, who was a leader at the CIA from the Clinton administration to the Obama one and regularly briefed Bush, said that he was bright and asked intelligent questions. He absolutely disagreed with the narrative. Morell, by the way, has positive things to say about Democratic presidents as well.

Was that the case or was it that the Iranians actually took Reagan seriously while they saw Carter as a laughingstock not to be feared?

The pro wrestling intellect you apply to global politics is quite amusing.

I'll take that over your revisionist history designed to make liberals look good. Shouldn't you be cold calling people for the Clinton campaign, douchebag?

Douchebag? Is that you, Andrew Dice Clay?

Anyhow, I don't have to make liberals look good. They already do. Hollywood is liberal for a reason.

Hollywood is your example? Yeah, Hollywood is filled with some real balanced, mentally healthy, and moral people. Good grief, what a stupid argument. Even for you.

Are you saying that liberalism is good because celebrities typically are or are you saying since celebrities are typically physically attractive they make liberalism "look good"

Andrew dice clay will be appearing in Brooklyn soon. I think he is funny, but I would not pay money to see him. He isn't that funny. Get it oak.

F1,
Not only will I concede the point that Reagan entered office being vilified by the press in the examples you gave, I especially remember that he was alluded to as some sort of demonic figure..Ronald(6 letters)Wilson(6)Reagan(6)=666.

I think Reagan has been maligned by writers from opposite end of politics, BUT he has been given a revisionist iconic status by those on his side of politics....especially after he passed away.

The truth always lies somewhere in the middle. I have vhs archives of c-span, sunday morning political shows, lectures,etc because at a young age I realized that facts and stories can and will be distorted by historians and the press AFTER the fact.

I will try to dig through them, but while I have to concede the point that news press, book publishing, and academia are filled with people with left leaning views, I think that valid scholarly criticism can and should be applied to any public figure.

In terms of bias, I've always said that bias is not what you write about the guy you don't like, it's what you refuse to write about the guy you like.Let me change that to person since Mrs. Clinton is presidential candidate now.
Mrs. Clinton has been given a pass by the majority of the press for what were legally criminal actions. That is the bias. When/if a person on the other end of politics does something similar...he or she will be the top news story of the day until he/she resigns.

It's all a big joke, but when we read books or articles about political figures we can only go by the facts....and their actions, votes or words and place everything in context.

Also, not only will I concede your point about media driven narratives about candidates, but I remember almost being ashamed when I heard people I know repeating these narratives VERBATIM like parrots.
Bush Sr. was a "wimp" Quayle was a "dumb blonde". W. Bush was a "dullard"
The day after Howard Dean gave the rousing speech closer "We're gonna win in Michigan, Ohio.......AHHHHHHHHHHHH" Reporters said "with an outburst like that, he's not fit to run for president" and I heard co-workers say the EXACT SAME THING the next day. shameful.

Anyway....while I try to dig up these archives, we can judge Reagan by the things that are public record like his words, votes, actions, testimony, etc.

Lot of truth has been written in this thread by multiple members, and I think if we place things in context, nobody is wrong.

About the Iraq War and W. Bush, young Americans enlist to protect the people and interests of the USA. They make THE ultimate sacrifice. Manipulating information and using Colin Powell's respected image to knowingly mislead the public and the world community to support the military effort was a betrayal of those people on the ground making those sacrifices.

Gets,

I agree with everything you said. Yes, there are those who turned Reagan into some sort of superhero who could do no wrong. To me, hero-worship has no place in politics. Reagan made mistakes just like every other president. Today, I think there's much more hero-worship with Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

On your final statement, about our military, amen. Do have to disagree with you on Colin Powell, however. From what I've read, the Bush administration absolutely believed there was sufficient evidence to justify an invasion, so there was no intent to mislead. Again, I recommend reading Michael Morell's book, The Great War of Our Time. There's so much history in there and so many questions get answers that you may not be able to put it down. https://www.amazon.com/Great-War-Our-Time-Terrorism/dp/1455585661


Also, related to the Iraq War, one of the conclusions from a British commission is that Tony Blair actually encouraged Bush to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Have to wonder, did Blair some of the evidence that the Bush administration saw and used to justify the invasion? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...etting-out.html

I'll second the recommendation on Morell's book.

I'm curious what those that have read it or any of his pieces published in other places, or viewed his TV appearances think of his take on Benghazi.

This is what Morell wrote a year ago. Some new information has come out since then to indicate that planes were available and were delayed due to infighting, so keep that in mind.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/michael-morell-debunking-the-benghazi-myths-118271