@JohnJ2427 You realize the reason Obama cant do anything wrong is because those old, overwieght, redneck, half senile, republicans in the Senate are blocking him right?
@sleepy7351 Reagan was the guy, that brought usa in to a real economy crisis. what country wants a artist as a president? Obama was the last chance for the usa. But i think, he spoiled it.
@sleepy7351True, but Obama is just like Bush. We get to choose between the establishment choices.Go to opensecrets site to see that In 2008, Obama and McCain's campaigns were both funded by Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Lehman Brothers, and other bailout banks.They have the bases covered. One guy doesn't take lobbyists money but runs on small citizen donations, and that Ron Paul. End the fed, they are the root of evil. Watch documentaries on the Federal Reserve and the CFR.
1:55 Skip to the interesting part. Furthermore Reagan was one of the worst presidents the USA ever had in american history. He was only a puppet of the concerns and a great example for the lobbyism in the USA.
Mikhail Gorbechev was a great President and deserves most of the credit for the bold changes. Reagan wouldn't have made any progress with people like Stalin or Kim Jong Il. Stalin would have executed someone like Gorbachev long before they had a chance to be influential.
@chimeraweaver Reagan recognized that Gorbachev was not like previous Soviet dictators, and he adapted his strategy accordingly. But Gorbachev would not have engaged in perestroika and glasnost if not for Reagan's brilliant combination of encouragement and pressure. Sure, that strategy would not have worked with Stalin, but Reagan knew he wasn't dealing with Stalin.
I love the revisionist BS by the leftists on this video. LOL Informed "grassroot troopers" know leftists r despicable liars but others r tricked by their words such as "real down 2 earth" and "gorbachev was not a bad guy". So 2 clear the record @trashcansam123 and @waldowatcherno298 (the liar up @ the top), here we go:
1) Gorbachev was a Soviet communist dictator who was not a down 2 earth, nice guy.
2) Gorbachev didn't want freedom we jammed it down his throats!
I hate communism but Gorbachev was a real down to earth soviet who saw things as they were and brought change. Even today he is making reforms with the enviroment through his founded organization.
I've never seen such a sexy President in my life, CHARACTER makes you sexy, not playing football in HI on the beach with your shirt off. I wish I was an adult when Raegan was Pres, I didn't realize how history making he was :)
Haha imagine if Obama was president back than, he would probably say "we must accept communism so no one gets their feelings hurt!...... By the way jobs jobs jobs jobs"
25 years ago Ronald Reagan made the biggest mistake any President has ever made in our countires history. Most Republicans and conservatives think Ronald Reagan was the best President in modern times. I think he was the worst and made the biggest mistake of any President.
25 years ago Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens. Those 3 million have turned into a nightmare for our kid's and grandkids. For everything he did, he ruied it all with that one mistake.
Whoever those 179 people who disliked this video are all idiots. Ronald Reagan was the best president America has ever had and i wish we could have another one like him. He was so wise and he was one of the main reasons this wall came down. So to all the people who disliked this video you know nothing of respect and honor.
@andrealou72 With all due respect (some of) Reagan's domestic policies were mediocre in my opinion. However, his foreign policy was among the greatest of all presidents in America's history.
@andrealou72 Respect the foreign policy and speaking abilities but his domestic policies were a fucking disaster. His policies started a spiral of income ineaulity, that has virtually wiped out the PPP of middle america forcing regular folks to have burrow money over their heads, creating a debt bubble that burst and lead to some of the crises we see today Even his own children disagree with his corporatist neo-conservative agenda.
@andrealou72 I didn't like Reagan's politics but I liked Reagan as a person, you just couldn't help but like a guy like him. But he wasn't the best president ever. His cop out for whenever the economy was bad was to blame Carter.
@dbgelman Well the union workers get paid the same I agree but you dont understand what im trying to explain to you so let me do it again in a more clear way. Why should a person that is unemployed get paid for not working with the same amount of money as the person thats employed? And ofcourse I agree if a person is lazy hell get thrown out of his job that is the most fair way that there can be if the employee doesnt make any effort in his work.
You all allowed for the feds fbi to set up others ... like office workers in a feds office as well and to go to Prison for one year.
They never wrote down the accurate, higher level data for HUD rep and so "her office staff coworkers, friend or pets could know"... Enemy of USA had granted drug to person to die and they go to war with USA. It was Libya. He's dead today; however USA gave no info to me and no $... no disability thru their union due to NON-fbi interventions: BUT wntOnTV
In 1984, Ronald ( Iran -Contra ) Reagan met with several Taliban leaders in the West Wing of the White House. He compared the Taliban to the Founding Fathers of America. In 2000
George Bush was also negociating with Taliban in America over the USA right to allow one American oil company to build a pipeline from Caspian Sea to Arabian Sea, through Afghanistan. All is well. In early 2001 Taliban gives contract to Brazil. War on Taliban declared 6 months later with 911 as the false flag
@waldowatcherno298 For years after Gorbachev became the leader of the Soviet Union, the Soviet government continued to back oppressive regimes in Poland, Hungary, Cuba, and throughout South America, including support for guerrillas who killed thousands.
@JohnJ2427 yeah, i guess he wasnt the best of guys. but he wanted hs people to be more free and the soviets to be lest oppressive, guess i should do more research next time though
@JohnJ2427 And then we have the heavenly United States to kill thousands in Korea, Vietnam, El Salvador, Afghanistan and Iraq. I hope you realize that Gorbachev wasn't a dictator and his hands were tied, especially during the age of such reforms.
@JohnJ2427 You know there are gossips that Kim Jong Un is just a puppet master of North Korea and the generals control everything and actually it seems to prove itself someway. So maybe it was the same situation in Soviet Union?
@dbgelman Actually ask what did communism do to the people of North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Belarus, Cambodia, Ukraine, Laos, russia and all countries that were under communist rule. Ill tell ya it killed millions of people, left them in hunger, with no home, little children got abandoned cause their parents got killed, poor education, low economy, is that enough?
@KatanaK1D93 hmmm i think its coincidental that happened in communists countries b/c those kind of problems arent exclusive to those countries. except for the killing of millions, it almost sounds like you are describing america. plus i dont think those attributes are in the communist doctrine...
@dbgelman So your saying that saving civilians from the wrath of dictators like Pol Pot, Daniel Ortega, Manuel Noriega, Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Enver Hodża is against the human rights but slaying millions of innocent people to claim what the dictators want is not?
@dbgelman Even though I think the true doctrine of communism isnt that good, for why should a person that works hard get the same payment as the person that doesnt do nothing not because he cant only because he doesnt want to?
@KatanaK1D93 under that definition yes its unfair...but if you apply the model of certain american labor unions then it gets a little better...yes union workers get paid the same, so where is the incentive to work hard? well if you suck at your job in a union, you WILL be replaced, and you will not be paid for laziness
This always makes me cry. My uncle was an exchange student in Berlin when the wall was taken down. He has a piece of the wall. I'm sure he's proud to have been there.
Oh god I love him. He blows all of our other presidents out of the water. I have a huge amount of admiration and respect for Ronald Reagan, it's not even funny. Best president ever, there will never be a match.
@JohnJ2427 However Reagan had the Treasury Dept. draw up a separate plan with the goal of reaching a compromise. The Treasury Plan had a lot of tax cuts for the Eastern Establishment and a maintenance of existing shelters. What happened was Reagan wanted to maintain the revenue neutral goal of the plan because a lot of people were questioning the deficits at the time so he offered a compromise where the East would get its cut along with a cut in the corporate rate in exchange for giving up
@JohnJ2427 You know what I'll answer them. Don't be a coward and delete these. Ronald Reagan did push for lower taxes no denial from me about that. However, he did push for the most significant piece of tax legislation in the past thirty years which was the 1986 Dole-Bradley plan which was originally proposed by Bradley and Gephardt in 1984 as a simplification but rate neutral system which would broaden the base but maintain and even add new tax shelters for low income Americans.
@JohnJ2427 It's time to debate John. Let's debate the Reagan administration and its impact. My conjecture is the Reagan administration was pedestrian economically, weak socially, and strong in foreign policy its second term but aggressive and foolish its first term (all that is excluding Iran-Contra which is one of the most significant scandals in recent memory). Let's try to stay fact based and keep away from the insults.
MR OBAMA, mr OBAMA OPEN THIS GATE MR OBAMA WALL DOES NOT WORK BOTH SITES IS THE SAME ...... SOVIETS ? REMEMBER THAT LAND WAS STOLEN FOR GRINGOS!!!!!!!! MEXIACANS HAS NOT CROOSSSED BORDER!!!!!! MR OBAMA DESTROY THAT WALLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reagan wasn't a hero the soviet union was only a military power with faulting economy and problems Reagan was just lucky to be in office during there downfall
@Assassinscreed0925 Ya, the president of the United States has absolutely nothing to do with what happens in other countries. What kind of crazy idiot would think the president has any influence? All he did was engage them in an arms race they couldn't afford, stop them from taking over other countries around the world so they couldn't rape their resources, and persuade other countries to refuse to support them. Other than that, nothing whatsoever.
@JohnJ2427 I would belive that if there was anyway possible that could be true. Thats like the people who say Obama had nothing to do with taking down bin laden. Reagan was not my favorite president but you got to admit he did alot of good this is just one of his many accomplishments
@JohnJ2427 reagan didnt have much influence at all. The USSR had been having economic problems since the 1960's and economic problems werent the only factor that resulted in the downfall of the soviet union. The main factors were the policies of perestroika and glasnost and the total abandoment of the the brezhnev doctrine.
@MetallicaMadMan666 Ya, that's right. The President of the most powerful country in the world doesn't have much influence at all. That's why the Soviets didn't respond to the arms race by spending more money. That's why they didn't respond to Reagan's diplomacy by expanding glasnost and perestroika. That's why Gorbachev hardly ever even met with Reagan, right? Check out tinyurl dot com slash 85lq45b
@JohnJ2427 All the proposed shelters along with some previous shelters. So the goal of getting a broader base and simpler system was achieved but at the expense of the working/middle class who had to pay higher rates than ever before with fewer chances for reaching those shelters. So Reagan did cut rates but the key question is for who? There's a great independent study of this that was done in 1988 that really shows what I'm talking about I'll try to find it if you would like it
@JohnJ2427 And look this myth that Reagan was a low spending president is absurd. Look I explained to you why Reagan controlled Congress in terms of ideology and you deleted the posts. Your fault. And look he famously increased military spending but he did cut from social programs. Overall spending was increased at Reagan's behest and paired with his tax cut he is the largest reason why we ran such large deficits under Reagan
@JohnJ2427 And look you're saying Reagan endorsed individual responsibility which he did with some of his earlier monetary acts and that's fine no question those were much needed. However, in a broader sense he deregulated key industries and eliminated key regulations that enabled corporations to get away with ridiculous and absurd acts that they hadn't been able to do since the 20s. Reagan started this blind deregulation trend (although he wasn't blind he was more one eye covered)
@JohnJ2427 And in the long term we can all agree that it didn't pay off. And look the President isn't responsible for everything Congress passes but last I checked Reagan never had many vetoes overrode. The man had conservatives in Congress who thought the way they did. He could get away with asking almost anything of them and he knew it. If you want to belabor that point I can go on and on about it but you're wrong John Reagan was never controlled by Congress it was the other way.
@istparber33 Spending was not increased at Reagan's behest. At least half the time, Congress actually passed a bigger budget than the one Reagan requested. And saying that the president is controlled by the legislature is stupid and betrays a complete ignorance of how the system works. Heck, you yourself admit that Reagan had a plan drawn up because he was seeking a compromise. If he controlled the legislature, why would he need to compromise?
@JohnJ2427 Oh don't pull that Congress passed a bigger budget than Reagan requested crap. That's only because Reagan wanted to gut social programs that 90% of the American people wanted so he worked over his conservative base by saying he technically wanted to cut spending but in reality his cuts were unacceptable and he knew that so he proposed it knowing it would never be passed and then he could point the finger at Congress for spending. Even so his proposed budgets
@JohnJ2427 typically had overall spending increases. And Reagan wanting to compromise on taxes and budgets are two totally different things getting a tax passed in Congress is HARD look at the past calendar year for an example of that. Budgets are significantly easier the President has a lot of room to work with which is why Obama and Clinton won there fights. Taxes you have a lot of competing interests which muddle the process you usually don't even have a unified party message
@JohnJ2427 And if you do it's typically incredibly vague. (Like Democrats and there wealthy tax increase there is SO MUCH they leave to the imagination just by saying that sentence alone) And I agree with spending cuts but not from social programs and key domestic policies which Republicans have attacked since Reagan ran in 1976. And I'd like to see a very complex tax code with significantly more brackets what we have now is a pathetic excuse for a tax system.
@istparber33 If you're complaining that you'd like to see real spending cuts, well, I agree. If you're complaining that you'd like to see fairer and simpler taxes, well, I agree. the problem is that those involve passing laws, and the president is not a superlegislator. See, for example, Barack Obama, who barely passed his signature health care bill despite having supermajorities in both houses. See also George W Bush, who failed to pass immigration reform or social security reform.
@JohnJ2427 And with Obama he barely passed health care because again you have Southern Democrats who won't touch anything there opponents can brand socialism. See you need to understand not all Democrats are bleeding liberals who would kill for universal health care. You have your moderates and conservatives who can be swayed the other way which leaves liberals like Pelosi crying foul and looking weak. Republicans are all conservatives even Ann Coulter says there isn't a Rockefeller
@JohnJ2427 Republican in sight when you step foot in Congress. And George Bush failed on Social Security and immigration because some Republicans even looked at the proposals and said, "What the hell?" And voted no
@JohnJ2427 And I want to be clear I am NOT agreeing with you on the Reagan tax issue. The man proposed a code that while technically cut rates for working class Americans yet eliminated so many shelters that it effectively was an increase and also gave the rich so many loopholes and outs that it gave them the weakest tax responsibility in the country. He destroyed our progressive tax system that had worked since the second Roosevelt administration!! It's absurd that anyone thinks that
@JohnJ2427 that was a good idea. And the way that legislation has been used to jerk around Americans under the false pretense that it was the fairest system possible and everyone has to pay the same exact rate is absolutely appalling. And I'm trying to understand how you can defend that. Really I fail to see how that's possible.
@istparber33 It's no surprise to me that we disagree on policy. As you probably expect, my issue with the tax reforms is that they didn't go far enough. (Reagan "destroyed" the progressive tax system? Are you an idiot? It's only very slightly less progressive than it was!) Regardless, I think the key point as far as this goes is that you now seem to agree that Reagan had to do a lot of compromising to get legislation he wanted passed. Seriously, listen to yourself!
@JohnJ2427 Hahaha you're a fool. The tax system designed by FDR and tweaked by all of the Presidents had something like 25 different tax brackets with rates that increased with income. Reagan like I said oversimplified it. He said we're going to have 3 brackets the poor, the middle class, and the wealthy. That's a MASSIVE overhaul in tax policy no matter how you look at it. The rates were still slightly progressive but not as dramatic as they once were. And look if you're going to
@JohnJ2427 insult me I'm going to bury Ronald Reagan even more than I already am. And again you conveniently ignore half my arguments and quite frankly I'm not going to repeat myself over and over because you refuse to comprehend the English language. I said Reagan compromised on tax policy because you have literally six or seven competing interests that all have a deep interest in the legislation. I mean you have your conservative Republicans, southern Democrats, Eastern
@istparber33 I'm not ignoring your argument. You're not making an argument. You're making assertions. I just disagree with you. I agree that Reagan made taxes less progressive. I just don't think that's a bad thing. I'd like them to be even less progressive.
I understand that you have competing interests in crafting legislation. Republicans are not all alike and Democrats are not all alike. I agree that Reagan had to do a lot of compromising. So... I guess we agree!
@JohnJ2427 No we don't. If you want to agree you need to say the following sentence. Ronald Reagan had a conservative majority in Congress which enabled him to pass the majority of his policies with ease however, when faced with legislation with significant differences in the ideologies of competing interests he then compromised as do all parties involved, but this situation occurred maybe twice a year during his administration. You're again selectively listening to what I'm saying.
@istparber33 Reagan didn't have a conservative majority in Congress. That's preposterous. (But it signals to me that you're probably using your own definition of "conservative", that means something very unique, such as "conservative=whatever I don't like".) The legislation that was passed was the result of finding ways to compromise. If you're teaching this stuff, then why don't you explain why you think this is so? You're the one who wants to debate.
@JohnJ2427 Oh are you serious? Let me explain this to you one last time. In 1954 Democrats during the first midterm of the Eisenhower administration took back the House and the Senate. Democrats held the House for 40 years after and lost the Senate in 1980 ironically to the Reagan upswing that occurred. Now remember Democrats in this time period typically were Southerners it was split about half and half between the regions for the Democrats whereas today it's about 3 to 4 in favor
@JohnJ2427 of the North. So now let me ask you why is it the Democrats post Civil War were so entrenched in the South? Because the Republicans were the party of Lincoln and the "radicals" who pushed Reconstruction and pushed the Civil War so in other words the Southerners never elected Republicans who did all of those what they considered god awful things to them. Now why did the South secede? Because they believed in low tariffs (the 19th century version of taxes), slavery, and above
@JohnJ2427 all states rights. From there belief in states rights they derived that they had the right to secede. Now post Civil War with slavery abolished by the 13th amendment obviously the Democrats couldn't campaign on that so they adopt the other two issues. Low tariffs and states rights which in the Progressive Era translates into less government because Southerners hate people interfering in there traditions especially if it's the federal government after the Civil War.
@JohnJ2427 So the Democrats become the party of the South which they had been for a while anyway since the times of Jackson when the Jeffersonian Republicans who adhered to a pro-agrarian, less government, and low tariff ideology (which is right up the South's alley) became the Jacksonian Democrats (or the Democrats). But now it's official the South goes for Democrats period end of discussion. So this stays steady because after about 50 years Democrats are traditional representatives
@JohnJ2427 And if there's one thing you don't change in the South it's tradition. So now this lasts for about a century when what major event occurs under the Johnson administration? Civil Rights. Republicans always talk about how more Republicans voted for Civil Rights than Democrats and there absolutely right because Republicans had virtually no ties to the South so they could vote yes and not suffer any repercussions in the next election. Democrats...... not so much.
@JohnJ2427 So Civil Rights gets passed despite almost every Southern Democrat voting no. So you know how Reagan said he didn't leave his party his party left him? Exactly the case for the Southern Democrats. The federal government just crushed states rights so that they could pass a Civil Rights act that empowered a race which the South had oppressed since the South's inception. In other words every key theory the South has about government was just brutally violated by a Democratic
@JohnJ2427 President. Boom the Democrats get slapped with the big government label and the Southern Democrats in order to keep there jobs become overwhelmingly conservative on every other issue states rights, taxes, etc. Then in 1968 Nixon being a brilliant politician which he was seized the opportunity campaigns on states rights and nearly sweeps the South and wins the Presidency. So now the Republican Party has just shown that they are now the popular favorite in the South.
@JohnJ2427 So the Southern Democrats actually side with Nixon and campaign on some of his issues to make themselves look like they're the same old people ideologically. But I'm sure you're thinking if the Democrats were so fond of Republican policies why didn't they just cross the aisle and join there party? Well it's simple. What do you get as the Majority Party in Congress that you don't get as the Minority? COMMITTEE CHAIRS. Nobody wanted to lose those because they wielded
@JohnJ2427 immense power for those who held them. So the Southern Democrats stick to there party and bide there time. So this ties into Reagan because when he comes along as a conservative in 1980 and wins and the Southern Democrats in the House still haven't been given an opportunity to flip parties that means Ronald Reagan had just hit the jack pot. Those Southern Democrats HAVE to vote his way to keep getting elected because he is seen as a mega conservative and that's what's
@JohnJ2427 winning elections in the South at this time. So they side with Reagan on nearly everything and do what they did with Nixon campaign on his issues. Now that the President is an outspoken conservative there voting record has to match what he wanted because if they do that every constituent will still believe they're voting conservative. And Reagan had it easy he could propose a spending increase get it passed then publicly speak out against spending and blame the Democrats
@JohnJ2427 in Congress and he'd be blame free. Come election time the Southern Democrats would just say well we voted with the President the public would see Reagan as the conservative that he was publicly and say well these guys are voting with that conservative so they must also be conservative and the Democrats would keep getting elected. It was a perfect system for Reagan he knew there jobs depended on voting with him so he had a free pass to get whatever he wanted.
@JohnJ2427 To finish the story come 1994 when Newt Gingrich takes the House every single Southern Democrat did what they had wanted to do for a long time (as long as it benefited them politically because for some it really didn't do them much so they just said screw it and stayed) and flipped sides to the Republicans. End of story any questions?
@istparber33 Yes. If being conservative was so important to win in the South, why didn't they just run as Republicans? Was having the "Democrat" label even more important than being conservative? Or were the politicians just representing the interests of their constituents?
And exactly how many Congressmen changed parties in 1994?
And why is Reagan's recognition that Americans wanted smaller government, and working to give that to them, a bad thing?
@JohnJ2427 Oh dear God the problem isn't that you don't listen the problem is you can't listen. I said this in my previous post had the Southern Democrats run as Republicans pre 1994 unless literally of them switched the same year which would never happen then they would be the minority party and lose all committee chairs along with other perks the majority party gets. Do I need to say this more slowly or use smaller words because quite frankly this is the 3rd time I'm repeating it
@JohnJ2427 so I'm beginning to wonder if it will ever register with you. And Reagan may have publicly said he wanted smaller government but the man never legitimately worked to give it to them and then whenever government expanded at his behest he would blame it on Democrats and he would get away with it. Look if you're not getting this you really need to stop pretending you understand history because it's become glaringly obvious that you don't. These are simple concepts and you
@JohnJ2427 fail to remotely comprehend them. May I recommend you try arguing with people over a subject you actually understand? Because right now you're looking rather foolish and it's only trending downward for you.
@istparber33 If you think I'm stupid, why not leave and debate someone less stupid? You're the one who wants to debate.
"I said this in my previous post had the Southern Democrats run as Republicans pre 1994 unless literally of them switched the same year which would never happen then they would be the minority party and lose all committee chairs along with other perks the majority party gets."
The first part of this sentence is utterly incoherent. Are there words missing?
@JohnJ2427 Here's what that sentence means. You asked me why didn't Southern Democrats just switch parties. Because unless every single Southern Democrat switched parties in the same year then the Democrats would be the majority party thus those Democrats who switched would be Minority Republicans. As the minority party you lose all the perks the Majority party gets mainly committee chairs. So as a result the Southern Democrats thought it better to stay then leave because as long as
@JohnJ2427 they had a record that matched Reagan's (even though it wasn't a conservative one) the people would perceive there voting record to be conservative because Reagan was one thus they would be reelected. Had there constituents dug a little deeper which in the pre internet age was significantly harder to do than it is today than they would have found that Reagan and the Southern Democrats record's never matched there rhetoric.
@JohnJ2427 And look if you feel I'm only making assertions then fine go back and look over Congressional transcripts, voting records, White House conference logs, and read enough to acquire a deep history/understanding of both political parties because that's what my analysis is based on. I teach this stuff and it's my job to read these things so I know all of it and I'm telling you what happened during this time period.
@JohnJ2427 And on the progressive tax policy you say you want to simplify it even more? Are you talking in terms of just installing a flat tax or reversing the progressive rates because I've heard conservatives argue for both.
@JohnJ2427 Establishment, liberals, corporate Democrats, and Midwest representatives with who different opinions are a dime a dozen. That's what I said go back and read it but however for legislation that is more simplified and less what I like to call "election dependent" Listen to yourself and more importantly read what I write you have a sad habit of not doing that.
@istparber33 "Reagan wanted to gut social programs... but in reality his cuts were unacceptable and he knew that".
"Republicans are all conservatives... And George Bush failed on Social Security and immigration because some Republicans even looked at the proposals and said, 'What the hell?'"
So Reagan compromised in order to get some of what he wanted. And it's interesting that the rich paid more taxes after the tax reform despite having a higher tax burden than everyone else.
Thank God Tito distanced himself far from Stalin. Yugoslavia was essentially the only Eastern European country that had any sort of ties with the US and the West. It was the ultimate neutral state!!
@CARMINEOWNZ people like you bother me. you clearly have never properly researched the topic, as i have. you just think you know everything about it. east germany had a shit economy and a lower standard of living, yes. but people lived relatively good and normal lifestyles. communism is not fascism, it has some good sides to it, and for your information, there was absolutely no homelessness in east germany, and no unemployment. do your research.
@HuwGaas never properly researched? how can you say that when my family lived through being a soviet satellite, and a dictatorship that makes north korea look laughable. they didn't live relatively good or normal lifestyles, what are you on about? people like YOU bother me, people who obviously know nothing on the subject yet continue to spurt out this incoherent shit. the communism that has been implemented in the past was and is still broken. no un-ment, because the govt. controlled EVERYTHING
@CARMINEOWNZ East Germany was different to every other communist country in the world because it was still run in part by Germans. They had the German intrests at heart. They were indeed violent in some scenarios but for the most part, East Germany was a normal country...
@saigonpunkid the germans were not communist, the soviets were, so what i am saying is that the communists were not entirely running the countriy, if you understand me.
Comment removed
jow5588 48 minutes ago
We are in desperate of another President like Ronald Reagan.
YamYam0608 2 days ago
@YamYam0608 Watch this to see who you can get :)
/watch?v=YyXW1hb-JQg
hehefromhere 1 day ago
Thank you Mr. President for helping to tear dawn this wall
Ottos127 4 days ago
Ronald Reagan? The Actor?
SMunozDB7 1 week ago
@SMunozDB7 no the Destroyer of Communism
TheJasonDR 1 week ago
@TheJasonDR 6poceO-jn4U
SMunozDB7 1 week ago
@SMunozDB7 It's hard to believe that movie is 25 years old.
JohnJ2427 1 week ago
1:54-best line in history!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Bhavya0409 1 week ago
My favorite president would have to be John F. Kennedy
trappedinmydream 1 week ago
@trappedinmydream mine too kennedy and reagan
Chipkanobe 1 week ago
Ronald Reagan is one of my favorite presidents OBAMA WILL DESTROY THIS COUNTRY IF WE VOTE HIM BACK INTO OFFICE WE ARE SCREWED HE IS THE ANTI CHRIST!!
sleepy7351 1 week ago
@sleepy7351 Obama is not the antiChrist. The antiChrist would be more competent.
JohnJ2427 1 week ago 9
@JohnJ2427 maybe your right but...
sleepy7351 1 week ago
@JohnJ2427 I agree. The AntiChrist are more evil. Like the Illuminati or the KKK.
hkchoi456 6 days ago
@JohnJ2427 are you joking that the antichrist wouldn't be very competent to start with? I imagine he'd be pretty fucking good at what he does.
Tanksareforcowards 5 days ago
@JohnJ2427 You realize the reason Obama cant do anything wrong is because those old, overwieght, redneck, half senile, republicans in the Senate are blocking him right?
KaiserReich98 5 days ago
@sleepy7351 Reagan was the guy, that brought usa in to a real economy crisis. what country wants a artist as a president? Obama was the last chance for the usa. But i think, he spoiled it.
habegger75 1 week ago
@habegger75 Obama is a fucking lyer socialist dip shit and he makes this country a fucking horrible and Reagan was a GREAT president
sleepy7351 1 week ago
@sleepy7351 why would someone as powerful as the antichrist even need to be elected?
Tanksareforcowards 5 days ago
@Tanksareforcowards HE WASN'T FAIRLY ELECTED IT WAS ALL A SCAM BETWEEN OBAMA AND HIS VA DEMOCRATIC ALLIES AND THEY WANT TO RAISE YOUR TAXES
MezaseMaster 5 days ago
@MezaseMaster DR. ROBOTNIK AND HIS BADNIK MOBIAN ALLIES WANT TO CATCH THAT HEDGEHOG
Tanksareforcowards 5 days ago
@sleepy7351 Actually the bible says the anti-christ will conquer 10 states from the roman empire, last I checked Obama lives in the USA.
NOxMERCYx333 4 days ago
@sleepy7351True, but Obama is just like Bush. We get to choose between the establishment choices.Go to opensecrets site to see that In 2008, Obama and McCain's campaigns were both funded by Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Lehman Brothers, and other bailout banks.They have the bases covered. One guy doesn't take lobbyists money but runs on small citizen donations, and that Ron Paul. End the fed, they are the root of evil. Watch documentaries on the Federal Reserve and the CFR.
JamJHolmes 4 days ago
We could use a good conservative leader again.
cousineddy100 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1:55 Skip to the interesting part. Furthermore Reagan was one of the worst presidents the USA ever had in american history. He was only a puppet of the concerns and a great example for the lobbyism in the USA.
samuraikid33 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
samuraikid33 2 weeks ago
They stoped jamming US channels and than they saw delta force with Chuck Norris,next thing you know they tear down the wall.
olhsaoagpaigfbp 2 weeks ago
Mikhail Gorbechev was a great President and deserves most of the credit for the bold changes. Reagan wouldn't have made any progress with people like Stalin or Kim Jong Il. Stalin would have executed someone like Gorbachev long before they had a chance to be influential.
chimeraweaver 2 weeks ago 2
@chimeraweaver Reagan recognized that Gorbachev was not like previous Soviet dictators, and he adapted his strategy accordingly. But Gorbachev would not have engaged in perestroika and glasnost if not for Reagan's brilliant combination of encouragement and pressure. Sure, that strategy would not have worked with Stalin, but Reagan knew he wasn't dealing with Stalin.
JohnJ2427 2 weeks ago 3
@chimeraweaver What are you talking about?????? Kim Jong II and Stalin were anti-american. What are you a communist?
YamYam0608 2 days ago
Comment removed
NBLP7096 2 weeks ago
I love the revisionist BS by the leftists on this video. LOL Informed "grassroot troopers" know leftists r despicable liars but others r tricked by their words such as "real down 2 earth" and "gorbachev was not a bad guy". So 2 clear the record @trashcansam123 and @waldowatcherno298 (the liar up @ the top), here we go:
1) Gorbachev was a Soviet communist dictator who was not a down 2 earth, nice guy.
2) Gorbachev didn't want freedom we jammed it down his throats!
3) We had SDI...they did not.
Cokie907 2 weeks ago
@Cokie907 I'm not a leftist, I'm a right wing libertarian. Idiot
Trashcansam123 2 weeks ago
I hate communism but Gorbachev was a real down to earth soviet who saw things as they were and brought change. Even today he is making reforms with the enviroment through his founded organization.
Trashcansam123 2 weeks ago
"tear this wall down"
salvadorr25 2 weeks ago
But he played along with Bilderberg.
CartoonPoem 3 weeks ago
I've never seen such a sexy President in my life, CHARACTER makes you sexy, not playing football in HI on the beach with your shirt off. I wish I was an adult when Raegan was Pres, I didn't realize how history making he was :)
KristinaJulia1 3 weeks ago
180 people should go to hell
dmitriborislov 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
jahovahut 3 weeks ago
Haha imagine if Obama was president back than, he would probably say "we must accept communism so no one gets their feelings hurt!...... By the way jobs jobs jobs jobs"
BMXfreak17 3 weeks ago
Most Americans today do not understand the severity of Communism
iG0HAM 3 weeks ago
only the people who lived in a communist country can apreciate this video better
TaviYamato 3 weeks ago
25 years ago Ronald Reagan made the biggest mistake any President has ever made in our countires history. Most Republicans and conservatives think Ronald Reagan was the best President in modern times. I think he was the worst and made the biggest mistake of any President.
25 years ago Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens. Those 3 million have turned into a nightmare for our kid's and grandkids. For everything he did, he ruied it all with that one mistake.
alarmservicepros 3 weeks ago
who would dislike this ?....probably JFK supporters ...JFK accomplished nothing
TheJasonDR 3 weeks ago 2
Whoever those 179 people who disliked this video are all idiots. Ronald Reagan was the best president America has ever had and i wish we could have another one like him. He was so wise and he was one of the main reasons this wall came down. So to all the people who disliked this video you know nothing of respect and honor.
andrealou72 4 weeks ago 21
@andrealou72 I totally agree! He was an amazing president!
glitterglamour97 3 weeks ago
@andrealou72 With all due respect (some of) Reagan's domestic policies were mediocre in my opinion. However, his foreign policy was among the greatest of all presidents in America's history.
m3talcorps3 2 weeks ago
@andrealou72 I don't understand, what did Reagan do to make the Berlin Wall fall? ... Demand it? It didn't even happen til he was out of office...
Tanksareforcowards 5 days ago
@andrealou72 Respect the foreign policy and speaking abilities but his domestic policies were a fucking disaster. His policies started a spiral of income ineaulity, that has virtually wiped out the PPP of middle america forcing regular folks to have burrow money over their heads, creating a debt bubble that burst and lead to some of the crises we see today Even his own children disagree with his corporatist neo-conservative agenda.
Also...
REAGAN SMASH!
REAGAN SMASH!
Reagan sleepy...
DemonicToilet 3 days ago
@andrealou72 I didn't like Reagan's politics but I liked Reagan as a person, you just couldn't help but like a guy like him. But he wasn't the best president ever. His cop out for whenever the economy was bad was to blame Carter.
BigTimeStein1 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dbgelman Well the union workers get paid the same I agree but you dont understand what im trying to explain to you so let me do it again in a more clear way. Why should a person that is unemployed get paid for not working with the same amount of money as the person thats employed? And ofcourse I agree if a person is lazy hell get thrown out of his job that is the most fair way that there can be if the employee doesnt make any effort in his work.
KatanaK1D93 4 weeks ago
"... Since, my friend, you have revealed your deepest fear, I sentence you to be exposed before your peers!"
TEAR DOWN THE WALL!!!
henriquedematos 1 month ago
You all allowed for the feds fbi to set up others ... like office workers in a feds office as well and to go to Prison for one year.
They never wrote down the accurate, higher level data for HUD rep and so "her office staff coworkers, friend or pets could know"... Enemy of USA had granted drug to person to die and they go to war with USA. It was Libya. He's dead today; however USA gave no info to me and no $... no disability thru their union due to NON-fbi interventions: BUT wntOnTV
JoseCleveland 1 month ago in playlist ,.,.,.,.,.,., Ronald Reagan Passion and Power of Orgasm Tech
This has been flagged as spam show
In 1984, Ronald ( Iran -Contra ) Reagan met with several Taliban leaders in the West Wing of the White House. He compared the Taliban to the Founding Fathers of America. In 2000
George Bush was also negociating with Taliban in America over the USA right to allow one American oil company to build a pipeline from Caspian Sea to Arabian Sea, through Afghanistan. All is well. In early 2001 Taliban gives contract to Brazil. War on Taliban declared 6 months later with 911 as the false flag
390bullitt1968 1 month ago
im a very anti communist individual, but i will admit, gorbachev was not a bad guy, he saw the lack of freedom and worked to correct them
waldowatcherno298 1 month ago
@waldowatcherno298 For years after Gorbachev became the leader of the Soviet Union, the Soviet government continued to back oppressive regimes in Poland, Hungary, Cuba, and throughout South America, including support for guerrillas who killed thousands.
JohnJ2427 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 yeah, i guess he wasnt the best of guys. but he wanted hs people to be more free and the soviets to be lest oppressive, guess i should do more research next time though
waldowatcherno298 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 And then we have the heavenly United States to kill thousands in Korea, Vietnam, El Salvador, Afghanistan and Iraq. I hope you realize that Gorbachev wasn't a dictator and his hands were tied, especially during the age of such reforms.
okgrunberg 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 You know there are gossips that Kim Jong Un is just a puppet master of North Korea and the generals control everything and actually it seems to prove itself someway. So maybe it was the same situation in Soviet Union?
KatanaK1D93 4 weeks ago
God Bless Ronald Reagen and Mikhail Gorbachev
Reagen- For tearing down the communist dictatorship of USSR
Gorbachev-For helping destroy the USSR
KatanaK1D93 1 month ago 18
@KatanaK1D93 what did communism ever do to you?
dbgelman 1 month ago
@dbgelman Actually ask what did communism do to the people of North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Belarus, Cambodia, Ukraine, Laos, russia and all countries that were under communist rule. Ill tell ya it killed millions of people, left them in hunger, with no home, little children got abandoned cause their parents got killed, poor education, low economy, is that enough?
KatanaK1D93 1 month ago
@KatanaK1D93 hmmm i think its coincidental that happened in communists countries b/c those kind of problems arent exclusive to those countries. except for the killing of millions, it almost sounds like you are describing america. plus i dont think those attributes are in the communist doctrine...
dbgelman 1 month ago
@dbgelman So your saying that saving civilians from the wrath of dictators like Pol Pot, Daniel Ortega, Manuel Noriega, Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Enver Hodża is against the human rights but slaying millions of innocent people to claim what the dictators want is not?
KatanaK1D93 4 weeks ago
@dbgelman Even though I think the true doctrine of communism isnt that good, for why should a person that works hard get the same payment as the person that doesnt do nothing not because he cant only because he doesnt want to?
KatanaK1D93 4 weeks ago
@KatanaK1D93 under that definition yes its unfair...but if you apply the model of certain american labor unions then it gets a little better...yes union workers get paid the same, so where is the incentive to work hard? well if you suck at your job in a union, you WILL be replaced, and you will not be paid for laziness
dbgelman 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
KatanaK1D93 4 weeks ago
@KatanaK1D93 Oh, Mr. Putin are so angry about that for a long time..
jow5588 48 minutes ago
This always makes me cry. My uncle was an exchange student in Berlin when the wall was taken down. He has a piece of the wall. I'm sure he's proud to have been there.
Litterboxer529 1 month ago
Oh god I love him. He blows all of our other presidents out of the water. I have a huge amount of admiration and respect for Ronald Reagan, it's not even funny. Best president ever, there will never be a match.
LieutenantEO 1 month ago
lol Gorby was having the wall torn down anyway.
Godzilla52 1 month ago
@Godzilla52 And Gorby was planning on losing in Afghanistan too! LOL
JudgeGrif 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 However Reagan had the Treasury Dept. draw up a separate plan with the goal of reaching a compromise. The Treasury Plan had a lot of tax cuts for the Eastern Establishment and a maintenance of existing shelters. What happened was Reagan wanted to maintain the revenue neutral goal of the plan because a lot of people were questioning the deficits at the time so he offered a compromise where the East would get its cut along with a cut in the corporate rate in exchange for giving up
istparber33 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 You know what I'll answer them. Don't be a coward and delete these. Ronald Reagan did push for lower taxes no denial from me about that. However, he did push for the most significant piece of tax legislation in the past thirty years which was the 1986 Dole-Bradley plan which was originally proposed by Bradley and Gephardt in 1984 as a simplification but rate neutral system which would broaden the base but maintain and even add new tax shelters for low income Americans.
istparber33 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 Right here John. I'm ready to answer your questions if your ready to debate
istparber33 1 month ago
if you just want the famous line, skip to 2:00
TheChadc94 1 month ago
Great President, we need someone like him in office again. He got things done.
crbartlett21 1 month ago
Comment removed
istparber33 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 It's time to debate John. Let's debate the Reagan administration and its impact. My conjecture is the Reagan administration was pedestrian economically, weak socially, and strong in foreign policy its second term but aggressive and foolish its first term (all that is excluding Iran-Contra which is one of the most significant scandals in recent memory). Let's try to stay fact based and keep away from the insults.
istparber33 1 month ago
MR OBAMA, mr OBAMA OPEN THIS GATE MR OBAMA WALL DOES NOT WORK BOTH SITES IS THE SAME ...... SOVIETS ? REMEMBER THAT LAND WAS STOLEN FOR GRINGOS!!!!!!!! MEXIACANS HAS NOT CROOSSSED BORDER!!!!!! MR OBAMA DESTROY THAT WALLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!
picosorevive 1 month ago
Mother Fukker Tear DOWN THIS WALL. haha
BigFootTr4cker 1 month ago
Mr. Medwedew PLEASE REBUILD THIS WALL!!!!!!
Lagerfeld2008 2 months ago
Reagan wasn't a hero the soviet union was only a military power with faulting economy and problems Reagan was just lucky to be in office during there downfall
Assassinscreed0925 2 months ago
@Assassinscreed0925 Ya, the president of the United States has absolutely nothing to do with what happens in other countries. What kind of crazy idiot would think the president has any influence? All he did was engage them in an arms race they couldn't afford, stop them from taking over other countries around the world so they couldn't rape their resources, and persuade other countries to refuse to support them. Other than that, nothing whatsoever.
JohnJ2427 2 months ago 29
This has been flagged as spam show
@JohnJ2427 lol you mad bro?
Assassinscreed0925 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 I would belive that if there was anyway possible that could be true. Thats like the people who say Obama had nothing to do with taking down bin laden. Reagan was not my favorite president but you got to admit he did alot of good this is just one of his many accomplishments
boi12367 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 reagan didnt have much influence at all. The USSR had been having economic problems since the 1960's and economic problems werent the only factor that resulted in the downfall of the soviet union. The main factors were the policies of perestroika and glasnost and the total abandoment of the the brezhnev doctrine.
MetallicaMadMan666 1 month ago
@MetallicaMadMan666 Ya, that's right. The President of the most powerful country in the world doesn't have much influence at all. That's why the Soviets didn't respond to the arms race by spending more money. That's why they didn't respond to Reagan's diplomacy by expanding glasnost and perestroika. That's why Gorbachev hardly ever even met with Reagan, right? Check out tinyurl dot com slash 85lq45b
JohnJ2427 1 month ago 3
@JohnJ2427 All the proposed shelters along with some previous shelters. So the goal of getting a broader base and simpler system was achieved but at the expense of the working/middle class who had to pay higher rates than ever before with fewer chances for reaching those shelters. So Reagan did cut rates but the key question is for who? There's a great independent study of this that was done in 1988 that really shows what I'm talking about I'll try to find it if you would like it
istparber33 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 And look this myth that Reagan was a low spending president is absurd. Look I explained to you why Reagan controlled Congress in terms of ideology and you deleted the posts. Your fault. And look he famously increased military spending but he did cut from social programs. Overall spending was increased at Reagan's behest and paired with his tax cut he is the largest reason why we ran such large deficits under Reagan
istparber33 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 And look you're saying Reagan endorsed individual responsibility which he did with some of his earlier monetary acts and that's fine no question those were much needed. However, in a broader sense he deregulated key industries and eliminated key regulations that enabled corporations to get away with ridiculous and absurd acts that they hadn't been able to do since the 20s. Reagan started this blind deregulation trend (although he wasn't blind he was more one eye covered)
istparber33 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 And in the long term we can all agree that it didn't pay off. And look the President isn't responsible for everything Congress passes but last I checked Reagan never had many vetoes overrode. The man had conservatives in Congress who thought the way they did. He could get away with asking almost anything of them and he knew it. If you want to belabor that point I can go on and on about it but you're wrong John Reagan was never controlled by Congress it was the other way.
istparber33 1 month ago
@istparber33 Spending was not increased at Reagan's behest. At least half the time, Congress actually passed a bigger budget than the one Reagan requested. And saying that the president is controlled by the legislature is stupid and betrays a complete ignorance of how the system works. Heck, you yourself admit that Reagan had a plan drawn up because he was seeking a compromise. If he controlled the legislature, why would he need to compromise?
JohnJ2427 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 Oh don't pull that Congress passed a bigger budget than Reagan requested crap. That's only because Reagan wanted to gut social programs that 90% of the American people wanted so he worked over his conservative base by saying he technically wanted to cut spending but in reality his cuts were unacceptable and he knew that so he proposed it knowing it would never be passed and then he could point the finger at Congress for spending. Even so his proposed budgets
istparber33 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 typically had overall spending increases. And Reagan wanting to compromise on taxes and budgets are two totally different things getting a tax passed in Congress is HARD look at the past calendar year for an example of that. Budgets are significantly easier the President has a lot of room to work with which is why Obama and Clinton won there fights. Taxes you have a lot of competing interests which muddle the process you usually don't even have a unified party message
istparber33 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 And if you do it's typically incredibly vague. (Like Democrats and there wealthy tax increase there is SO MUCH they leave to the imagination just by saying that sentence alone) And I agree with spending cuts but not from social programs and key domestic policies which Republicans have attacked since Reagan ran in 1976. And I'd like to see a very complex tax code with significantly more brackets what we have now is a pathetic excuse for a tax system.
istparber33 1 month ago
@istparber33 If you're complaining that you'd like to see real spending cuts, well, I agree. If you're complaining that you'd like to see fairer and simpler taxes, well, I agree. the problem is that those involve passing laws, and the president is not a superlegislator. See, for example, Barack Obama, who barely passed his signature health care bill despite having supermajorities in both houses. See also George W Bush, who failed to pass immigration reform or social security reform.
JohnJ2427 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 And with Obama he barely passed health care because again you have Southern Democrats who won't touch anything there opponents can brand socialism. See you need to understand not all Democrats are bleeding liberals who would kill for universal health care. You have your moderates and conservatives who can be swayed the other way which leaves liberals like Pelosi crying foul and looking weak. Republicans are all conservatives even Ann Coulter says there isn't a Rockefeller
istparber33 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 Republican in sight when you step foot in Congress. And George Bush failed on Social Security and immigration because some Republicans even looked at the proposals and said, "What the hell?" And voted no
istparber33 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 And I want to be clear I am NOT agreeing with you on the Reagan tax issue. The man proposed a code that while technically cut rates for working class Americans yet eliminated so many shelters that it effectively was an increase and also gave the rich so many loopholes and outs that it gave them the weakest tax responsibility in the country. He destroyed our progressive tax system that had worked since the second Roosevelt administration!! It's absurd that anyone thinks that
istparber33 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 that was a good idea. And the way that legislation has been used to jerk around Americans under the false pretense that it was the fairest system possible and everyone has to pay the same exact rate is absolutely appalling. And I'm trying to understand how you can defend that. Really I fail to see how that's possible.
istparber33 1 month ago
@istparber33 It's no surprise to me that we disagree on policy. As you probably expect, my issue with the tax reforms is that they didn't go far enough. (Reagan "destroyed" the progressive tax system? Are you an idiot? It's only very slightly less progressive than it was!) Regardless, I think the key point as far as this goes is that you now seem to agree that Reagan had to do a lot of compromising to get legislation he wanted passed. Seriously, listen to yourself!
JohnJ2427 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 Hahaha you're a fool. The tax system designed by FDR and tweaked by all of the Presidents had something like 25 different tax brackets with rates that increased with income. Reagan like I said oversimplified it. He said we're going to have 3 brackets the poor, the middle class, and the wealthy. That's a MASSIVE overhaul in tax policy no matter how you look at it. The rates were still slightly progressive but not as dramatic as they once were. And look if you're going to
istparber33 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 insult me I'm going to bury Ronald Reagan even more than I already am. And again you conveniently ignore half my arguments and quite frankly I'm not going to repeat myself over and over because you refuse to comprehend the English language. I said Reagan compromised on tax policy because you have literally six or seven competing interests that all have a deep interest in the legislation. I mean you have your conservative Republicans, southern Democrats, Eastern
istparber33 1 month ago
@istparber33 I'm not ignoring your argument. You're not making an argument. You're making assertions. I just disagree with you. I agree that Reagan made taxes less progressive. I just don't think that's a bad thing. I'd like them to be even less progressive.
I understand that you have competing interests in crafting legislation. Republicans are not all alike and Democrats are not all alike. I agree that Reagan had to do a lot of compromising. So... I guess we agree!
JohnJ2427 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 No we don't. If you want to agree you need to say the following sentence. Ronald Reagan had a conservative majority in Congress which enabled him to pass the majority of his policies with ease however, when faced with legislation with significant differences in the ideologies of competing interests he then compromised as do all parties involved, but this situation occurred maybe twice a year during his administration. You're again selectively listening to what I'm saying.
istparber33 1 month ago
@istparber33 Reagan didn't have a conservative majority in Congress. That's preposterous. (But it signals to me that you're probably using your own definition of "conservative", that means something very unique, such as "conservative=whatever I don't like".) The legislation that was passed was the result of finding ways to compromise. If you're teaching this stuff, then why don't you explain why you think this is so? You're the one who wants to debate.
JohnJ2427 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 Oh are you serious? Let me explain this to you one last time. In 1954 Democrats during the first midterm of the Eisenhower administration took back the House and the Senate. Democrats held the House for 40 years after and lost the Senate in 1980 ironically to the Reagan upswing that occurred. Now remember Democrats in this time period typically were Southerners it was split about half and half between the regions for the Democrats whereas today it's about 3 to 4 in favor
istparber33 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 of the North. So now let me ask you why is it the Democrats post Civil War were so entrenched in the South? Because the Republicans were the party of Lincoln and the "radicals" who pushed Reconstruction and pushed the Civil War so in other words the Southerners never elected Republicans who did all of those what they considered god awful things to them. Now why did the South secede? Because they believed in low tariffs (the 19th century version of taxes), slavery, and above
istparber33 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 all states rights. From there belief in states rights they derived that they had the right to secede. Now post Civil War with slavery abolished by the 13th amendment obviously the Democrats couldn't campaign on that so they adopt the other two issues. Low tariffs and states rights which in the Progressive Era translates into less government because Southerners hate people interfering in there traditions especially if it's the federal government after the Civil War.
istparber33 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 So the Democrats become the party of the South which they had been for a while anyway since the times of Jackson when the Jeffersonian Republicans who adhered to a pro-agrarian, less government, and low tariff ideology (which is right up the South's alley) became the Jacksonian Democrats (or the Democrats). But now it's official the South goes for Democrats period end of discussion. So this stays steady because after about 50 years Democrats are traditional representatives
istparber33 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 And if there's one thing you don't change in the South it's tradition. So now this lasts for about a century when what major event occurs under the Johnson administration? Civil Rights. Republicans always talk about how more Republicans voted for Civil Rights than Democrats and there absolutely right because Republicans had virtually no ties to the South so they could vote yes and not suffer any repercussions in the next election. Democrats...... not so much.
istparber33 1 month ago
Comment removed
istparber33 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JohnJ2427 So Civil Rights gets passed despite almost every Southern Democrat voting no. So you know how Reagan said he didn't leave his party his party left him? Exactly the case for the Southern Democrats. The federal government just crushed states rights so that they could pass a Civil Rights act that empowered a race which the South had oppressed since the South's inception. In other words every key theory the South has about government was just brutally violated by a Democratic
istparber33 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 President. Boom the Democrats get slapped with the big government label and the Southern Democrats in order to keep there jobs become overwhelmingly conservative on every other issue states rights, taxes, etc. Then in 1968 Nixon being a brilliant politician which he was seized the opportunity campaigns on states rights and nearly sweeps the South and wins the Presidency. So now the Republican Party has just shown that they are now the popular favorite in the South.
istparber33 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 So the Southern Democrats actually side with Nixon and campaign on some of his issues to make themselves look like they're the same old people ideologically. But I'm sure you're thinking if the Democrats were so fond of Republican policies why didn't they just cross the aisle and join there party? Well it's simple. What do you get as the Majority Party in Congress that you don't get as the Minority? COMMITTEE CHAIRS. Nobody wanted to lose those because they wielded
istparber33 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 immense power for those who held them. So the Southern Democrats stick to there party and bide there time. So this ties into Reagan because when he comes along as a conservative in 1980 and wins and the Southern Democrats in the House still haven't been given an opportunity to flip parties that means Ronald Reagan had just hit the jack pot. Those Southern Democrats HAVE to vote his way to keep getting elected because he is seen as a mega conservative and that's what's
istparber33 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 winning elections in the South at this time. So they side with Reagan on nearly everything and do what they did with Nixon campaign on his issues. Now that the President is an outspoken conservative there voting record has to match what he wanted because if they do that every constituent will still believe they're voting conservative. And Reagan had it easy he could propose a spending increase get it passed then publicly speak out against spending and blame the Democrats
istparber33 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 in Congress and he'd be blame free. Come election time the Southern Democrats would just say well we voted with the President the public would see Reagan as the conservative that he was publicly and say well these guys are voting with that conservative so they must also be conservative and the Democrats would keep getting elected. It was a perfect system for Reagan he knew there jobs depended on voting with him so he had a free pass to get whatever he wanted.
istparber33 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 To finish the story come 1994 when Newt Gingrich takes the House every single Southern Democrat did what they had wanted to do for a long time (as long as it benefited them politically because for some it really didn't do them much so they just said screw it and stayed) and flipped sides to the Republicans. End of story any questions?
istparber33 1 month ago
@istparber33 Yes. If being conservative was so important to win in the South, why didn't they just run as Republicans? Was having the "Democrat" label even more important than being conservative? Or were the politicians just representing the interests of their constituents?
And exactly how many Congressmen changed parties in 1994?
And why is Reagan's recognition that Americans wanted smaller government, and working to give that to them, a bad thing?
JohnJ2427 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 Oh dear God the problem isn't that you don't listen the problem is you can't listen. I said this in my previous post had the Southern Democrats run as Republicans pre 1994 unless literally of them switched the same year which would never happen then they would be the minority party and lose all committee chairs along with other perks the majority party gets. Do I need to say this more slowly or use smaller words because quite frankly this is the 3rd time I'm repeating it
istparber33 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 so I'm beginning to wonder if it will ever register with you. And Reagan may have publicly said he wanted smaller government but the man never legitimately worked to give it to them and then whenever government expanded at his behest he would blame it on Democrats and he would get away with it. Look if you're not getting this you really need to stop pretending you understand history because it's become glaringly obvious that you don't. These are simple concepts and you
istparber33 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 fail to remotely comprehend them. May I recommend you try arguing with people over a subject you actually understand? Because right now you're looking rather foolish and it's only trending downward for you.
istparber33 1 month ago
@istparber33 If you think I'm stupid, why not leave and debate someone less stupid? You're the one who wants to debate.
"I said this in my previous post had the Southern Democrats run as Republicans pre 1994 unless literally of them switched the same year which would never happen then they would be the minority party and lose all committee chairs along with other perks the majority party gets."
The first part of this sentence is utterly incoherent. Are there words missing?
JohnJ2427 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 Here's what that sentence means. You asked me why didn't Southern Democrats just switch parties. Because unless every single Southern Democrat switched parties in the same year then the Democrats would be the majority party thus those Democrats who switched would be Minority Republicans. As the minority party you lose all the perks the Majority party gets mainly committee chairs. So as a result the Southern Democrats thought it better to stay then leave because as long as
istparber33 1 month ago
@istparber33 I didn't ask why. I asked how many.
JohnJ2427 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 they had a record that matched Reagan's (even though it wasn't a conservative one) the people would perceive there voting record to be conservative because Reagan was one thus they would be reelected. Had there constituents dug a little deeper which in the pre internet age was significantly harder to do than it is today than they would have found that Reagan and the Southern Democrats record's never matched there rhetoric.
istparber33 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 And look if you feel I'm only making assertions then fine go back and look over Congressional transcripts, voting records, White House conference logs, and read enough to acquire a deep history/understanding of both political parties because that's what my analysis is based on. I teach this stuff and it's my job to read these things so I know all of it and I'm telling you what happened during this time period.
istparber33 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 And on the progressive tax policy you say you want to simplify it even more? Are you talking in terms of just installing a flat tax or reversing the progressive rates because I've heard conservatives argue for both.
istparber33 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 Establishment, liberals, corporate Democrats, and Midwest representatives with who different opinions are a dime a dozen. That's what I said go back and read it but however for legislation that is more simplified and less what I like to call "election dependent" Listen to yourself and more importantly read what I write you have a sad habit of not doing that.
istparber33 1 month ago
@istparber33 "Reagan wanted to gut social programs... but in reality his cuts were unacceptable and he knew that".
"Republicans are all conservatives... And George Bush failed on Social Security and immigration because some Republicans even looked at the proposals and said, 'What the hell?'"
So Reagan compromised in order to get some of what he wanted. And it's interesting that the rich paid more taxes after the tax reform despite having a higher tax burden than everyone else.
JohnJ2427 1 month ago
@JohnJ2427 Reagan was our greatest preaident eeeeevvvveeeer without a shadow of a dought
foosballmaster15 1 month ago
@Assassinscreed0925 kind of like Barack Obama?
countrygirl0618 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let's get another Ronald into the White House!
RON PAUL 2012!
Join the R3VOlUTION!
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Berliner Wall was a shame. Reagan, Walesa, John Paul II `ve stoped comunism in Europe.
deersky 2 months ago
Berliner Wall was a shame. Reagan, Walesa, John Paul II `ve stoped comunism in Europe.
deersky 2 months ago
Gänsehaut...
SirAlexHdot 2 months ago
Thank God Tito distanced himself far from Stalin. Yugoslavia was essentially the only Eastern European country that had any sort of ties with the US and the West. It was the ultimate neutral state!!
davd1986 2 months ago
Reagan 2012! Reagan 2012!
mikeditkaherbert 2 months ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
Ronald Reagan: "apartheid South Africa has stood beside us in every war we've ever fought".
NicolasJz 2 months ago
i remeber this speech when i was young and a few years later i was there when the wall came down
datrumaniac 2 months ago
Great speech :D
HoZzIe27 2 months ago
I'm a democrat, and I love Ronald Reagan.
xXHaloJoXx 2 months ago
Reagan was a superb actor.
faulknmd 2 months ago
@faulknmd The funny thing is I don't know if your talking literally or figuratively xD
HoZzIe27 2 months ago
I miss the Berlin Wall. :(
jumpnjza2 2 months ago
@jumpnjza2 I miss when we could take people like you out back and beat the hell out of you.
Angryjanitor3 2 months ago
@Angryjanitor3 gee, you've slearly learnt nothing from history. you're acting like a fascist, worse than any communist...
HuwGaas 2 months ago
@jumpnjza2 what the hell are you talking about? dumbass, you were never subject to the cold war behind the iron curtain
CARMINEOWNZ 2 months ago
@CARMINEOWNZ the berlin wall had it's ups and its downs, don't jump to irrational conclusions
HuwGaas 2 months ago
@HuwGaas yes because the people of east berlin were starving and oppressed, and had to be bailed out by the west. "ups" and downs
CARMINEOWNZ 2 months ago
@CARMINEOWNZ people like you bother me. you clearly have never properly researched the topic, as i have. you just think you know everything about it. east germany had a shit economy and a lower standard of living, yes. but people lived relatively good and normal lifestyles. communism is not fascism, it has some good sides to it, and for your information, there was absolutely no homelessness in east germany, and no unemployment. do your research.
HuwGaas 2 months ago
@HuwGaas never properly researched? how can you say that when my family lived through being a soviet satellite, and a dictatorship that makes north korea look laughable. they didn't live relatively good or normal lifestyles, what are you on about? people like YOU bother me, people who obviously know nothing on the subject yet continue to spurt out this incoherent shit. the communism that has been implemented in the past was and is still broken. no un-ment, because the govt. controlled EVERYTHING
CARMINEOWNZ 2 months ago
@CARMINEOWNZ are you saying that your parents lived in east germany?
HuwGaas 2 months ago
@HuwGaas yes because east germany was the only communist country in eastern europe
CARMINEOWNZ 2 months ago
@CARMINEOWNZ East Germany was different to every other communist country in the world because it was still run in part by Germans. They had the German intrests at heart. They were indeed violent in some scenarios but for the most part, East Germany was a normal country...
HuwGaas 2 months ago
@HuwGaas You call food drops every few minutes "normal"?
CARMINEOWNZ 2 months ago
@HuwGaas What other communist countries aren't run by their own people?
saigonpunkid 2 months ago
@saigonpunkid the germans were not communist, the soviets were, so what i am saying is that the communists were not entirely running the countriy, if you understand me.
HuwGaas 2 months ago
@HuwGaas That must be why the communists shot people who tried to flee their country. Those people didn't appreciate the good sides!
JohnJ2427 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JohnJ2427 Read my other comments and do your research.
HuwGaas 2 months ago
in the words of youtube audio transcribe" Mister Gorbachev, terror dot on this wall!"
chewmybacca1 2 months ago
1:56
ExclusiveBrad 2 months ago
1:57
ExclusiveBrad 2 months ago
If only we could have a president like Ronald Reagan again.
primogennaio 2 months ago
Uhm... didn't this man start the unless deficit? Ignorant people
BeMyKpop 2 months ago
Ich bin ein berliner!!!!!
orbitaldeerhunter 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
thinkprogress.o rg/politics/2011/02/05/142288/reagan-centennial/
crazyoldmanwtf.blogspot.c om/2011/06/ronald-reagan-myth-facts-and-rewriting.ht ml
TEAR DOWN THIS MYTH!
Fridaey13txhOktober 2 months ago
Reagan SMASH!!!!!!!
TheKnoxvicious 2 months ago
What an inspiring speech! I'm from Poland, Eastern Europe and we will never forget these words.