The Bonzo Guestbook

Thank you for visiting our pages. We would love it if you would add to this guestbook. Say what you like...

(due to excessive spamming by moronic drug hustlers, we had to change the guestbook
submission to e-mail.)
Please click here to send an e-mail, and we will post your comment - even if you
completely disagree with the site or have other negative things to say.

Again, I request that anyone who finds an error in ANY of the material in these pages e-mail me with specifics, including your reference source.  I will gladly remove or correct any inaccurate information. Of course, if you just want to rant that this is all crap, none of it ever happened, and the Reagan era was the shining moment of our history, go ahead.

I must request that you keep your comments to under 1,000 words. Some people have posted entire novellas, which I must (respectfully) remove.

Finally, Bush and Clinton are not the subject of this site. Please restrict your comments to the Reagan era, unless doing so will cause you to spontaneously combust from frustration.

Click here to go back to the home page of Ronald Reagan - The Bonzo Years


There was an error with my e-mail forwarding, so if you tried to post and got your mail bounced back, my apologies! Please re-send and it should work now.

Your Host
USA - Sunday, March 4, 2007 at 19:45:23 (EST)
Sorry, but I accidentally erased a message from Sweden that said the writer had printed up some tee-shirts honoring Reagan and they sold very well.

Your Host
USA - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 22:01:48 (CST)
Thank you for this sight. Given that it is a representation of his own actions and words, anyone who would have issue with it will have to take it up with Reagan. Similar sights could not be produced for Adams,Jefferson,Lincoln,FDR,or JFK - at least with regards to ineptitude.
david <ianandbayleigh@yahoo>
rochester, nythank USA - Thursday, April 07, 2005 at 19:44:36 (CDT)
For those who upsetten by the imbisilic people who must post bad things about a TRUE HERO, dont waste your energy typing, it does not matter, just have your own opinions, besides, they are probably to stu7pid to understand.
wiseguy <aerh>
aet, athjstrj USA - Wednesday, February 23, 2005 at 20:07:59 (CST)
I really like this site, and I thank you for it. I am a 27 year old black male, and Reagan was one of my heroes. The world is a lot less interesting without him. God Bless President Reagan.
Quentin <blackpower21@yahoo.com>
Columbus, OH USA - Monday, January 03, 2005 at 17:08:12 (CST)
I LOVE THIS SITE OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
MAGA <MAGA@HOTMAIL.COM>
KEVE, ALOME TOGO - Tuesday, October 05, 2004 at 09:15:36 (CDT)
I find it interesting and humorous that our very "host", Russ, who so many Reagan-haters here have praised for this site, doesn't understand what the word "liberal" means. Yes, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and their contemporaries were indeed liberals in their day. They fought against the conventional, in favor of a new and progressive ideology. That was over two hundred years ago, and what was new and progressive then has become conventional and traditional today. Conservatives of today are those who fight to preserve those ideologies, whereas liberals of today fight agains that conventional wisdom, against the very ideologies expressed by Jefferson, Paine and Franklin. Don't forget, it is conservatives of today who, more often than liberals, hold our Founding Fathers up as men of courage and conviction, to be remembered and revered for all time, whereas it is liberals of today who, more often than not, rush to discredit these men as slave owners and opressors, while enjoying the freedoms of speech and individual liberty that these men fought for and put their lives in jeopardy for over two hundred years ago. It has been the liberal influence on our education system, which has progressively reduced or even eliminated Jefferson, Paine, and Franklin from curricla in favor of what liberals would call more "progressive" curricula. Don't believe me? Ask the average tenth grader in an urban public school who Thomas Paine was. Then ask him the three best methods of safe-sex. If you would like to celebrate these men as a part of your liberal agendas of today, why are they not studied in the so heavily liberal run public schools any more? These were the men that Ronald Reagan studied, admired and revered. And now, Ronald Reagan has joined them, certainly in the hearts and minds of conservatives, in the annals of history as one of our nations true patriots. If they could fight today for the ideologies they espoused then, the liberals of two centuries ago, would by definition be considered conservatives today.
Mark
Grand Rapids, MI USA - Saturday, October 02, 2004 at 10:12:06 (CDT)
The only thing that nags me over and over about Reagan supporters how they feel knowing that his Afghan Mujahideen "freedom fighters" committed the September 11th attacks, and the so-called "freedom" that flourished in Afghanistan after the Mujahideen fanatics took over.
Hector Marroquin <h_marroquin@yahoo.com>
USA - Tuesday, September 28, 2004 at 01:28:58 (CDT)
Given that your page is simply one long direct quote from Paul Slansky's book
Phanatic
USA - Sunday, August 15, 2004 at 17:30:08 (CDT)
To S@B.us - I had to remove your comment. It was almost 3000 words long. I have saved it, but please consider re-posting in an abridged fashion. If you like, I will e-mail you the original posting.
Russ, your host
USA - Friday, June 25, 2004 at 10:19:35 (CDT)
A great man he was. Long after those idiots who sought to discredit him are gone, he shall still stand as one of the greatest presidents in history. He did so much for us and I thank him for that.
Derek
Torrance, CA USA - Tuesday, June 15, 2004 at 16:48:35 (CDT)
Giving credit where credit is due to the man who ended the Cold War: Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev
Michael
USA - Friday, June 11, 2004 at 22:44:15 (CDT)
Great site; great host
Anon
Charleston, SC USA - Friday, June 11, 2004 at 18:07:43 (CDT)
If Reagan was such a nice, friendly, fuzzy-warm guy…then WHY did he hurt the underprivileged, I never heard a black guy say Reagan made him feel good about himself. Never heard a Hispanic or immigrant say that Reagan made them feel good about themselves. Never heard that from any single mothers; or from any Americans who happen to be gay; never heard it from any of the low income people, or from any of the the millions of homeless. When they say "Reagan made 'Us' feel good, they must be talking about the old, white, fat, selfish and greedy whites-only tobacco wh0res who chased Clinton's c0ck for nine years. When they say "Us", they mean Jesse Helms, Jerry Falwell, Sean Hannity, Strom Thurman, Bob Jones, the vulgar Pigboy, David Duke, Pat Robertson, Linsey Graham, Bob Dornan, Bill O'Reilly, The Beltway Boys, Chris Matthews, Peggy Noonan and CNN's current lineup of news anchors. Ronnie was an actor...even in the WH. The Reagan years brought war, recession, misery and Dickensian poverty. Most people have memories of the eighties they'd like to forget. But some people - the the old, white, fat, selfish and greedy whites-only tobacco wh0res - felt very differently about the eighties. They loved Reagan - and what he did to America. I remember: the Deficit Disaster, the Savings & Loan Disaster, the Challenger Disaster, the Beirut Disaster where over 200 Marines died, the 1987 Stock Market Crash, the Commercial Real Estate Collapse, the Junk Bond Disaster, the Arms for Hostages crisis, the "We begin bombing in five minutes" debacle, the Trickle-downsizing, and the laying off of millions, the Corporate Pension Raiders,the explosion in the numbers of homeless, the longest and deepest recession since 1929, the biggest debt ever accumulated by any president in history, and the budget cuts.
Joe
USA - Friday, June 11, 2004 at 14:30:51 (CDT)
This website is in poor taste and unfortunate. Former President Ronald Reagan was a fine man who will be remembered long after all of his socialist critics are forgotten. May he rest in peace.
Frank J. Di Maria
Blkyn, NY USA - Friday, June 11, 2004 at 09:16:13 (CDT)
A true & honest American is playing his blues in the heavens... may the gods & goddesses bless Ray Charles. I am saddened more by his loss & was brought far more joy by his presence.
Lavern <lplzydeco@comcast.net>
Denver, CO USA - Friday, June 11, 2004 at 09:07:05 (CDT)
KEEP OF I HAVE TAKEN IT PLEASE.
MUGU <MUGU@HOTMAIL.COM>
GHANA, CUMASI GHANA - Friday, June 11, 2004 at 05:09:15 (CDT)
Finally, fifty or more years after its brain died, it's "bedtime for Bonzo." Good riddance!
Ole Pete
Alexandria, VA USA - Thursday, June 10, 2004 at 18:10:40 (CDT)
The people who continue to idolize Reagan are the folks who somehow managed not to directly suffer as a result of his policies. But millions of us were permanently harmed by them. It is always too simplistic to hang your gripes on the individual, as though he personally could possibly cause all the destruction when no one man could. But he was the poster boy and champion of a platform that could and did cause it. For a man who professed the "evil" of big government, he absolutely made sure he took from it everything that could possibly be taken, and in the grand manner, while begrudging most of We The People even the smallest crumbs. In this he wasn't different from other politicians regardless of political stripe, but that he would paint himself so, and that so many among us could be flimflammed into believing he was is the greatest hypocrisy. It remains to be seen how God will receive him now, but if the Good Book is any guide, when he's asked just what he did FOR people as opposed to what he did TO people and FOR himself, well, I'm inclined to think that he just might find himself forever outside those pearly gates.
John
Tacoma, WA USA - Thursday, June 10, 2004 at 14:59:16 (CDT)
Whoever designed this websit,GOOD JOB, Eventhough we all know that about 85.9 percent of the stuff is BULLSHIT. Its always nice to see your typical democrat assmunch to share his or her opinions especially when they aren't true. If you Reagan-hating-asswipes want to get really ambitious why don't you start bashing his family or better yet find out Nancy's email address or his kids e-mail address, get some fucking balls, and bash her husband, their father, in person. Go the extra mile! For those of you who get a high off on his death, you people must have waited all these years for him to croak. Wow! you people must be really sick-minded in order to rejoice over that and be open with it. Its Okay to bash politicians like Reagan, Clinton, Carter or Bush because you don't like their policies or because of their party affiliation but to rejoice over Reagans death like you morbid assholes are doing now is ust wrong. So for those of you who glamorize or rejoice over their death the way you sickos do, I say to you, EAT SHIT AND DIE. In the meantime, God Bless America. Oh yeah, and BE KIND TO ANIMALS.
Viper
Mo USA - Thursday, June 10, 2004 at 02:40:23 (CDT)
The future 'deified' face on the $10.00 bill certainly has 'feet of clay' if anyone (like me) lived through the period. Yes, he did play 'The Stars & Stripes Forever' with enthusiasm and many think that his failures never happened. Thanks for posting the truth.
D. Perle <dhp923@aol.com>
Thiells, NY USA - Wednesday, June 09, 2004 at 22:13:13 (CDT)
You know what my dad told me along time ago, he said son people look up to and admire people that they feel closley similar to, in this case all the people that are pouring out all this sorrow for Reagan are nothing but racist, homophobic, warmongering, insensitive people who care only about perserving the right's for white's screw everybody else that might have a little color to them, this asshole was nothing but a mass murderer that should off went to jail on war crimes and violating our law's time and time again. Nuff said.
Fiddle
USA - Wednesday, June 09, 2004 at 15:39:21 (CDT)
My deepest sympathies go out to the Reagan Family may the good Lord guide them through this difficult time. Also i would just like to say for all the negative remarks, if you cannot say anything good don't say anything at all it will look alot better on you!!!!!
Sara Viola <tapsara@rogers.com>
toronto, ont canada - Tuesday, June 08, 2004 at 14:43:16 (CDT)
I find it odd that defendants of Reagan consistently use the phrase "liberal" to defame his opponents. Does this mean that liberals, as a group, were the enemies of Reagan and his policies?
What is the definition of a liberal? Thomas Jefferson was a self-proclaimed liberal, so does that make him an adversary of Reagan? What about Thomas Paine? Benjamin Franklin? Adam Smith?
I respectfully request that those posting at this time (the death of Ronald Reagan) refrain from general bashing without some forethought, no matter what side they are on. I will not delete the various comments, cruel as they may be, regarding Reagan's passing. I only ask that some thought be given to the validity of the statements posted before you press that "Submit" button.

Your Host <russ@quickchange.com>
USA - Tuesday, June 08, 2004 at 01:10:47 (CDT)
To quote an earlier poster: "Saturday June 5, at approximately 1 p.m. a true American died..." Thank you, John, just what I wanted to say. GOD BLESS RONALD REAGAN. One of the greatest presidents this country has ever known. I have to admit, I ALMOST find the raving of all you anti-Reaganites amusing. It's kind of amusing to read the ravings of people who have been brainwashed and lost the ability to think for themselves. I suppose it's easier to let the liberals and morrally corrupt do your thinking for you.
T. M. B.
USA - Monday, June 07, 2004 at 17:11:19 (CDT)
I have to disagree. I think Reagan was one of our better presidents. He pushed through Congress the largest cut in history, 25 percent over a three-year period. (The marginal tax rate was 70 percent when he was elected; that was reduced to 28 percent). Let's not forget the Cold War and the Berlin Wall. Give the man some credit.
Lisa
AL USA - Monday, June 07, 2004 at 15:42:05 (CDT)
a nice parody piece on RR: http://www.califoracle.com/reagan.html oh, the neo-cons' backs are against the wall and need all the help they can get. they are the minority and R's death gives them a real sense of a breed dying off. good riddance!
idontrecall
sf, ca USA - Monday, June 07, 2004 at 14:59:17 (CDT)
Oh yeah... I almost forgot. Contrary to his thinking, AIDS is not "a queer disease." It is a human being disease.
Lavern <lplzydeco@comcast.net>
Denver, CO USA - Monday, June 07, 2004 at 08:53:33 (CDT)
It makes me crazy that Reagan is given accolades & people forget that under his regime a Marine Colonel (Oliver North) sold stolen American arms to our sworn enemies (the Iranians) and gave the funds to the Contras in defiance of the Boland Amendment. This was the president who signed IRS changes that included taking away credit card interest & car interest as tax deductions (only hurting the poor & middle class), as well as changing medical deductions to an amount over a percentage of your gross income. It was under his guidance that the Savings & Loan fiasco was set into motion. And it was he who allowed Saddam Hussein to murder his own people without so much as a comment. Oh yeah, & dare I mention the Reagan family values? Where "estrangement" is the norm? He doesn't deserve a state funeral. Good-bye & good riddance!
Lavern <lplzydeco@comcast.net>
Denver, CO USA - Monday, June 07, 2004 at 08:47:17 (CDT)
Reagan and Bush Jr. were both "C" students. Somehow, that doesn't surprise me. That guy was a joke while he was alive and now we only have one crazy Republican left.
Jeremy Brendan <jeremybrendan@aventuremail.com>
Montreal, PQ Canada - Sunday, June 06, 2004 at 20:41:55 (CDT)
Another interesting developmend which occurred during Reagan's Imperial Presidency is the veto of funding for both AIDS and Alzheimer's research. This begs question: How unfortunate (or how dense) do you have to be in order to deny funding into researching (and maybe even finding a cure for) a disease which eventually kills YOU?
David <cumminsfanatic@yahoo.com>
Wilkesboro, NC USA - Sunday, June 06, 2004 at 19:27:07 (CDT)
The first state funeral in over 30 years? How fitting. He was a monumental figure, all right. Dividing and conquering his own citizens like no other in recent memory. Advancing the American military, political and cultural juggernaut around the globe, all in the name of "freedom" (read: Corporate domination). A great leader whose indifference to the misery he inflicted on millions serves as an inspiration to all of us. Behold his glory, ye snivelling bleeding-hearts. Let the cry of "de mortuis nil nisi bonum" ring out around this land of the free. He made us poorer in resources, but richer in patriotic pride. We are all Republicans now. Selah.
TJ <tj777ab@yahoo.com>
WI USA - Sunday, June 06, 2004 at 17:10:43 (CDT)
It's 'Bergen-Belsen', not 'Bergen-Gelson'. I wonder where the other errors are? RIP Gipper.
Barry Mann <bajama@yahoo.com>
USA - Sunday, June 06, 2004 at 16:24:56 (CDT)
Note - this error has now been fixed. Thank you, Barry.
Ronald Reagan was and is my greatest personal role model and Hero. You will go down in history as the greatest president of the 20th century. You have inspired me to be more than I ever thought I could be. I will never stop fighting to win one for Gipper. Love you Ronny! R.I.P. Donald L. Luce II Portland, Oregon
Donald L. Luce II
Portland, OR USA - Sunday, June 06, 2004 at 16:10:24 (CDT)
Saturday June 5, at approximately 1 p.m. a true American died. Ronald Reagan lived his entire life with nothing more than a true love for his family and his country. You might not have agreed with him, but he was sincere in his beliefs. I am saddened but not surprised by the postings of the spineless, the weak and the malcontents who are going to take advantage of a situation where a man can no longer defend himself. Those posting vicious and mean-spirited attacks on one of the greatest Americans ever...president or otherwise, please enjoy your pitiful 2 minutes of internet fame. The world is a far better place because of President Ronald Reagan. In spite of all invertabrates who hated him, he was loved by millions. God bless you Mr. President.
John <jgkfamily@zoominternet.net>
OH USA - Sunday, June 06, 2004 at 13:28:02 (CDT)
Liberals poke fun at everyone but themselves; and there is a program for that which comes from the taxpapers' backs. Get a life and get with life and what its really about...and that is enriching it and not tearing it down unless it's the wall that Reagan was so handsomely successful in doing...without cigars even yet. Freedom to run liberalism mouthing is possible because of conservatives! Sure this is over a lot of liberals' heads, for sure. God Bless America and its heros, to include Ronald Reagan, a cute little cowboy who did the job! Amen. Ohh, the stars say I'm right on this.
Anonymous
USA - Sunday, June 06, 2004 at 11:20:02 (CDT)
I'm glad that the "Gipper" is dead. Now my tax dollars won't be spent on his retirement or his hospitalization. Lord knows he had no sympathy for those poorer than he in similar circumstances.
David Avila <pauldavidavila@yahoo.com>
Kansas City, MO USA - Sunday, June 06, 2004 at 06:13:00 (CDT)
Fire up those Cuban cigars amigos, the bastard burns in hell tonight.
Romero <Thelonious@riseup.net>
- Saturday, June 05, 2004 at 23:51:53 (CDT)
There will be celebrations in the mountains of Virginia tonight. Hurray!
Anon <darnold@valink.com>
Grayson, va USA - Saturday, June 05, 2004 at 19:47:52 (CDT)
So long, Ronnie. You plunged this country into debt from which it has yet to recover, you plundered social security, you crippled the poor to boost the rich, and you equated Nazi SS troops with Holocaust victims. May God have mercy on your soul. Lord knows you're going to need it.
Andie Kittab <Zayne74@twmi.rr.com>
USA - Saturday, June 05, 2004 at 18:04:37 (CDT)
Ronald Reagan was the best President this country has ever seen, and nothing you denying, disrespectful liberals say or do can change that.
Amy
la USA - Saturday, June 05, 2004 at 17:05:43 (CDT)
Hey there, Have just been reading through your website. It is fan-bloody-tastic! Excellent! In fact, I am currently studying my Masters in International Relations and am citing your website. Have to tell you, it is an absolute relief to read something from an American that isn't just rhetoric or propoganda, and is actually intelligent. Unfortunately, the US's current standing in the world isn't too high, especially with comments from Private L. England's 'home town' some bum-fuck no where place in Virginia stating that 'this is how she was raised, and this is how it is in America'. But sites like these give hope, and it is funny too. All the very best to you. Cheerio
Sofia <wayfarers_redemption@yahoo.co.uk>
Melbourne, Australia - Wednesday, May 19, 2004 at 02:00:07 (CDT)
Great comments from so many who would claim to be from the peaceful, loving, compassionate Left! Why are you people so filled with such venom? I am proud to be one of the millions of Americans who thank God every day that this country was blesed with this man of conviction, moral clarity, and integrity for eight years. Thank you President Reagan! I'm sure the venom is rising, so I will let you get back to your hate-fest (which I'm sure will now include bashing the idiot who likes Reagan).
Mark
USA - Tuesday, May 04, 2004 at 21:45:55 (CDT)
I love to see the truth, especially when supported by jazz and blues musicians. Right on!
Ron McComb <ronwmccomb@msn.com>
Colorado Springs, CO USA - Thursday, April 15, 2004 at 16:34:14 (CDT)
Thank you for your analysis & comments. I have followed Reagan for years and read most materials concerning his presidency, but your well researched humor deserves special praise. My wife came into the room several times and told me that she had never seen me laugh so hard, and I must admit that I cannot believe how funny I find your research to be. I am a true "Reaganite," but I shall keep your site on my favorite list and review it frequently to remind me that even Reagan had his weak moments.
John Kemp <JohnKemp@carolina.rr.com>
Matthews, NC USA - Saturday, April 03, 2004 at 20:32:17 (CST)
And they want to put this guy on the dime? WTF? http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/05/dime/index.html
me <fluffy@dontmesswithtexas.com>
USA - Sunday, December 07, 2003 at 13:21:03 (PST)
I agree with the comment below. I don't believe Reagan would find anything here to work with, because he made a policy of ignoring the facts and allowing his staff to run the country. Regarding dwelling in the past - as Satanaya said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." The present resident of the White House is a good example.
By the way, an interesting article concerning Reagan, AIDS, and history is at Common Dreams

Russ, your host
USA - Sunday, December 07, 2003 at 10:30:01 (PST)
It is too bad that Ronald Reagan is unable to respond to any of these comments on this web-site; pro or con. Even if he was able to, I don't think he would even bother for the following reason. There are two choices everyone is faced with. The first is to spend all one's energy dwelling on the past. The second is to take what was good from the past and spend the present taking action to make life better. I don't think Ronald Reagan would find much of anything good in this site to work with.
Rob
USA - Friday, November 21, 2003 at 11:13:17 (PST)
After hearing CBS was pulling the Reagan mini-series because of bias I was curious if there was any truth to the matter (after 3 years of Bush and Fox News I doubted it, but I always want to see for myself). I was a teenager for most of the 80's (graduating from high school in '86) but really only followed politics when MTV decided they were worthy of our demographic. So, after finally getting pissed off enough with the way things are going now, I did a Google search and found your site. Wow. The sheer incompentence of Reagan surprised me so much I went out and found a used copy of "The Clothes have no Emporer." I bartend at a local pub and have been showing my liberal and conservative customers it and all are equally dumbfounded. I've already read Molly Ivins book "Bushwhacked" and Al Franken's "Liars" so this only reinforces my get-W-out-of-the-White-House resolve. And, lest you think I'm a knee-jerk Democrat/liberal, I was rooting for Sen. McCain in '90 until W's dirty tricks shot him down. So, thank you for the site. And, please, everyone out there with smarts and a conscience, vote next year and get this Texas snake out of the White House.
Ryan Arch <lemuel23@comcast.net>
beaverton , or USA - Thursday, November 20, 2003 at 06:52:00 (PST)
I DEY HEREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
UMUIGBO <WAZOBIA@AFRIK,NET>
ACCRA, USA - Wednesday, November 19, 2003 at 14:30:44 (PST)
Ah, the sweet smell of truth, untainted by the blatherings of Ronnie's apologist posse...Thank you sir.

On another website, a gentleman puts forth the hypothesis that Republicans, desperate to become the once-and-always ruling party in this country, have taken to choosing candidates for their public personae, rather than any intellectual ability. They saw Nixon's defeat in 1960 by JFK as a matter of JFK just being "prettier" than Nixon. Interestingly enough, Nixon was probably the last Republican nominee who was relatively intelligent...evil, but intelligent.

Since then, we have been treated to Ronnie and George, and G.W., none of whom would be a hazard as opponents in a game of Trivial Pursuit. Even funnier, the mosy intellectually capable of the three, George the First, had Dan Quayle as his running mate, thus lowering their collective IQ to near microcephalic levels. So, the Republicans (who, as always, lack a feeling for what America really wants) choose style over substance. Over on the Democratic side, I doubt that anyone would disagree that Carter, Dukakis, and certainly Clinton were men of intellect...but America went for smarts only one out of three times.

There is another legacy of Ronald Reagan--an actor who played a president. My only question is: If they HAD to make one of the stars of "Bedtime For Bonzo" president, why'd they choose the dumber one?

Tom <jailnurse@juno.com>
East Syracuse, ny USA - Sunday, September 14, 2003 at 14:58:40 (PDT)


Regarding the comment below - I've read both of Peggy Noonan's books ("What I Learned At the Revolution" and "When Character Mattered")

Both are terrifying, although not intentionally.

She makes it VERY clear that during both administrations, staffers and cabinet felt Reagan had to be protected and insulated from daily goings-on. They all felt like he was a grandfatherly figure who, while a great person, really didn't have a handle on things.

Incidentally, Ms. Noonan doesn't claim to be objective - quite the opposite. When she describes the decision to replace the striking air controllers, she completely distorts their demands and their working conditions to make it sound like they were greedy, selfish bastards who didn't give a damn about public safety. This is only one of many examples in both books that are very inaccurate, to be polite.

Still, both are worth reading if only to get an idea of the type of person who defends what went on from '80 to '88, while still revealing a number of very nasty scenarios. You'll really have to read it for yourself to see what I mean - it should be in your local library.

Russ <Your Host>
USA - Friday, September 05, 2003 at 10:22:43 (PST)


I know it's easy to find quite a lot of anti-Reagan sentiment floating around out there, But you people, who all seem like bright, people who give a darn about your country, should reach out and find a book, or even just an article, written by one of his supporters. Have you all ever realized that by and large, the anti-Reagans who write about him are people who have personal vendettas against him - Democratic politicians, libearl journalists, world leaders who didn't quite see the world his way, and one very lonely daughter? You owe it to yourselves to pay attention to both sides of the aisle. Thanks.
Megan Ritter <chaosnconfusion@hotmail.com>
Westminster, MD USA - Thursday, August 21, 2003 at 18:37:32 (PDT)
Truly, the man was a moron. I still cannot believe that people actually thought him great. He spent all his time blaming the Carter administration for everything, and couldn't even produce an off the cuff answer to the simplest question without his wife or another aide prompting him. I think required reading for every kid in history class should be "The Clothes Have No Emperor." It's good to see that many others share the opinion that the old guy was showing signs of Alzheimer's even then. What a shameful eight years that was.
Kyle Lorenz <klorenz@mchsi.com>
Dubuque, IA USA - Saturday, July 05, 2003 at 08:43:23 (PDT)
The website, "The Reagan Years - Setting the Record Straight" presents a good critique of the Reagan presidency.
James Jacobs
USA - Tuesday, June 24, 2003 at 14:02:40 (PDT)
Regarding the rather esoteric message below - I will leave it up, because the writer did state a couple of valid opinions. However, I must request that writers keep "shouting" (all caps) to a minimum.
I am in the process of reading Ms. Noonan's books, both "What I Saw At The Revolution" and "When Character Was King." For those interested, I will post my impressions.

Your Host, Russ
USA - Thursday, May 22, 2003 at 19:14:14 (PDT)
People keep thinking that I wrote that book about Reagan and character. IS THIS SOME JOKE OR WHAT? THAT GUY HAD TAFFY FOR A BRAIN. Character? Zero....but I do have this to say:::::
HEY THERE, WHY ARE YOU SO MEAN TO PRESIDENT REAGAN? WOW THAT IS REALLY BAD. Just because after seven years of his presidency, HE SAID NOT ONE WORD ABOUT THE WORLD PLAGUE called AIDS that has now killed millions and millions of people ....and he said NOTHING....And what about that last year in office when he put that wreath on the graves of Nazi SS officers in Germany and even shocked the Germans with this insult to Freedom? And I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD BE MEAN ABOUT HIM just because he gave us so many horrible "dribble down economy" types of films...or that his wife is a Number One Bitch and hateful. Amen...and Love to you all from my royal court....Mary Mount:::::http://www.geocities.com/pocitojuanito/THE_ROYAL_COURT.html
Mary Mount <mounted@34.com>
Denver, CO USA - Tuesday, April 29, 2003 at 17:06:12 (PDT)
In response to the comment about Reagan laying flowers at Bitburg, the Nazi cemetery.... a. Reagan did not know that Nazis lay at Bitburg until shortly before his trip to Germany, and realized quite correctly that the presidential snub implied by cancelling would be really bad diplomacy. b. Gen. Matt Ridgway, the last living four-star general to have served in the European Theater, helped Reagan to lay the wreath at Bitburg. -source: "A Different Drummer: My Thirty Years With Ronald Reagan" by Michael K. Deaver This site frustrates me more than a little. Please, all of you who are so quick to condemn Reagan...please, find a good, solid book about him and take a week or so to read it. You will be better people for at least taking an honest look at another point of view, one which happens to be quite valid. At the very least, you'll be more qualified to criticize the man. May I suggest one of two books: the one mentioned above, "A Different Drummer," by one of Reagan's former aides, or, an even better book about Reagan, "When Character Was King: A story of Ronald Reagan," by Peggy Noonan, a journalist and a former speechwriter for Reagan. Having written a 20-some-page research paper on Reagan, I feel more than slightly qualified to state that he is one of the great and misunderstood men of American history. Please, I encourage everyone to take an honest look at Reagan. He truly deserves it. Thank you.
Megan <SpunkyChipmunk15@aol.com>
MD USA - Sunday, April 06, 2003 at 17:07:13 (PDT)
The best thing Reagan ever did for the country was get Alzheimer’s
norm
USA - Thursday, March 06, 2003 at 22:34:24 (PST)
Quick comment - why did "everyone" vote for Reagan? Everyone didn't. But he won with a large majority in a well attended election (see http://www.fec.gov/pages/htmlto5.htm for voter turnout information.)
I know a number of people who voted for Reagan because he seemed nice, reminded them of their grandfather, or because they thought he would make them rich. The fact that a man is President doesn't mean he was a good one, even when elected twice. I think Nixon sort of proved that, and even Clinton (sorry Democrats) wasn't a great President.
I believe Reagan was elected twice for the same reason many Presidents are elected - the competition stank. The choices were lousy. Thank goodness those days are over and we only have quality, honest, intelligent candidates now.

Gotta go, time for my medication...
Russ <Your Host>
USA - Thursday, February 06, 2003 at 17:22:43 (PST)


Hello Everyone
Well, Dashle today said that Bush basically is a great disappointment in this war.
But what about any reasonable person's comment on Reagan, that dangrous fruitcake of a fraud, who visited Nazi graveyards with flowers, or for 7 or his 8 useless years in the White House said NOTHING about AIDS stalking and killing by the millions. He is NOW getting what he deserves.
But what did i read just recently in this newest and wildest home page (s) of both Michael Jackson and Mother Teresa? Well, fasten your safety belts...these are wonderful. Read them and LEARN!!!

Love, Princess Peussie
http://www.geocities.com/pocitojuanito/MICHAEL_JACKSON.html
http://www.geocities.com/pocitojuanito/Mother_Teresa_Love_Book.html

Princess Peussie <i.a.a@37.com>
Denver, CO USA - Tuesday, March 18, 2003 at 19:30:28 (PST)


You site is interesting, but I find colored type against a colored background close to unreadable--and I am not color blind. What's the point of having hard to read text?
Anon
USA - Sunday, March 16, 2003 at 18:51:35 (PST)

Note from Russ - I changed the background to black - hope that helps! Yellow against black should be readable.


Micah Brown (see below) raises an interesting point when he asks, "if Reagan was as stupid and incompetent as you claim, why did everyone vote for him?" Reagan's impairment is a matter of public record. So why did people vote for him?
Lisa
Australia - Saturday, February 01, 2003 at 03:03:26 (PST)
Reagan was so stupid, confused and uninformed that the American people believed he was being victimized by the Washington establishment they hated so violently and that he blamed at every turn. They embraced his feeble attempts to appear human. They fell for his act. This explains his popularity. The damage his administration inflicted on this country is so subtle, so behind the scenes, that it is almost untraceable. It will be felt forever. Yet, it’s hard to blame Mr. Reagan because he really did so little himself. Democrats will nod their heads in silent regret. Republicans will be in such denial, because how could they admit the validity of these pages and sleep at night.
Kev
KY USA - Friday, December 20, 2002 at 18:38:57 (PST)
Thank you showing me just how much of a idiot Reagan was. I would research the man further, but I really don't think he's worth the trouble. You site was extremely informative, and in response the the man below me; popularity does not equal intellegence. Hitler was popular. Anyway, thankyou for convincing me that being young has saved me a lot of pain, and let's pray we get to see the end of Bush's term...
Bookie <BookGrl1190@Hotmail.com>
USA - Sunday, October 20, 2002 at 17:24:39 (PDT)
Iran-Contra. Lies. Budget Deficits. Lies. Tax Cuts. Lies. Ketchup as a vegetable-the truth. It would be so pleasant if all the right wing nuts would spend a minute contemplating the folly of their universe. An attempt at civility is out of the question. Reagan was a vicious, evil president (and that was prior to his mind altering disease). The strength of the American people saved this country from the Reagan Years and the strength of the American people saved this country from the evil right wing attack of the Clinton Years. Let us pray, that we have the strength to sustain us through DUBYA. Or is that DUH-BYA. A proud, law abiding, tax paying veteran. John
JOHN SHULER <jts@datasync.com>
PICAYUNE, MS USA - Sunday, August 18, 2002 at 17:14:45 (PDT)
God bless Ronald Regan
Chris <stoob0@yahoo.com>
Salem, NJ USA - Tuesday, July 02, 2002 at 19:29:10 (PDT)
what site is this anyway?
Connery
Baltimore, MD USA - Saturday, May 18, 2002 at 15:32:03 (EDT)
it must kill you that Ronald Reagan was the most popular president ever. All you can do is criticize him, and it doesnt even bother me because i know he won had more votes in 1984 than clinton had in two elections. So who do you think will be the next president to win 49 states? if reagan was as stupid and incompetent as you claim, why did everyone vote for him?
Micah Brown <muad_dib17@hotmail.com>
Stroudsburg, PA USA - Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 19:28:40 (EDT)
NOTE FROM YOUR HOST

Please check out the Kudlow speech and the comments page. There's been some REALLY excellent responses. It's not Dr. Seuss reading, but it addresses a lot of economic points that were made on this page, too.

- Russ
Ronnie is looking like a genius, since GW took over
ML Olsen <olsen24@comcast.net>
Mobile, Al USA - Saturday, April 13, 2002 at 20:39:53 (EDT)
This is the greatest political website EVER! You've done this country a tremendous service reminding us of what a completely incompetent man Reagan really was. History forgotten is history repeated.
Andrea <andrea37@earthlink.net>
USA - Saturday, March 02, 2002 at 11:41:23 (EST)

One visitor, Matthew Register, left an extremely lengthy comment. While I almost totally disagree with him on every point regarding Reagan's suitability to be deemed a great president (based on his quoted criteria), I believe all readers may benefit from his statements.

I do request that contributors try to limit the length of their statements, but failing that I will take the longest ones and put them on their own page, as I have done with Mathew's comments. Please take a moment and view his comment by clicking here.

Thanks again for your interest and participation.

Russ - your host
USA - Monday, February 25, 2002 at 19:56:03 (EST)


glad to find this stuff on line. i have a copy of 'the emporor has no clothes' and, so, identified the source material immediately.... keep it alive, please
rusty <rpopstar@yahoo.com>
USA - Thursday, December 27, 2001 at 16:29:50 (EST)
Drep en commie Drep han i dag Drep han med en motorsag Steik han i ovnen der du bor og server han til svigermor Rune
Rune <zombieforever@hotmail.com>
Norway - Friday, December 14, 2001 at 11:28:32 (EST)
This site is great...I've always felt that Raygun was a BONZO and we have suffered greatly for it. Thanks. RS
Rick Streng
USA - Wednesday, December 12, 2001 at 20:02:04 (EST)
It amazes me how the conservatives constantly bring up Clinton's indiscretions and at the same time act as if Reagan epitomized what they call "family values". If you read about Reagan's relationship with his daughter Patty and son Ron, you would definitely see that his behavior towards his own family left a lot to be desired.
Delilah <selbstmord@hotmail.com>
Little Rock, AR USA - Monday, December 03, 2001 at 15:44:29 (EST)
I just love how the conservatives like to rewrite history. Which is worse guys, a national debt in the trillions or a blow job?

It seems to be the popular republican belief that liberals have no morals, don't believe in god, and are really unintelligent. But when one looks into what really went on back in the regan/bush years, it seems a blowjob doesn't matter, and affects no one.

Well as far as believing on god, well we ain't Catholic. They like to rewrite history just like the reps do. And no wonder their friends to the republican party, seems like together they can create the perfect christian/fascist dictatorship. They spend more time doing "hail mary"s than actually reading the bible, and any non catholic christians I come across don't even acknowledge the Catholic church.

Lets face it, you're only a republican because your mommies and daddies taught you to be, they taught you that Reagan was the bestest president ever. And if that didn't sink in, the media slammed it home, hence the Clinton haters and how they (not Clinton) pushed all of that in our faces.

You believe in what you do because it suits you, you get to fit in with all of your rep buddies and you feel like you're on the winning team because republicans tell you what you want to hear, lie to your face and fuck you up the ass while you're not looking. It's common knowledge that the outgoing bush administration lied to Clinton(and the country) about the state of the economy. Things were alot worse than he said they were. Thats why Clinton had to break some campaign promises.

Its amazing to me how the working class republicans (you make me sick) can just overlook how they're being screwed by his policies, the trickle down theory, and the massive freedom given to corporate america to rape third world countries leaving our american workers scrounging. You can't, nor have I ever heard you, deny this. I ASK YOU: Where are the jobs? You know they moved to the third world but you are content in burying your heads in the sand and ignoring this and who was behind it.

I'll take a booming economy and a blowjob to national debt and unemployment from "Reaganomics" anyday. What else amazes me is how they take credit for the economy years and years after they leave the white house. Under this one-way logic you could credit any hike in the economy EVER to the republicans and Reaganomics. How perfect for them. I guess everything has to be one way with them. I think they call it hypocracy.

Then there's Reagan firing the air traffic controllers, the iran contra affair, and the deaths of seven astronauts aboard the challenger (whose launch was moved up early so he could avoid talking about the Iran-contra affair by talking to the astronauts at the state of the union address) The crash conveniently seemed to do the same thing for him. So all you tightassed conservatives do make me sick when I hear you supporting that murderer.

For more of the truth visit Http://voiceofreasonsite.tripod.com


Charles <filmmakerck17@aol.com>
Oakdale, PA USA - Thursday, November 15, 2001 at 02:58:42 (EST)


Lovely website ~ Some of the guestbook comments are priceless. Are you going to give later Presidents the same treatment?
Keith Hill <streetecourt@hotmail.com>
UK - Thursday, October 25, 2001 at 23:29:44 (EDT)
Boy, you people take the cake. Talk about hate; this website exudes it by the metric ton. Cann't we all get along! Face it Ronald Reagan won the election - not once but twice. Deal with it. The country did not go into ruin; anarchy was not in the streets. The only person who tried to shoot the old guy was deranged/delusional probably as much as the Reagan haters on this website. I can only anticipate the next calling for the webmasters of this site would be to come up with something for George W. Bush Jr. as I am sure they will dig/find some callous/crass things to say about him. You know no matter how you look at it there will always be hate in this world. If you take away all the senses mankind has they will find a way to hate an idea/thought. Reagan was a figure head not a mastermind. If he was a mastermind then yeah I could agree with you. If you question Reagan about segregation, economic policy, defense, etc. more than likely you would get the same basic answers that people from his era would have. He grew up in the 1910s and 1920s, that is so far out of our prospective. He did okay with what he had and he was at the right place for the right time. He could have done worse - much worse. Quite whining and rewriting the historical perspective.
Louis N
San Jose, CA USA - Saturday, September 08, 2001 at 12:16:15 (EDT)
You refer to budget cuts throughout the other disinformation. There were no budget cuts during the Reagan administration. There were cuts in the levle of growth. However, since all budget items originate in the House of Representatives, which was TIP Oneil's, then those comments about peopel starving becuase the government didn't help should be referenced to the DNC. Additionally, it is not the job of tyhe federal govwernment to ensure you or your children are fed. It is your responsibility and the responsibiity of your family. You don't get to kill them if it is inconvenient either.
Al Thomspon <alberteth@home.com>
Beaverton, OR USA - Monday, August 13, 2001 at 18:19:18 (EDT)
In answer to Florida Guy's question - I think he's referring to 4/29/85, which wasn't directed to a foreign leader. It was, however, a totally misleading statement on his part.
your host, Russ
USA - Monday, July 23, 2001 at 22:00:04 (EDT)
Reagan is on record as saying, while he was president, and saying this to a foreigng head of state, that he fought in combat in Europe during World War 2. This comment by Reagan was false, as he was making movies (yes, Reagan was in the army, he made morale movies for the troops). Reagan never fought in combat. Does anyone know where this fascinating slip by Reagan is referenced on the net? Thanks!
Florida Guy
USA - Monday, July 23, 2001 at 19:51:49 (EDT)
Ronald Reagan did for the group he sees as American 300 years ago. He never pushed any civil rights legislation despite the fact he was supposed to be the "American" president. His scope never widened to African Americans, Latinos or Native Americans. There are an increasing number of minorities occupying space in America and to not provide them with the same standard of living that you do for the white children living in the same communities shows something worse than discrimination, it shows indifference. Ronald Reagan has a lame record of racial inclusion when he was governor of California, during the time of the Black Panther Party out of Oakland. I would expect the middle upper to upper class white male to be in support or good ol' ronnie because he did all of the things to make them richer and not bother them with the ugly little details of equal rights and equal education for all Americans. Alzheimer's kept ol' ronnie from responding to some real criticism of his presidency and helped the republicans carry his torch for FREEDOM, EQUALTY, for ALL (rich white) Americans. I am glad you all love reagan cuz he ain't do sh&* for a lot of people. peace
American <kwame21@hotmail.com>
USA - Monday, July 02, 2001 at 12:26:35 (EDT)
Republicans are ignorant, racist, homophobic, sexist goons who want nothing more than to protect the wealth of the rich. They'd have the poor decay in gutters before they instituted one federal social program to take care of people who can't take care of themselves. They're backward and stuck in the dark ages, and everything for which this site stands will one day drag this nation to its knees. Republicans suck; Democrats have the answers. Liberal for life!
A liberal 'jackass'
San Diego, CA USA - Friday, June 29, 2001 at 00:05:02 (EDT)
"Reagan, using the Laffler curve as the model for his economic plan, set up the economy for revival over the next fifteen years." Of course, if the economy goes down the toilet in the next couple of years, it'll all be Clinton's fault, right?
Dan Average
Middle of Nowhere, NM USA - Tuesday, May 08, 2001 at 00:01:28 (EDT)
Reagan, using the Laffler curve as the model for his economic plan, set up the economy for revival over the next fifteen years. If not for his foresight, we would have entered the worst depression ever as a result of Carter's poor management and kow-towing to unions.
Reagan also was the key to the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and all disabled Americans owe him a debt of gratitude.
Finally, he fired James Watt after one year, because Watt was an idiot. He then found a fair balance between environmental extremists and corporate interests, protecting the environment while being considerate of the needs of landowners and businessmen.

Patriot
Allentown, PA USA - Saturday, April 21, 2001 at 10:27:12 (EDT)
I like some of the arguments being used here to "defend" Reagan. Like the ever-popular argument that Reagan "ended" the Cold War. Get serious. The fall of communism was a historical inevitably, the result of an expanding global economy and increased consumerism worldwide. Iran didn't release the hostages because they "feared" Reagan, they released them because he had his dirty-work VP George Bush Sr. (an ex-CIA man, remember) disappear for three days only weeks before the election so he could hammer out a deal with the good Ayatollah. Put two and two together, people. What did Iran have to fear from Reagan? Unless I'm mistaken, the Reagan administration actually AIDED the Iranians by illegally selling Stinger missiles and other weaponry. Oh yeah, and what's with this "1990 = Democratic Budget Deal that increased spending, raised deficits, and ended successful Reaganomics" stuff? The bulk of the deficit was incurred under Reagan's watch (and for those who point out it was the Democratic-controlled Congress that created those deficits, keep in mind that Reagan never once exercised his power to veto any budget he found unacceptable -- and that Reagan's proposed budgets would have actually ballooned the deficit even more). And if "successful Reaganomics" ended in 1990, why were the eight years under Clinton a time of unprecedented economic growth? It certainly couldn't have been the long-range effects of Reaganomics (as Rush and Co. like to claim), since, after all, Reaganomics "ended" in 1990....
The Fanciful Norwegian
USA - Friday, April 20, 2001 at 01:07:28 (EDT)
All republicans wear rubber suits. It is my observation that Ronald Regan had Alzheimers the last year of his presidency, and people in the higher ranks knew. For Ronald, the red phone was his direct link to Pizza Hut. "I don't remember" was his most popular line in the Iran Contra scandal. My memories of Ronald, was Nancy filling in the lines of his speeches. It looked like a kid forgetting his lines in a school play. It scares me to think that something like this could go un-noticed, or ignored, for the sake of compossure. Give me a break!
a jones <southern@dmv>
USA - Thursday, April 19, 2001 at 08:40:05 (EDT)
Yes indeed, after reading this website, it confirms in my mind that what Ronald Reagan did for the U.S. Presidency and the country as a whole, is roughly analogous to what crotchless panties have done for finger f***ing.
The Harvard Loudmouth
ny USA - Monday, April 16, 2001 at 11:39:34 (EDT)
What's most striking about the pro-Reagan comments here is that they are unanimous in failing to respond to even ONE of the documented facts presented on these pages. Instead, they all rely on the well-proven "3D" technique beloved of reactionaries everywhere: deride, deflect and deny. Say that Reagan was uninformed, and they say, "So are you, you liberal &*^&*!". Say that Reagan's administration was dangerously incompetent and corrupt, and they'll mention Monica, again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. Say that Reagan presided over an unprecedented explosion of poverty and inequality, and they'll simply accuse of you of lying.The three D's. Happens every time.
Peter
Seattle, WA USA - Friday, April 13, 2001 at 14:39:56 (EDT)
Great website! I laughed, I cried, I was amazed that that crazy son-of-a-bitch didn't get us all killed.
Kevin
Bloomington, IN USA - Friday, April 13, 2001 at 13:59:03 (EDT)
Recently, CNN aired a program called "The Reagan Years." Naturally, I avoided this horror show. But it prompted me to re-read "The Clothes Have No Emperor," a brilliant look back at the "Reagan Years" and how they REALLY were. How this man could be called "the Great Communicator" is beyond me. The man was a disaster as a Governor, and was an even worse disaster as President. I still remember how, as Governor of California, he closed most of the mental institutions, and dumped the inmates on the streets (this was supposed to be a money saving move). I also remember Reagans "trickle down" theory. I'm just getting angry thinking about this. But thanks for this website. And, if things couldn't get any weirder, we have George dubya to contend with. Horrors!!!
Jim Peeples <james_peeples@hotmail.com>
Redwood City, CA USA - Friday, March 16, 2001 at 12:33:27 (EST)
I don't know how some of you people say the Ronald was a greatpresident. This guy came on tv and said he was going to get ridof the middle class. When he came into office, me and my familysuffered pretty damn good. My dad was laid off all the time, eventhough he worked he job for over 15 years. My mother had to work two jobs to support us. Bush was a little better, but not much.And how he ever got an airport named after him is beyond me. Theman fired a lot of air traffic controllers because they wanted better working conditions. I can understand that it was bad forthem to go on strike with that important of a job, but they weren't getting enough money or breaks for what they did. Youhave to understand, being an air traffic controller is one ofthe most stressful jobs in the world, literally. And I see thisin the new president, George W. Bush Jr.
Garret <bigmason@hotmailc.om>
Chicago, IL USA - Wednesday, March 14, 2001 at 10:47:35 (EST)
Actually, I blame FDR for Reagan. FDR was such a master of the political craft that he created completely unrealistic expectations for the American Presidency, and complete fakes like Reagan and young Bush were the natural results. I suppose the remarkable thing is that the Democrats haven't gone along with the trend--but for all the remarkable accusations directed at Gore, no one said he was a dancing puppet who could barely read a teleprompter. Bush is so bad that I suspect he is sometimes lip-syncing, and the actual speech was spliced together from his 20 best efforts. Reagan was a much better reader, though a comparably poor thinker.Actually, I stopped by because this site had one of the few references to "The Clothes Have No Emperor", a vanished chronicle of the Reagan years by Paul Slansky. I've read it, but you can't--it's vanished. S'ok. Reagan's transient reputation will go the same way, and I suspect he'll eventually wind up recognized as one of the most irresponsible presidents ever elected. Must be a joke in there somewhere.
Shannon Jacobs <shanen@my-deja.com>
Kawasaki-shi, Kanagawa-ken Japan - Monday, March 12, 2001 at 06:10:30 (EST)
Ronald Reagan was ten times more of a man as president than any liberal could ever be. His policies require no "defense." This economy we enjoyed was created BY him. We defeated an evil empire because of him. Your words are dust and you know it, yet you can never admit to yourselves. Puny men can't enlarge themselves by tearing down others. They're all just piss and wind, like James "Jackass" Carville.
John Bell <drjohnbell@aol.com>
New York, NY USA - Wednesday, February 07, 2001 at 22:52:46 (EST)
This site is right on. Reagan was a political disaster.He was responsible for the massive debt our country was in,as well as countless attrocities in the third world. The idea that Reagan was responsible for the fall of the SovietUnion is a joke! Any student of Russian history would scoffat that.Though I do feel nothing but pity for what he is now going throughwith Alzheimers (which I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy), theman was a terrible politician and we are still suffering theeffects of his administration to this day.
Guinastasia <sutter@stargate.net>
USA - Monday, February 05, 2001 at 16:39:43 (EST)
Being a Norwegian growing up in Europe during the 80s, I have just one thing to say: Reagan was the greatest American president (and world leader) of our time. I think his legacy will continue to grow, and historians will realize the enormous impact this man had on not only the US, but the whole world. Unlike Clinton, Reagan is genuienly loved and adored by many people. I know of some here in Norway that only live to be able to make the trip to Mecca (The Reagan Ranch outside Santa Barbara) to show their great appreciation for this great man. "Vi vil aldri glemme the Gipper!"
Johan Kleva <Reaganomics@hotmail.com>
Eidsvoll, Norway - Saturday, January 27, 2001 at 03:53:56 (EST)
Thank you for this site. I am from Germany and while Reagan was in power I was a youngster. We, the Germans, had mixed feelings towards Ronald Reagan. While we surely felt that we needed military support in case of a Russian attack (should that ever come) we felt that Reagan was over-doing his job to a point where he was compromising world security. Other blunders than his infamous "We start bombing in five minutes" came not to our attention. I for my part thing that our re-unification came not because but despite Reagan. Okay, that were my two cents. If you understand a little bit German why not visit my page of the eighties?
Frank Schmelzer <ben_nemsi@yahoo.de>
Willich, GERMANY - Friday, January 26, 2001 at 05:29:20 (EST)
I appreciate all the comments, pro and con. I do request that comments not be written in all capitals, and make at least a moderate attempt to spell correctly.

Yet again, if there is anything in these pages that is incorrect, please bring it to my attention and it will be corrected. Since I put up this site, there have only been two corrections: one a spelling error, the other a quote that referenced a speech by Roosevelt.

And yes, I did live throught the Reagan era, as well as the Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, and Kennedy eras. I saw firsthand the environmental, economic and human damage brought about by a Democratic Congress that thought it would never be voted out of office and a Republican President who believed the business of America was business, and everything else would take care of itself.

Maybe I'm missing the "big picture", but it seems that over the last twenty years multi-national corporations have had a free reign, with little consequences to them. A minute portion of the population have become millionaires and billionaires, while the vast majority have seen their real income shrink and the concept of job security, which I grew up with, has become a joke.

Praise Reagan, Bush, or Clinton as much as you wish, and denounce the information presented in these pages, but the cold hard fact is most families must have both parents working, many are uninsured, the majority of people living below the poverty line are children, and manufacturing in the US is long since gone. Family farms are a memory, natural forests have been replaced by Poplar foresting for quick harvest, you can't drink the water in most of the country, and development has run rampant without regard for the very qualities that made areas attractive in the first place.

Is this Reagan's fault? Perhaps not, he only pointed the direction, but his appointees carried out the mission. Subsequent administrations continued the basic course set during the eighties (despite cries of Liberal, Clinton promoted a great many Republican causes when it came to business.)

However, these pages merely serve to remind those who weren't there, or weren't paying attention, of the many startling events that occured (massive unemployment, high interest, largest deficit in history, American soldiers being slaughtered in foreign countries while Reagan declared things were fine, Watts decimation of the environmental policies, the dismemberment of alternative energy, etc.)

I apologize for the length of this response. Those who adore Reagan will not wish to believe the information presented here, those who hate him will accept it without question. Both are wrong, and I leave it to you to take the time to research your opinions and make an educated determination of historical significance of the Reagan era, if it matters to you.

Again, thank you all for your comments. Please feel free to continue your discourse, as all who read this benefit from the exchange of ideas.
Your host, Russ
USA - Monday, January 15, 2001 at 15:53:07 (EST)


AFTER GOING ON A WORLD TOUR OF ALL THE THINGS THAT REAGAN DID FOR THIS COUNTRYI THOUGHT IT WOULD BE NICE TO SEE WHAT THE GREEDY SLOBSON THE OTHER END HAD TO SAY ,I DIDN'T FIND MUCH,EXCEPTTHIS PAGE . AFTER 8 YEARS OF SHIT FOR BRAINS CLINTONITS NO WONDER THERE ISNT MUCH SAID ABOUT REAGAN........REAGAN IS COOL, AND CLINTON AND HIS JACKASS PARTY SUCKS!!!! AND WHAT A RATS NEST OF A HOMEPAGE .....
kiljander <kiljander@vcn.com>
Gillette, wy USA - Saturday, January 13, 2001 at 18:28:48 (EST)
Were you actually alive during the Reagan era? Or more importantly were you alive during the Carter era? Inflation and unemployment were at their peak and by cutting taxes Reagan brought the nation out. Don't forget that there was still a Democratic (i.e. spend and tax) congress and RR couldn't spend money alone!Incidently, does a smooth talker mean that a man is a good president? Clinton should be near the top as he doesn't appear to make slipups (or the press doesn't highlight them). I.E. Trip to Italy "I am proud to walk on the ground that Romulus and Remus trod." They are mythical characters, but sympathetic press failed to report it. Maybe you should start a Clinton page? His lies and misrepresentations make Reagan's foibles seem minor.
Doc <Dr_lindsay@yahoo.com>
Beecher, wI USA! - Saturday, January 13, 2001 at 00:25:07 (EST)
I don't know which is more dangerous. You're ignorance or the other reader's blatant stupidity. Why are liberals so dumb? I know I've bypassed any meaningful commentary, but, I give up on you people. I realize that in your world nothing is sacred and their is no right and wrong, however, you could at least pick up a book and get a history lesson. If you had any idea how incredibly dumb you all sound you would never leave your homes. May God have mercy on your souls...oh I'm sorry, I didn't mean to say God in the presence of such highly enlightened humanists. Morons.
Educated
USA - Monday, January 08, 2001 at 13:48:18 (EST)
My God, look at all the morons lining up to defend Ronnie Reagan to the death. Probably blind faith from a lot of them; I bet if you asked them what the Laffer curve was they'd be totally clueless. Or they made out like bandits by not trickling down any of their income to the lower socioeconomic classes and blame their "inferiors" for not pulling themselves up out of their condition.Anyway, it looks like you might need to start a sister page -- "George W. Bush, Another Bonzo President". His penchant for saying idiotic things (such as naming his head of Housing and Human Development a couple weeks ago) rivals ol' Ronnie's.
Jamie DeVriend <jdevrien@helios.acomp.usf.edu>
Tampa, FL USA - Thursday, January 04, 2001 at 02:06:42 (EST)
Keep up the work...the sham of Rapmeister Ronnie, who I also equate with other megalomaniacs of the world, needs to be exposed. However, he was not the root cause of overpopulation...but his policies were indeed the most misguided and misinformed of the late 20th Century. Best president since FDR, says one of your detractors? COME ON! He may have been a Roosevelt Democrat in the beginning, but like the young Annakin Skywalker, he was seduced by the dark side of a force known only to him, and turned into the evil that many have seen his as.Moreover, this man thought that he was elected to the greatest role he could ever play, and he did. He acted his ass off for eight years, putting the blame on liberals and leftists as if we were non-Americans, as if we were responsible for the demise of the moral and patriotic fiber of our country's legacy. If anything, he was more responsible for the dismantiling of our nation, and he was responsible for leading this country practically into wars with other countries we had no business dealing with in the first place.Keep up your site! You are a credit to America!Now let's expose the bastard spawn of this evildoer, which currently rests in the State House in Tallahassee, and soon to come back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Kevin Scott <klscott810@yahoo.com>
Middletown, NY USA - Thursday, December 28, 2000 at 18:14:45 (EST)
The following commentary is rather long, but brings up some interesting points. Any comments on it are, of course, welcome. Please add <P> to your text when you want to end a paragraph, so that it displays correctly.

Thank you.
Your Friendly Host
USA - Thursday, December 21, 2000 at 17:51:58 (EST)


The Expansion:

The Reagan expansion began on the heels of the worse recession since the 1930's. It began in 1983 and when it came to an end in 1990, it was the longest peacetime expansion in US history. While it was followed by a very minor recession that was caused more by international economic changes than any domestic policy, America quickly returned to prosperity (well before Bill Clinton disgraced America).

America now has been expanding for 16 years with less than two years of recession, including the recession Reagan brought us out of.

The Reagan expansion between 1983-1989 grew at the rate of 3.8% while the GDP tripled in real terms. During the expansion, the stock market rose from the modest value of 777 to 3,000 even after the stock market crash in 1987. During this expansion, a third industrial revolution began (which has fueled much of the current expansion and rise in the stock market). The computer and electronic industries were able to expand and thrive thanks to Reagan's reduction in government regulation, decrease in taxes, and more open markets.

Several Silicon Valley entrepreneurs agree with this assessment, including Michael Dell and Cypress Semiconductors CEO, T.J. Rodgers. Despite these economic advances, the liberals didn't let the facts get in the way of their charges that economic disaster would occur due to Reagan's policies. As is obvious from the fact that only a minor recession succeeded the expansion, the continued low inflation, and the subsequent expansion, Reagan's economic policy hardly caused any economic meltdown. Additionally, the Reagan expansion was not a Keynesian expansion propelled by large deficits because:
A) Nominal demand decreased
B) Inflation fell and remained low throughout the decade
C) The almost equally high deficits of the early 90's did nothing to stimulate the economy, as growth was far more anemic during that period than during the Reagan boom.

A few facts:
In 1980 only 5,000 individuals had incomes of $1 million or more and there were only a handful of billionaires;
When Reagan left office there were over 35,000 millionaires and over 50 billionaires

The 90's is ostensibly a mere continuation of the 80's. It has already been established that there was less than a year of recession separating both expansions. Additionally, until 1995, the second expansion was only growing at a rate of 2.7%. In fact, most of the growth of recent year that makes the expansion look more impressive is due to the 1995 Republican tax reform bill that reduced capital gains taxes. This encouraged growth in the technology market that has been driving the economy. Even most of the growth in the stock market occurred after the Republicans took charge of Congress and thus took charge of the fiscal policy of this nation. They forced President Clinton to agree to both welfare reform and a balanced budget. Clinton's greatest success is also his greatest failure. If his national health care policy has been enacted, chances are the economy would hardly be a robust as it is today. It is the failure of this policy to be enacted that has prevented a larger portion of the economy coming under federal control. Additionally, the reduction in the deficit is due to decreases in the defense budget and increased tax revenues. In fact, the only reason why Clinton could reduce the defense budget is because Reagan was able to defeat the Soviet Union. Much of the savings in spending could have been found by eliminating wasteful social spending, anyway. In fact, it is Reagan who built an economy that is providing much of today's revenue that has allowed for budget surpluses. Also, despite Bush's and later Clinton's tax increases, the top marginal rate (now 39.5%) remains far lower than that of the 70% and 50% rates that Reagan eliminated. The economic successes of the 1990's are Reagan's and Reaganism's not President Clinton's.

Conclusion:
When Reagan took office, America's economy was in ruin, yet he never lost faith in the American people. Despite an early recession, Reagan did not retreat from his ideals. "Stay the course" was his motto, and he did so very well. Despite the attacks from the left and the media, Reagan trusted the tax cuts and reduction in government would restore the American economy. He was right. America has experienced two decades of nearly uninterrupted growth. Our national economy has become the envy of the world. While others believed only more power to the government would rectify the economic woes of the nation, Reagan believed in the American people. President Reagan knew the expansion, in truth, was not the government's or his, "it was the American people that made it possible." Reagan believed in America and our great nation proved exactly what he stated in his inaugural address, "Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem."

The Boss
NJ USA - Thursday, December 21, 2000 at 16:29:08 (EST)


Thank you for your comment Andy. True, this is not a fan site for Reagan, but once again there is the claim that comments are taken out of context or are inaccurate. Please be more specific, and I will remedy the situation.

For the record: Reagan was the leader of America at a time when greed was king, coke became available to every school kid at bargain basement prices, marijuana prices went through the roof (see the pattern?), corporate greed became the law of the land, alternative energy was ruthlessly and systematically purged, and the ecology took a definite back seat to economic concerns. This was certainly a reflection of the Reagan administration.

Despite repeated claims that Reagan was responsible for the destruction of the evil Soviet Empire, numerous records exist (for those who wish to look) that this was simply not the case. The Soviet system, bloated on it's own incompetence and hypocracy, was teetering by the end of the 70's. By tripling our deficit, Reagan probably shortened the inevitable fall by a couple of years, but at what price? Was it worth it? That is for all of us to decide, but it becomes apparent that rabid anti-communism (at any price) is still alive and well.

McCarthy would be proud of his children.

I have removed the passage referred to, regarding the FDR speech (March, 1981).
Russ
USA - Wednesday, December 06, 2000 at 01:05:07 (EST)


Sorry, I don't have much time these days so I didn't have an opportunity to review all of you page. Of course the statements and assertions are out of context and biased but there is nothing wrong with that. This is an anti-Reagan site after all, so there is no need to give a balanced picture of the Reagan years. I just hope that some of the younger people who check out your site will take the time to check out a pro-Reagan site (such as http://reagan.webteamone.com/) so they can make a more informed judgement of the Reagan years.You did make one factual mistake in about Reagan's assertion that FDR talked about quarantining the Nazis (1981). You said that that FDR said no such thing. If fact, he did in Chicago on October 5, 1937. It is even known as the "Quarantine speech." Here is part of it:"The peace, the freedom and the security of 90 per cent of the world is being jeopardized by the remaining 10 per cent who are threatening a breakdown of all international order and law....It seems unfortunately true thatthe epidemic of world lawlessness is spreading. And mark this well: When an epidemic of physical disease starts to spread, the community approves and joins in a quarantine of the patients in order to protect the health of the community against the spread of the disease."FDR did not specificly say "quarantine the Nazis" but he didn't have to. In the context of the times, everyone knew who we was talking about. I found the text of the speech by doing a Yahoo search on "quarantine speech."
Andy <andyinrok@yahoo.com>
Asan (Seoul), Korea - Wednesday, November 29, 2000 at 23:39:22 (EST)
In your comments at the end you claim a bias representation of the 80's...what non partisan organizations are you referring to?
The Gipper
USA - Friday, November 03, 2000 at 13:46:21 (EST)
Ronald Reagan had so many direct positive influences in the areas of economics, foreign matters, social matters, and cultural affairs, that we are still benefitting from his brilliance and leadership today. Why don't more liberals understand this? Probably because they don't want to hear the facts.
Lenny
Gale, WY USA - Saturday, October 07, 2000 at 23:04:06 (EDT)
I like the page and I like Ronnie. He's a good boy who just wants to be able to walk to the drugstore and buy some magazines! I wish you'd cite more sources because I need to find info. about early 1980s domestic problems and I can't use these great facts if they're not cited. Other than that, this page is great.
Devon <kittypride555@hotmail.com>
USA - Monday, September 25, 2000 at 22:07:03 (EDT)
I just can't get over all those liberals who think Reagan/Bush put this country in some kind of economic ruin. 1983 = Start of economic recovery after Carter.1990 = Democratic Budget Deal that increased spending, raised deficits, and ended successful Reaganomics. See, the truth.
Sam
Baltimore, MD USA - Monday, September 25, 2000 at 14:31:15 (EDT)
I lived through the Reagan years, they were great years. Unfortunately, I have to live through tht Clinton years of moral decay, massive illegitimacy, crumbled public schools, death of the middle class, inethical government, and collapsed inner-cities.
John
Denver, CO USA - Sunday, September 24, 2000 at 15:42:20 (EDT)
How could anyone say anything bad about a man that has an airport named after him? Ronny rules! I wish I could sleep through eight years of work and someone would name a fucking aiport after me-or better yet worship me for my TRICKLE UPON economics idea. He did manage to defeat the Sandinistas, oh wait, they left office after he did (following an election). I wish I had the cajones to be a conservative.
CS Lamont <oz29@micron.net>
Cottonwood, ID USA - Wednesday, September 20, 2000 at 00:55:32 (EDT)
I have a copy of "The Clothes Have No Emperor" by Paul Slansky somewhere around this house and am glad to see that someone has taken the time to at least get some of that book on-line. It is odd, as someone pointed out, that in defending Reagan, people have to bash Clinton. Reagan was the circus clown sent out to distract that American people from the horrible roller coaster accident in the background, to paraphrase Al Franken (who used a smilimiar analogy about Rush Limbaugh). He came out and smiled a lot, told some cute stories, made dogs out of ballons and systematiclly destroyed a good deal about what was good about this country. I'd rather have Dick Nixon for president any day over Ronnie Reagan. Heck, give me George Bush the Elder over "the Gipper." I'd suggest, however, to anyone who cannot fathom how such a man could still be worshipped by the masses, to do a search on Ronald Reagan at Google.com or lot, told some cute stories, made dogs out of ballons and systematiclly destroyed a good deal about what was good about this country. I'd rather have Dick Nixon for president any day over Ronnie Reagan. Heck, give me George Bush the Elder over "the Gipper." I'd suggest, however, to anyone who cannot fathom how such a man could still be worshipped by the masses, to do a search on Ronald Reagan at Google.com or Yahoo. It's a sad, sad statement to the country we live in that not only did we elect this man twice, but many among us still revere the idiot. (I myself could not vote for him in either election, being a child of the 80s.) --Joe H. (Harry Browne for President!)
Joseph C. Hinson <jchinson@infoave.net>
Chester, SC USA - Thursday, August 17, 2000 at 11:56:30 (EDT)
I respect your right to have this web site but whole heartedly disagree with the fact that he was a bad president. He was the only president that had the courage to show the Soviet Union that they would not have their way. Maybe his spending on defense got us into deeper debt, but better to do it deterring a nuclear war rather than trying to rebuild our country after one. There is no cost that is "too much" when it comes to protecting this great country. Thanks for letting me write.
Victoria Brooks <VictoriaBrooks@yahoo.com>
USA - Thursday, August 17, 2000 at 00:25:36 (EDT)
This web page is incredible. Keep up the good work. Hyperlinks to some of the sources would be cool.
Stephen <ghidora@netscape.net>
State College, PA USA - Wednesday, August 09, 2000 at 17:26:27 (EDT)
I lived through the Regan years, I don't understand why so many people thought Regan was so great a president. By the time he went out of office, he was so feeble minded he couldn't remember the Iran Contra deal or a lot of other things. This was obvious when he tried to speak on an impromtu basis. If he had his script he sounded good. He wanted to give millions of dollars to 3rd world countries like Nigrawags(sp} but peaople like my mother that had crippling arthritis, congestive heart failure, a leg cut off because of diabetics couldn't get diability social security. Regan was an idiot as far as I'm concerned.
J. Hall
Mo USA - Tuesday, August 01, 2000 at 00:57:40 (EDT)
After reading the comments from the people on this page, I have finally realized how idiotic our country has become. People who have read a website (which doesn’t site any sources of its accusations) take it as absolute truth and believe that Ronald Reagan was a bad President. I don’t want to bash Clinton and his Administration because that would be too easy and would take way too long. But compare Reagan and Clinton. How do countries look at us today compared to 15 years ago? Reagan they respected and feared, Clinton they think is a joke. An example, the Iran hostages were released within hours of Reagan’s inauguration speech. Why, because other world leaders feared him. They knew he would not take the empathic stance that the Carter Administration took. They knew that if you messed with America while a Republican was in office there would be a price to pay, unlike the democrats. During the Reagan administration, world leaders met our demands; during the Clinton administration we met other world leaders demands. Examples of Clinton’s inadequate foreign policy: Kosovo, Iraq, and Somalia (were our own soldier’s dead bodies were drug out into the streets and Clinton did nothing). I compare Reagan and Clinton because this website focuses on the negativity of Ronald Reagan. Well, if this website is completely unbiased of political agendas, then shouldn’t this website devote a few pages to the most investigated, most indicted administration in the history of this country; the Clinton Administration.
Randy <rkaufmarm@hotmail.com>
Milwaukee, Wi USA - Wednesday, July 26, 2000 at 23:57:47 (EDT)
True, Reagan was not the smartest President in the History of the U.S. Many said Jimmy Carter was a genius, however, and he couldnt run the country any better then the family peanut farm. Ronald Reagan was not a deep thinker, but he had strong ideas, ideals, and principles. He applied his broad views to everything. The Russians are our Enemy? Well, we had better be stronger then they are, then. Quadaffi takes credit for murdering 55 U.S Marines? Well, we better bomb his country then. Fact is, Reagan was a great President. All of his moves turned out very well for the country.His policies won the cold war, and he set the stage for the prosperity we are now experiencing. Yes, you said nothing on your site that wasnt true. But why dont you put up a site detailing the many gaffes of Presidents like John F. Kennedy or Jimmy Carter????
Matthew <Matt21355@aol.com>
Princeton, NJ USA - Tuesday, July 25, 2000 at 15:50:20 (EDT)
Hello people.This site is absolutely fascinating. I never voted for Reagan because of how he handled the Berkley situation as the governor of California. It seemed to me back then that the man was a bit of a religious zealot and that he honestly believed that the only way America could remain strong was to absolutely crush any voices that spoke out against what he believed (or, was told to believe).Yet, the most frightening thing about his political career is the simple fact that the American people consistently listened to his paranoid, accusatory, rhetoric and voted for him nearly every time his name was on the ballot.Once again, history shows that we have become a nation of self serving clods who pull the lever for anyone who "strikes a chord" with us, regardless of what they are saying.Reagan, as ill-equipped as he was to be President, nevertheless held that office for eight full years. That's not his fault. It's not the Republican's fault. It's not the Democrat's fault.It is our fault. As a nation. We are a pompous disgrace.WINJOE
Johnny Winjoe <johnnywinjoe@yahoo.com>
Chicago, IL USA - Saturday, July 22, 2000 at 22:47:57 (EDT)
I was just a tyke in the 80s, and I was eager to learn more about Reagan and his administration. Jesus - the thing that bothers me the most is the outright lying to the American people. I can't believe how quick people are to badmouth Clinton. Compared to Reagan - and Bush for that matter - Clinton's a saint. And it looks like pretty soon we'll have another Bush in the White House. Fantastic.
Jon
AZ USA - Thursday, July 20, 2000 at 22:46:45 (EDT)
Being an 80's baby, I had no idea that Reagan was such a moron. Thanks for shedding some light on the subject. No doubt my generation will look back and wonder what our parents were thinking when they elected and praised this man.
Mary <spazcadet9@hotmail.com>
Kansas City, KS USA - Wednesday, July 19, 2000 at 16:18:38 (EDT)
You can argue against Reagans rebuilding of the military all you want. But, in the end he brought Russia to its knees and broke the Berlin Wall. You can argue about Iran-Contra as well. But, a short 10 years later people still could not care less about it. You can joke about Reagan being old and an intellectual lightweight. But, in the end he won the two biggest landslide election victories in our history. Smile. George W. Bush will soon be bringing us Reagans 3rd term !
Mike B. <michael_boyer@hotmail.com>
Dornsife, PA USA - Saturday, July 15, 2000 at 17:11:19 (EDT)
I lived through the Reagan years and he was every bit the dim-bulb you describe.
Bruce G
Wausau, WI USA - Thursday, July 06, 2000 at 15:27:07 (EDT)
"Facts are troublesome things!" RR
Brain Smasher <The Fantabulous Jimmy W <tlaloc@webzone.net>
Tulsa, OK USA - Saturday, July 01, 2000 at 00:38:47 (EDT)
One of my favorite things about this page are the people who think this stuff was made up. Or that Bush or Clinton even come close to this.
Brian London
Glendale, CA USA - Tuesday, June 20, 2000 at 14:38:18 (EDT)


The irony, or should I say hypocrisy, is just too thick in some of these comments. Condemning Reagan's "mean spiritedness" while rejoicing in his affliction. Praising Clinton for his "management" of the country, when the second a gov't agency roasts some of it's own citizens (yes they were wackos, but last I checked that didn't preclude citizenship) he claims he was not in charge and is not aware of the details. Get's discovered receiving blow jobs on the job, and bombs a Sudanese aspirin factory, whose owner incidentally was a legitimate business man and is suing the United States not just for damages to his property but defamation of character. Trouble springs up over seas and the best foreign policy advisor he can produce is the worst foreign policy president in our history. But then this is the Reagan page isn't it. My apologies for getting off topic, but puleeease!
Larry <larryav8r@net66.com>
USA - Saturday, June 17, 2000 at 04:06:10 (EDT)


Great site! While I had forgotten many of the details (I spent the years of the Reagan presidency in college and the military, neither is exactly conducive to keeping up with current events), I never forgot the Reagan mean-spiritedness toward the poor, homeless, and ill, as well as the general corruption of his administration or the general disregard for both the Constitution and the safety of Americans living abroad which precipitated Iran-Contra. The current GOP's rush to canonize Reagan both perplexes and disgusts me, and I still find it beyond belief that Clinton was impeached for his indiscretions, while Reagan has completely escaped accountability for his far greater transgressions. I would rather have a President who can manage the country but not his marriage than the reverse.
Terry Falk <Falk897@cs.com>
LeRoy, NY USA - Monday, May 29, 2000 at 16:51:17 (EDT)


Oh boy, if I got started with Bush and Clinton I'd have to open up my own server! Good points, though.
Russ <russ@quickchange.com>
USA - Monday, May 01, 2000 at 23:07:48 (EDT)


This page is a neat read in that he may have been the last president with actual power since the Congre$$ is turning power over to the states. In case anyone is unaware, moving power to the states is moving it *away* from real people. It's a divide-and-conquer strategy: It's hard for a corporation to bully the federal govt, but states can be bullied by any mid-size corporation that wants to do it. So, more money for tax-abated land deals and less money for schools. You also have the upside of pitting one state againstanother - "sweeten our deal or we move to state x". Reagan didn't start the mess, he just put it on an exponential growth curve. Bush and Clinton have followed suit (Clinton being the smiling yuppie vampire who "feels your pain" as he creates it). I'm sure Bush or Gore will follow suit. I think both will provide fodder for a sequel to this page.
echelon <solitary@satin.cx>
Athens, OH USA - Thursday, April 27, 2000 at 19:04:09 (EDT)


Thanks, I thought that I was the only one to remember the gaffes and inanities - although they were evidence the country could still survive with an empty head of state. The more vicious rhetoric and the indifference toward the poor, lower middle class and all racial minorities of the Reagan administration I also remember. I hear people talk of President Reagan as a "great president," especially as they disparage President Clinton for his admitted shortcomings. How can so many so easily forget the indictments, the callousness and the deceit of the "Reagan Years." The great columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, Art Hoppe, once said of the Reagan presidency, "he made us comfortable again with our prejudices." Greatness should challenge and inspire others to greatness. President Clinton's actions were embarrassing, but President Reagan's legacy is shameful. However, I could bring myself to really dislike President Reagan - it would be the equivalent of disliking Charlie McCarthy and blaming him for the actions of Edgar Bergen.
Bill Crane <wcrane2@san.rr.com>
San Diego , CA USA - Wednesday, March 15, 2000 at 00:13:40 (EST)


For fairly well balanced account of Reagan's presidency, I highly recommend the PBS documentary "Reagan". While I certainly had a difficult time listening to the condescending whine of Edmund Morris, by and large I found it informative and mostly non-partisan. It had excellent interviews with many of his contemporaries such as Baker, Schultz, Gorbachev, Regan and of course "Mommy". Like him or hate him, this is a must see and beats the hell out of this Web site for veracity.
Larry <larryav8r@net66.com>
USA - Saturday, March 04, 2000 at 01:45:39 (EST)


Wherever there are quotes that appeared in a newspaper, I believe I credited the respective paper. There are other events, such as the confirmation Undersecretary Clark, that I cannot provide a specific source for. His press conferences, for example, were broadcast on all major networks, as were his state of the union addresses. Again, if there is anything here that is inaccurate or quoted out of context, I would appreciate it being brought to my attention. As far as Reagan leaving us a legacy of free speech, I will control my temper and just say that such an idea is an exaggeration of his historical importance. I post divergent views because truth is the ultimate defense. Incidentally, the "Reagan is starving the world" page is not mine, and I don't actually agree with the premise. I do believe Reagan was not a great man, and that history will not treat him kindly.
Russ <russ@quickchange.com>
USA - Friday, March 03, 2000 at 13:15:33 (EST)


Hi Russ. It would aid your cause just a bit more if you went to the trouble of citing your sources for a lot of these little soundbites you've collected. Of course citing sources is unnecessary for those who parrot your views. This would only be useful if you were making an honest attempt to make a point. I completely disagree with your characterization of the President. I think this entire page is a pretty shallow attempt to denegrate a great man. However, you got me to read it and respond - damn you :). I will admit I got a good laugh from the hyperbole of your "Ronald Reagan is starving the World" page. I suppose when he's dead and buried you'll blame him for poisoning ground water supply. In all seriousness though I applaud you for posting any and all responses to your views. Your page is actually a tribute to Reagan's successful crusade against totalitarianism and Soviet repression because you openly post divergent views.
Larry <larryav8r@net66.com>
USA - Friday, March 03, 2000 at 01:21:10 (EST)


I, personally, remember reading about the "tree" stuff in the 80's, but I can't track it down. Therefore, I haven't included it here. If anyone can give the SPECIFIC reference (date, publication, etc.) I will add it to the appropriate page.
Russ <reagan@quickchange.com>
USA - Wednesday, February 23, 2000 at 16:20:22 (EST)


Your site is great! It really encaspulates an era which would be devastating to relive, though we still see some remnants of it. Also, there seems to be a "pro-Reagan" revisionist camp who stream out a bunch of empty rhetoric. And even "moderates" like John Mccain have idolized "the Gipper", without realizing the stigmatization which might result. Unfortunately, the public (or at least the voting public), is too gullible to discern that an adulation of Reagan spells trouble.I would like to suggest a link of some of Reagan's most ridiculous quotes. This should sum up the jist of your page, and provide people with a good resource (and source of humor). I couldn't find the quote (maybe I missed it and should check again), where Reagan blames air pollution on "too many trees". (I've heard refrences to it, but not the rumored quote itself.
matt
USA - Tuesday, February 22, 2000 at 23:00:21 (EST)


Lenin did go by the name Nikolai at times, fyi.
Ben <bjm119@hotmail.com>
USA - Sunday, January 30, 2000 at 23:23:39 (EST)


Ronald Reagan was the best president this country ever had. Liberal assholes like you make me sick. Everybody makes mistakes, take a look at the idiot in the White House now. At least President Reagan kept his private life under control and gave us a moral example to follow. This country needs another president like him to save us from the bleeding heart liberal dream of a "global nation".
Jerry Donaldsen
USA - Tuesday, January 25, 2000 at 18:47:13 (EST)


too bad your page only covers the presidency years. according to a recent edition of 'the socialist', in 1938 reagan applied for membership in the u.s. communist party, and was rejected on grounds that he was too dimwitted. ha!
uri strauss <uri@linguist.umass.edu>
amherst, ma USA - Tuesday, January 25, 2000 at 16:53:13 (EST)


"Facts are stupid things." a quote by a man who sent troops to where? Granada? Did we forget he exhanged weapons for hostages and then forgot about it. Reagan's lack of compassion for the mentally ill, disabled and poor have indeed come back to bite him in the ass, as the bastard now suffers from a very devastating illness. Prison guards should be changing his diapers.
Kathy <msniner@value.net>
San Jose, CA USA - Tuesday, January 18, 2000 at 07:38:37 (EST)



Reagan - The Bonzo Years