Comments on: Putting Ronald Reagan On Our Fifty Dollar Bills

By: Greg Farber

Greg Farber — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 19:52:35 +0000

Hell, those insurance script notes don’t hardly buy nothing no more so who cares? Put em both on it.. Or put Bill with Obama on the food stamps..Because once they totally break the Middle Class of America then no one will be around to feed the poor folk because every body is gonna be poor..

The New Clinton Chronicles
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8438833120507357139#

By: jes

jes — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 18:33:01 +0000

You mean you learned what you were taught…I learned what I lived. And suffice to say, you are entitled to you “opinion”, as worthless as it is, for the age old opinions of mass “welfare” are socialist opinions worth nothing but more linage in the communist manifesto. Try preaching on the liberal agendas, they will listen and nod their heads like dashboard doggies….

I don’t buy your opinion, I lived here, I was part of that history. Where were you? In your mother’s womb?

If your “ideals” are socialist, where does that leave your opinion? Sniveling on the same swing as all the other socialists……

By: Tom Remington

Tom Remington — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:24:35 +0000

Clinton was in the White House when welfare got reformed. He fought it tooth and nail until he finally have in. And now he gets credit for it?

By: Chad

Chad — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:19:35 +0000

No I’m not a minority, and yes Clinton did do a lot, he reformed welfare and helped promote programs to help minorities. The point is that before we put Reagan on any money we should put someone a little bit better on our money. I understand that you think you saw that as the majority of the country did. The fact is that as time went by we learned more about what really happend and REagan really had very little influence on the Soviet Union.

By: jes

jes — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:17:20 +0000

Chad, if you’re black, I can understand your concern for “minorities”. But Bill Clinton did nothing for the blacks, or minorities, compared to Kennedy. Even ML King was nothing but a figurehead compared to him…But you”re way off in not knowing how Reagan brought about the downfall of not only the Berlin wall, but the stronghold of the USSR as well….maybe you should read more history than some “minority” interpretations…
I’m old enough to have been around when it was happening, and watched it firsthand…..so you want to tell me what I saw?

By: ar

ar — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:29:08 +0000

Bill Clinton the compromiser. didn’t he get a blow-job in the oval office? Or, am I mistaken? Didn’t he give away nukes to korea or something like that? He also was mentored by Jesuit Priest and Communist Richard McSorely over Georgetown way. One of the first things i read about little slick willie was he and the mrs. were familiar with the black panthers. Could that been have true? He’s in the elitest clubs of washington deceit, as we speak; that’s true.

By: Chad

Chad — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:06:46 +0000

In my opinoin the only two presidents less deserving of this honor are George W. Bush and James Buchanan. It was Reagan’s economic policies that led to the deregulation of banks that in part caused the economic collapse of September 2008. It would be a cruel irony to have the man that is in part responsible for a bad economy on any form of our money. Secondly Reagan did not bring down the wall. The Soviet Union was going to fail within five years of when the wall was brought down which happened 2 years after Reagan gave his speech. The USSR had screwed it’s economy by fighting a war it couldn’t win in Afghanistan and not investing in it’s people (sound familiar?) Reagan was also responsible for getting us involved in a meaningless military conflict in Grenada, which is usually forgotten when he is mentioned. Many people also talk about how good life was in America during Reagan’s presidency, that may be correct if you were White during the 1980′s. Reagan did absolutely nothing to help anyone who was impoverished especially minorities. For some reason people have a very twisted view of Reagan as if he was the greatest President of all time, he was not, not by a longshot and history has proven that. I’m sure some of you reading this will also talk about his landslide victory over Walter Mondale and his defeat of Jimmy Carter. These are both very simple to explain, Carter was a lame duck president and Mondale was a horrible campaigner. Does that mean Reagan was better? No it doesn’t, it just means he was a much better campaigner. I can think of only one President who truly deserves this honor that has not been featured on any of our country’s money-Bill Clinton.

By: Chad

Chad — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:02:47 +0000

By: Greg Farber

Greg Farber — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:01:29 +0000

Jimmy Stewart was the best..

By: Tom Remington

Tom Remington — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:09:50 +0000

It may be but what do the Dems have? Happy Days are here again! Only 36,000 lost their jobs. Everyone of them dodinks in Washington need to go bye-bye.