You are picking straw arguments out of context and trying to make yourself look enlightened and intelligent above where you really are. First, Reagan did not ballon the deficit or debt to GDP ratio. It happened while he was President, but as a result of things he was AGAINST and the things he WAS FOR actually prevented it from being worse. Anyone not smart enough to realize that is just on a different plane than I choose to inhabit intellectually.
The argument that I would support ballooning debt is beneath contempt and therefore you deserve whatever pepper I send your way. That is assinine, and we know what kind of people make assinine points. Again, you are actling like a little Occupy Wall Street liberal with your straw argument.
Moroever, and I will type real slow on this one because I know this one is a streeeeeettttttcccchhhhh for the liliputian mind, any loss of freedom is bad, but a slower loss of freedom is LESS BAD than a faster loss of freedom.
For those of more pedestrian IQ’s, lather, rinse, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat. It will sink in immediately.
Well at least you indirectly answered one of my questions. You do reject history. Reagan signed into law many bills which ballooned the debt-to-gdp ratio. You deny that. Saying he was really against these things, doesn’t change the fact that his signature is on them. He, as chief executive, has culpability. You cannot blame the democrats for him pushing for very high military spending. Clearly you are a Reagan worshipper. I would agree that he was one of the best presidents of the last hundred years, but that doesn’t mean I am not willing to discuss bad things like spending money you don’t have. If you want to argue that “the end justifies the means” that is a different argument, but be clear about what you are saying.
The other point you also indirectly answered by your posts to others and me. You prefer the slow loss of freedom to taking a stand for restoring good government. There are different ways to take a stand to restore good government.
1. You can vote for someone who espouses it, or preferably has a reliable record of it like Ron Paul. You clearly vehemently oppose that kind of a stand for what is right, and would rather vote for a neo-con traitor.
2. You can persuasively fight for the hearts and minds of men to embrace the ideals of good government. You would rather slander those who oppose ballooning debt.
3. You can take up actual arms and revolt. I presume you are not doing that.
It is sad that when you are losing an argument, or your icon is questioned that you just resort to name calling and false associations. Your words to me were “assinine,[twice], Occupy Wall Street Liberal, liliputian, pedestrian IQ, trying to ..look ..intelligent above where you really are, stunningly foolish, mentally handicapped”. Your words to others were “deaf and blind, your irrelevance, shallow, facile, brain dead, arrogant, out of touch with reality, sick navel gazing narcissistic, too obtuse to understand, ignorance, phony self righteous”. It is clear you are incapable of carrying on an intelligent civil debate. 350 years ago in America you would probably have been flogged for such behavior.