An important trailblazer for abortion rights
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (13)
sorted by:
Did he appoint these judges before or after he was shot?
Reagan was shot just 2 months after being inaugurated I believe, so I'm sure they'd all have been post shooting.
Nixon was more wishy-washy. We voted for the best of the available choices. AKA the lesser evil. I would rather have had Reagan in '68.
No Reagan was not perfect, but the alternative??
No Nixon was not perfect, but the alternative??
Our problem UNTIL TRUMP is that we could only vote for the best candidate among the worst candidates. The two-party uni-party had it covered on both ends.
Reagan was better than Nixon by far. I heard him speak in '68. No you cannot call him a "trailblazer" for abortion.
He stood up for a lot. He was not perfect. But NO do NOT put President Reagan down as a bad guy. NO. He was far and far and far better than his opponent! SHEESH!
Being a registered as a part of a political party is one thing, being one of the most influential forces of abortion by actions is another.
There are many other litmus tests that Reagan failed at also:
Gun control: Firearm Owners Control Legislation in 1986 Amnesty for 3 million illegals, thus turning California from forever red to forever blue. Expansion of the Federal Government.
Reagan handled the Soviet Union nicely and rebuilt our military and returned pride in America. Other than that, it could be argued that Reagan was one of the best gifts ever given to the left.
My opinion of Reagan has changed over the years.
In my youth, saw him as a lion for bracing the commies like he did. Called them out, pushed them over the line toward their own destruction.
But now, I'm thinking Reagan was another of the usual DS doing DS stuff on command. He may not have intended such in the beginning, but the assassination attempt undid him.
In my new perspective, his push against the commies was simply because the shot-callers decided they could make more progress with a converted/perverted west than a commie consortium of countries.
NO! He and Thatcher and JP II brought down Communism and it was not a coincidence.
Yes they did. And that needed to happen for the west to survive.
But, look at where we are now. The amount of effort put into morphing us, the US and the West, into depraved degeneracy. How we're devolving into terrorstates almost as quickly as the commiescum countries did after their "revolutions".
Might it be that the powers that be decided they could do a better job without the commies than with?
I don't know. But most of what I used to take on faith, politically and world events wise of the past now just have to be constantly reviewed. Too much of what was is now known to be bogus to mindlessly accept any of it anymore.
OK but we don't need to throw Reagan under the bus! ; )
I don't know if it's "throwing under the bus", or just trying to "peer through the veil, darkly" and try to figure out the bigger picture with the new perspective/info we've gained over the last few years.
And, might also be that Reagan was who we thought he was, and just did the best that could be done in the circumstances. Just like JFK.
OH yes! Although I prefer Reagan rather than Kennedy who only won his election by the Chicago machine, who waited to report until they knew how many votes were needed to put JFK over the top.
We all KNEW this, back then! Nixon gracefully bowed out. That still wasn't enough. They still had to destroy him, for MUCH less than LBJ had done . . .
LBJ was a creepy person and a criminal in office. They did not go after him, for far worse crimes than they had to destroy Nixon for.
This double standard is not new. And they will NOT STOP until we make them stop. LBJ BRAGGED about stealing his Senate seat in the late 40s!
They have been stealing elections for more than 65 years! They laugh in our faces.