It was a noble attempt with good intentions, as was the efforts of the temperance movement in the early 20th century. While alcohol and heroin are not truly analogous the impacts of the scheduling of drugs in 1970 have largely shaped the drug landscape of today andd enriched the cartels like nothing else ever could. Their profits make the most lucrative of bootleggers look paltry and poor by comparison.

 

"Just Say No," DARE, and other programs like them are the "Reefer Madness" of our time. They are well intentioned but largely ineffective. In an ideal world I would be fine with full legalization across the board, however the physically addictive properties of heroin throw a monkey wrench in that idea. Partial legalization based on physical addictiveness would be the best compromise. Pure all or nothing is impractical. Just say no is as impractical as legalize it all.

I'm sure the new "it's a disease and addicts are victims", mantra of the left will work wonders...

That's fine. I'll rattle the cage. The GOP's love affair with Ronald Reagan is a fraud, considering he would have zero chance of getting elected nowadays. They keep asking for the next Ronald Reagan to unite the party, when they really don't even want him. Their votes prove this.

 

This is the biggest fallacy being pushed by the left and the media. Ronald Reagan would not only win he would win by a large amount anytime he ran.

It was a noble attempt with good intentions, as was the efforts of the temperance movement in the early 20th century. While alcohol and heroin are not truly analogous the impacts of the scheduling of drugs in 1970 have largely shaped the drug landscape of today andd enriched the cartels like nothing else ever could. Their profits make the most lucrative of bootleggers look paltry and poor by comparison.

 

"Just Say No," DARE, and other programs like them are the "Reefer Madness" of our time. They are well intentioned but largely ineffective. In an ideal world I would be fine with full legalization across the board, however the physically addictive properties of heroin throw a monkey wrench in that idea. Partial legalization based on physical addictiveness would be the best compromise. Pure all or nothing is impractical. Just say no is as impractical as legalize it all.

 

THIS

This is the biggest fallacy being pushed by the left and the media. Ronald Reagan would not only win he would win by a large amount anytime he ran.

 

Not in this day and age. Just my opinion, though.

Mrs. Reagan had many redeeming qualities. Her dedication to her husband being way up there on the list. The same husband who oversaw the slashing of a billion dollars from the school lunch program in 1981 (thankfully I was already an adult), gave 90 days to implement it; resulting in proposals (never implemented) such as ketchup and pickle relish as qualifying vegetables.

 

"Just say no" was naive and ineffective. There can be little doubt.

 

I agree, just like there's little doubt why this thread was started in the first place.

This is the biggest fallacy being pushed by the left and the media. Ronald Reagan would not only win he would win by a large amount anytime he ran.

 

I've talked to plenty of Republicans who say the same thing because of the direction their party has taken.

This is the biggest fallacy being pushed by the left and the media. Ronald Reagan would not only win he would win by a large amount anytime he ran.

 

Why? Pretty much everything now considered conservative/Republican orthodoxy was violated by Reagan at one point or another (guns, taxes, amnesty, deficit, etc., even his positive tone). A candidate like Cruz makes Reagan look like a moderate, and he was not a moderate.

"Just say no" was naive and ineffective. There can be little doubt.

 

As an elementary school student during the time the "Just Say No" campaign was rolled out, it worked for me I guess. Or maybe the credit should go to the "This is your brain; This is your brain on drugs" commercial.

Why? Pretty much everything now considered conservative/Republican orthodoxy was violated by Reagan at one point or another (guns, taxes, amnesty, deficit, etc., even his positive tone). A candidate like Cruz makes Reagan look like a moderate, and he was not a moderate.

 

Just because you say it doesn't make it true. By this logic I could make the same argument about Bill Clinton and democrats.

 

Reagan would crush Trump. Reagan is the greatest speaker of the last 100 years. He won 49 states in the Electoral College he didn't just win because of Republicans , he won because he converted Democrats.

 

Reagan is the father of the politics of Supply side economics and that wins today in the GOP .

 

The GOP just nominated Romney and McCain in back to back elections and Democrats were saying back then that Reagan couldn't get elected today.

 

It's an invalid talking point the last president who united this country.

Holy Cow, when Mrs. Obama passes away, are we going to hear as much criticism about her? Is her life in the White House going to be dissected to shreds on social media. Jeez Louize, my first reaction was "I hope so" but then I thought, hell I'm getting REAL REAL tired of this crap.

 

You bet, she has ruined school breakfast and lunch programs.

And the solution from the Left is to give addicts plenty of clean needles, safe spaces to shoot up, Narcan to nullify natural selection and of course, don't put them in jail for breaking the law. That should work out really well. I bet the drug abuse issue will be gone by the time Obama leaves office.

And the solution from the Left is to give addicts plenty of clean needles, safe spaces to shoot up, Narcan to nullify natural selection and of course, don't put them in jail for breaking the law. That should work out really well. I bet the drug abuse issue will be gone by the time Obama leaves office.

 

I think drugs should be legal and I'm also for social darwinism. If they can afford narcan great , if not use the drug at your own risk.

Just because you say it doesn't make it true. By this logic I could make the same argument about Bill Clinton and democrats.

 

Reagan would crush Trump. Reagan is the greatest speaker of the last 100 years. He won 49 states in the Electoral College he didn't just win because of Republicans , he won because he converted Democrats.

 

Reagan is the father of the politics of Supply side economics and that wins today in the GOP .

 

The GOP just nominated Romney and McCain in back to back elections and Democrats were saying back then that Reagan couldn't get elected today.

 

It's an invalid talking point the last president who united this country.

 

FDR and LBJ both won massive EC victories. I don't think either would if they were a candidate today. The national climate was far too different then to make those candidates relevant today. I would say the same thing about Reagan. The economic paralysis of the 1970s made his message resonate in a way that it wouldn't today. Though we have economic problems, they are not 1970's economic problems.

 

If there was a generic candidate on the debate stage tonight - we'll assume also a gifted speaker with a folksy, optimistic persona - who had advocated for and signed into law stricter gun control measures, who had ballooned the budget deficit as a governmental executive, who had signed a bill granting "amnesty" to undocumented immigrants, whose response to an attack on American soldiers in Lebanon was to withdraw, and who, despite lowering marginal income tax rates, also raised other taxes, you don't think this candidate would be beaten over the head about these things? There is an orthodoxy in the current Republican Party (Trump's populism not withstanding) that even Reagan didn't adhere to.

FDR and LBJ both won massive EC victories. I don't think either would if they were a candidate today. The national climate was far too different then to make those candidates relevant today. I would say the same thing about Reagan. The economic paralysis of the 1970s made his message resonate in a way that it wouldn't today. Though we have economic problems, they are not 1970's economic problems.

 

If there was a generic candidate on the debate stage tonight - we'll assume also a gifted speaker with a folksy, optimistic persona - who had advocated for and signed into law stricter gun control measures, who had ballooned the budget deficit as a governmental executive, who had signed a bill granting "amnesty" to undocumented immigrants, whose response to an attack on American soldiers in Lebanon was to withdraw, and who, despite lowering marginal income tax rates, also raised other taxes, you don't think this candidate would be beaten over the head about these things? There is an orthodoxy in the current Republican Party (Trump's populism not withstanding) that even Reagan didn't adhere to.

 

I love when people attack Reagan with half truths and without creating or stating the entire picture.

 

But we all know why Trump has risen because most the candidates on the right fear standing up to the crazy angry left that has risen in recent years.

 

Reagan was never afraid to mock opposing viewpoints and built his entire career on it both within the GOP and attacking democrats.

 

People forget how Reagan was considered a crazy outsider for years within the party. Like Ted Cruz or a Rand Paul. But over time won a majority of this country over by sticking to his principles and attacking opposing viewpoints .

 

That candidate that Ronald Reagan wins in a landslide again today. Reagan did something that no politician today can do. He convinced people who disagreed with him that they were wrong.

 

That Skill set wins in any era.