#41
- Thread starter frogs9497
- Start date
ShadowFrog
Moderators
ShadowFrog
Moderators
The Artist Formerly Known as PhormerPhrog
Full Member
My grandfather is in hospice care right now and I spent all day with him and the family as well as most of Thursday. He and my grandmother have been married almost 69 years. I must have heard her tell him she loved him a thousand times today. It's so sweet and tender to hear and see how much older people care for their loved ones when they've been married so long.
Purp
Active Member
Not sure, but definitely longer than 10 hours.
Tom Brown
Active Member
Leap Frog
Full Member
My belief is that 41 would have won against BC if not for Ross Perot taking 19% of votes.
Frostie
Active Member
No he didn't President Reagan was responsible for all that. I hate to show disrespect for the deceased, but 41 was not a great President, nor was his sorry son.
frogs9497
Full Member
While Reagan played a very large role, the dissolution of the Soviet Union occurred on 41’s watch.
Zubaz
Member
I'll take Bad History for $1,000, Alex.
Frostie
Active Member
Seriously, yes it occurred during Bush's Presidency, but Reagan was responsible for it. No historian will agree with you on this, Bush didnt do crap!
Frostie
Active Member
Reagan did 99.9999% of the work, end of story!
Zubaz
Member
Theres not a historian on this planet that would agree "Bush didn't do crap".
Seriously, look at the way Bush worked with Gorbechov in the wake of the fall of the Berlin wall, German reunification, andnthe Warsw Pact nation's revolutions. That could have gone VERY differently if not for President Bush's Master class in diplomacy. This isn't really debatable.
Tom Brown
Active Member
Master class. Shut this [ hundin] down.
Frostie
Active Member
Yes it is. Bush's success was paved by the phenomenal work Reagan did in the previous 8 years, without all of Reagan's work, Bush would just be another Jimmy Carter.
Zubaz
Member
Everyone operates on the work of their successor. Reagan deserves his credit too. These aren't mutually exclusive.
The only reason people are objecting is the ridiculous idea youve put foreard that Bush just happened to be on office when it happened, rather than the central role he played in those events.
Frostie
Active Member
Oh was I not clear, then let me be clear, Bush just happened to be in office to conclude all the great work President Reagan did in his presidency! But please keep going
Frostie
Active Member
We can go all night on this, someone dies and for two or three days everyone elevates the work they did, that is what is happening right now. I am just saying no one thinks of Bush when they think of who ended the cold war, it was the late great President Reagan and every book clearly calls him out as the catalyst.Please understand I am not disparaging President Bush, just don't like the fact that folks are trying to elevate his role in the cold war.
Zubaz
Member
Yep, still bad history. Really coming across more as Reagan fanboyism, as if Bush was just a body in office benefiting from Reagan's 8 years. It's like you think recognizing Bush's central role in navigating the issue, his foreign policy achievements and the great work he did somehow diminishes the work Reagan did. It doesn't, obviously.
Zubaz
Member
The whole "nobody thinks of Bush" is exactly why people are calling him underrated, and why not knowing his role is bad history. They should think of him and recognize what he did, and how differently (and infiniteli worse) it could have gone if he wasn't in office.
Reagan did not manage the US involvement in German reunification, that was Bush. That alone could have drastically shifted how the cold war ended. Not recognizing Bush's role in that is, as I said, bad history.
