Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ronald Reagan would not fare well in today's political climate.
We don't know that do we? This is nothing more than your opinion. On the other hand, there is no question about what Obama is doing because we get to be part of it and see the country continue to spiral downward.
You have no idea what the heck you are talking about; none!!!!!! What about what is happening right now in our country? What about SS and medicare shortages, are you blaming this on Reagan, I guess you guys are tired of blaming Bush, so you are going to go back further. Wasn't it Johnson that decided "the Great Society" was the way to go?
Reagan was able to work both sides of the aisle, and would go to the people when he needed to: he made us proud to be Americans again. he brought the cold war to an end, holy cow, what more could he have done? How much do you remember about the days he was our leader or do you?
EVERYTHING Reagan gave the Democrats, he put on the credit card. He knew his wealthy backers would never have to pay a cent of that, it would all go onto working class people to pay for.
He was a flim flam artist, a used car salesman. He would have sold his mother to make himself look good. That is the caliber of a human being you are talking about.
LOL, Carter had more brains in his pinky finger than Reagan had in his head. He had multiple PHD's, was a PHD in Physics on top of it! Carter was bringing the economy back the right way, without putting us into massive debt. If we would have toughed it out through 4 more years with Carter's leadership this would be a much better country today.
you mean because I don't agree with your opinion of things?
all you have to do is read the thread and you will see why he sucked, besides the fore mentioned loss of the middle class, his dementia, trickle down economics, I will add his wife controlling his schedule from an astrologer's predictions. there was a great news clip where a reporter asked him what he was doing about an issue, he stumbles and his wife Nancy whispers in his ear, "all we can do "
worse than that was him ignoring the Aids epidemic, closing all the mental hospitals which is pretty much what started our homeless problems.
I have the hardest time with Reagan when he did squat after the US Marine barracks were bombed and over 300 of our young men lost their lives. no retaliation, no nothing. pitiful, shameful. you need more reasons I am sure I can come up with them.
hawk, my evaluation of this president and any candidates wanting to hold office I evaluate just fine and I do vote. perhaps it is you that needs a new pair of glasses.
Let's just say this: you are depending on what you read, did you work with him or know him personally? NOPE!!!!! I know for a fact, what you are saying, regardless of who reported it, is not true. BTW, his Alzheimer's disease was diagnosed in the mid 90s and if he had any early signs it was toward the end of his second term, not during the majority of his presidency.
I think rating any President as "better than" or "worst" is juvenile. All Presidents have accomplishments and failures.
I don't need or want any President to be put on a pedestal.
I somewhat agree with you, these ratings are very subjective, but there are certainly some Pres that are better than others. People going back a century or more ago, who were not even alive and rating a Pres is really not legit. It is all based on what most of us read.
From your article: Ronald Reagan was a duplicitous, god-fearing brute who spoke with a forked-tongue and used the rhetoric of apocalyptic imagery to instill a climate of fear and docility in America, while he and his rich henchmen exponentially increased the ranks of the nation’s “working poor.”
Yeah, that sure is a great source. So learned and well-considered. That's well researched and purely objective.
Quote:
As for the worst POTUS, scholars agree that it was Bush and you really need not be a scholar to know that.
Yes, and the "scholars" you cite rank FDR on top. What a surprise that a scholar who ranks FDR, the man who proposed making having a good job and a nice house a constitutional right, the top would rank a Republican as the worst.
Anyone who says the best President ever is the one who proposed that all you should have to do to get a high paying job and a house is to be born is an idiot of the first order. No effort required. No skills required. It's your constitutional right that once you turn 18 the government will provide you with a job and a house. You don't have to actually know anything of worth, don't have to provide any valuable service, don't have to have any marketable skills. You just get everything in life handed to on a silver platter, all provided to you at someone else's expense. That's a recipe for complete economic collapse. That is an idea that should be laughed at. Ranking its proposer as the #1 President immediately disqualifies you from being a "scholar". It puts you in the moron category.
Try to get some sources that aren't garbage next time. You hurt your own case when you give sources like this. When your sources are this utterly pathetic, it makes it look like you couldn't find anything substantive. That just weakens your case.
Using just 2 Obama years against full terms is hardly a fair comparison.
Also, using percentages is an accounting trick to make something look better than it really is.
GWB added $2.13T and 3.97T in 8 years (7.1%, 20.7% of GDP respectively), and Obama has added over $6.06T in just 4 years (18.5% of GDP) Obama is spending twice as much as Bush, and Bush was waging wars.
Using just just the first 2 Obama years against full terms is hardly a fair comparison.
Also, using percentages is an accounting trick to make something look better than it really is.
GWB added $2.13T and 3.97T in 8 years (7.1%, 20.7% of GDP respectively), and Obama has added over $6.06T in just 4 years (18.5% of GDP) Obama is spending twice as much as Bush, and Bush was waging wars.
And Bush's wars weren't in the budget until Obama restored the proper accounting, thus giving cons even more lies to use as ammunition.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
