Reagan and Obama --Who would you prefer as a leader during dark times? (Ron Paul, Taliban)

[cap1717]

Obama, hands down. I would want to live in a "kinder, gentler nation". . . my recollection is that the Reagan era ushered in the commencement of poisonous bipartianship, all kinds of tax advantages for the rich, etc,while insisting that the disadvantaged "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps". . . Is'nt it time to acknowledge that trickle down economics is an absolute failure?

[GregW]

I agree with cap1717 - Ronnie Rayguns domestic and foreign policies were a disaster for everyone but the upper 5%.

[L.Funk]

Originally Posted by Sunny-Days90

Easy - Reagan.

Reagan was a leader

Obama is a follower.

You need a leader that people can trust during hard times.

Another easy one, Reagan.

Obama is not leader and no one trust him for his word.

Reagan had many accomplishments, Obama has zero.

Putting Obama in the same question is a joke.

You are putting one of the greatest President's in our history against one of the worst two ever in Obama and Carter.

Sunny-Days90 !!! ... Couldn't have said it better !

No comparison on this one ... No Indeed ...President Reagan towers "Head & Shoulder" in every leadership category when compared to little buddy HO !

America desperately needs qualified leadership in the White House, now more than ever!
Thanks / Lamar

[cleanhouse]

Originally Posted by GregW

I agree with cap1717 - Ronnie Rayguns domestic and foreign policies were a disaster for everyone but the upper 5%.

So there was no robust recovery throughout the 80s? You are a Reagan Recovery denier.

He even had unions on his side.

[GregW]

Raygun was a professional phony! He was an actor playing supreme leader and not that leader. He was as much of a leader as John Wayne was a soldier. Not much!

[Mr. Opinion]

Obama.

At least Reagan had Bi-partisanship cooperation in the time of need. Today O hears crickets when he needs a vote from the Refraudicans.

[cleanhouse]

Originally Posted by Mr. Opinion

Obama.

At least Reagan had Bi-partisanship cooperation in the time of need. Today O hears crickets when he needs a vote from the Refraudicans.

So you are knocking Reagan for his bi partisan efforts. Ok makes sense

[delusianne]

Originally Posted by cleanhouse

No, not blinded. I would say the President is there to be a leader and lift up the nation.

We have state and local governments where a more detailed approach should do the people more good.

Youre a sports fan , I look at it this way -The President should not be overly enamoured with the Xs and Os. There is just too many of them.
He should be the motivational and uplifting leader.

The Xs and Os should be for the state and local representatives and Governments.

I thought you all didnt like "the hopey changey stuff." (Ive been interpreting HCS to mean feelgood rhetoric, though if it means that the right doesnt have hope and fears change I certainly recognize that too. Better even.)

Just depends on who's delivering it, or what?

[Mr. Opinion]

Originally Posted by cleanhouse

So you are knocking Reagan for his bi partisan efforts. Ok makes sense

NO!

Dems back in the day wanted to help America.

The Refrauds today are useless.

[cleanhouse]

Originally Posted by Mr. Opinion

NO!

Dems back in the day wanted to help America.

The Refrauds today are useless.

It seems it was not only the Dems back in the day who wanted to help America. All of them seem to have had a better connection to the American people.