Who Was the Greatest US Prseident?

Washington kicked royal ass.

Nixon was a great man. He gets my vote! :dance:

Roosevelt was quite a man.

i'd say teddy. jefferson comes close too.

Who Was the Greatest US Prseident?

Howard Taft :mischief:

Hey! Why isn't George W Bush in this poll?

Nixon was a great man. He gets my vote! :dance:

WTF??

Ever heard of a little thing called "Watergate?"

What about the Vietnam War?

Hey! Why isn't George W Bush in this poll?

Because George W. Bush is the worst president ever.

Ever heard of a little thing called "Watergate?"

What about the Vietnam War?

Because George W. Bush is the worst president ever.

Why ask a question if you apparently have the answer?

For the record, TR.

WTF??

Ever heard of a little thing called "Watergate?"

What about the Vietnam War?

Nixon didn't start that war.

What about the Vietnam War?

Well, I'm just surprised anyone liked it.

But hey, if you were a big fan of the Vietnam conflict, I'm sorry Nixon went and ended it for you.

Anyway, I voted Washington and explained why in the last "greatest president" thread.

Because George W. Bush is the worst president ever.

Well, He DEFINITELY isn't good, I'd say the worst one ever is Warren G. Harding. He was HORRIBLE. What president gambles money with his cabinet?:lol: :lol: Also, I think Lincoln was the best.
BUT KING KAMEHAMEHA I was DA BEST!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, He DEFINITELY isn't good, I'd say the worst one ever is Warren G. Harding. He was HORRIBLE. What president gambles money with his cabinet?:lol: :lol: Also, I think Lincoln was the best.
BUT KING KAMEHAMEHA I was DA BEST!!!!!!!!!!!

Or gambles away valuable White House art, IIRC. My vote goes to Lincoln. Initially, it would be FDR, but my view of him has dropped a little bit.

Teddy. :love:

Washington has that mystical appeal, what with being first and all. Lincon gets the whole "saving the Union" bump. FDR gets the "pulled us through the Depression and WWII" racket.

I liked Eisenhower. He balanced the budget a few times, got the Interstate Highway system rolling, and generally did a good job. He probably wasn't the best, and it wasn't a spectacular Presidency, but he was good.

Nixon had a thing for foreign policy; his domestic misadventures did him in. I never really got the admiration for TR. Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II are too recent to really consider.

Hey! Why isn't George W Bush in this poll?

He has not yet ended his last term as President...

Well, I'm just surprised anyone liked it.

But hey, if you were a big fan of the Vietnam conflict, I'm sorry Nixon went and ended it for you.

Anyway, I voted Washington and explained why in the last "greatest president" thread.


NO!!!!!
I meant that Nixon exploited his so-called "end strategy" (which he NEVER implemented) for political gain. I'm an American. How could I say the death of 1000s of us is good?????!!!!

My rankings:

1 Franklin Delano Roosevelt
2 Theodore Roosevelt
3 George Washington
4 Thomas Jefferson
5 Abraham Lincoln
6 Dwight D. Eisenhower
7 Grover Cleveland
8 Woodrew Wilson
9 John F. Kennedy
10 James K. Polk
11 James Monroe
12 Lyndon B. Johnson
13 Ronald Reagan
14 William Howard Taft
15 Andrew Jackson
16 William McKinley
17 James Madison
18 Harry S. Truman
19 John Quincy Adams
20 Richard Nixon
21 Bill Clinton
22 John Adams
23 Jimmy Carter
24 Chester A. Arthur
25 George W Bush
26 Martin Van Buren
27 George H. W. Bush
28 Calvin Coolidge
29 Rutherford B. Hayes
30 Gerald Ford
31 Ulysses S. Grant
32 Zachary Taylor
33 James A Garfield
34 Benjamin Harrison
35 John Tyler
36 Herbert Hoover
37 Millard Fillmore
38 Andrew Johnson
39 William Henry Harrison
40 Franklin Pierce
41 Warren G. Harding
42 James Buchanan

NO!!!!!
I meant that Nixon exploited his so-called "end strategy" (which he NEVER implemented) for political gain. I'm an American. How could I say the death of 1000s of us is good?????!!!!
But I'm anti-american. That's why I think 1000 dead yankees is good! ;)

taillesskangaru-

I'd rank W. Harrison significantly higher; although he did very little for the country, that's much better than the many presidents who impacted it negatively.

Swedishguy-

Putting a ";)" after a comment like that doesn't make it okay.

I meant that Nixon exploited his so-called "end strategy" (which he NEVER implemented) for political gain.

It's really pretty sad the things Nixon did for political gain, since there was really no doubt that he was the best candidate running in the years he did. While I don't think the Vietnam conflict ended well for either the USA or Vietnam, I would give Nixon much higher marks than, say, Johnson at running the thing.

But I'm anti-american. That's why I think 1000 dead yankees is good! ;)

I acknowledge here that I put inapproiate and hurtful language here. I am sorry for my actions and apologize to those offended.

REAGAN!!!! RONALD WILSON REAGAN, hero of American Capitalism, destroyer of the Soviet Union, deafeter of all that is leftist, and Saviour of the American Position as Superpower!!!!!!!

REAGAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've been reading on Teddy Roosevelt and I think he was the greatest ever.

REAGAN!!!! RONALD WILSON REAGAN, hero of American Capitalism, destroyer of the Soviet Union, deafeter of all that is leftist, and Saviour of the American Position as Superpower!!!!!!!

REAGAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Someone needs to calm down. Listen. Reagan did not defeat the Soviet Union. The economy of the Soviet Union, combined with unpopularity, defeated the Soveit Union. Your so-called "hero" of American Capitalism got us into the most debt and inflation of any president ever before him. And the "defeater" of all things leftist just made us leftists stronger. He destroyed the trust in America's government and threw us into a cynicism and ignorance that transformed in 2000 into Bush's presidency. Reagan was, undeniably, one of the worst presidents ever.

You evil, sadistic, fascist! How dare you say that to the thousands of families who lost loved ones in a stupid, pointless war!
Ach, you're right! I am naught but a evil, sadistic, fascist! How dare I say that to the thousands of families who lost their loved ones in a stupid, pointless war! Why, they might rise out of their graves and take revenge! :confused:

I still think that Nixon is the Greatest American President ever.

Your sarcasm angers me :mad: :mad:.

I was wicked angry when I said the last couple posts, but seriuosly, you shoudl not say stuff like that (especially with a ;) afetr it!!!!!!!!!!!!)

I am sorry for my inappropriate actions, Swedishguy. I didn't actually mean that. You were just expressing your view. I was wrong.

Eisenhower. He warned America about the military/industrial complex and nobody listened.

Lincoln. He had psychic powers!! :D

I like Woodrow Wilson myself.

James K. Polk. Served one term, kicked some arse, took care of business, stepped down as he said he would.

Woodrow Wilson

I'd put Wilson down toward the bottom of the list. He suffered from one major flaw. He would listen to anyone on any position but, once he made his mind up on something, that was it. He was not only convinced that every decision he made was right, but that it was the moral decision. So if somebody disagreed with Wilson, they were not only wrong but evil. And no, I am not making that up.

Plus he was racist.

Woodrow Wilson

I'd put Wilson down toward the bottom of the list. He suffered from one major flaw. He would listen to anyone on any position but, once he made his mind up on something, that was it. He was not only convinced that every decision he made was right, but that it was the moral decision. So if somebody disagreed with Wilson, they were not only wrong but evil. And no, I am not making that up.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that he didn't accomplish some very good things during his terms.

Plus he was racist.
How many people weren't racist back then?

I never really got the admiration for TR.

National park creations
Trustbusting
Pure Food and Drug Act
Meat Inspection Act
Hepburn Act
Expanded the US Navy
Helped to end the Russo-Japanese War (which brought him a Nobel Peace Prize)

Of course, I'm only selecting the good points and I may be leaving out what some may consider good points (and probably added what some might say were bad points), but those reasons elevate his standing quite a bit.

But I'm anti-american. That's why I think 1000 dead yankees is good! ;)

I can only die twice (once of the flesh and once in your heart)! I didn't know you didn't like me that much....:cry:







:p

How many people weren't racist back then?

Most of the good presidents?

He wasn't just racist, he also believed that Birth of a Nation (the KKK film) was so sad because it was so true.

How many people weren't racist back then?

Unfortunately, it was not an uncommon position, but Wilson was more so than most -- he actually went out of his way to exclude blacks from the Postal Service, for example, where before there had been no objection to their employment.

Unfortunately, it was not an uncommon position, but Wilson was more so than most -- he actually went out of his way to exclude blacks from the Postal Service, for example, where before there had been no objection to their employment.
I find it unfortunate that Wilson was such a bad racist, but that doesn't mean you can't ignore all the good things that he accomplished during his presidency.

I find it unfortunate that Wilson was such a bad racist, but that doesn't mean you can't ignore all the good things that he accomplished during his presidency.

Well, I don't rate him at the bottom or the top. I must be missing some of the better things he did for the country -- to me he was just a mediocre president.

I find it unfortunate that Wilson was such a bad racist, but that doesn't mean you can't ignore all the good things that he accomplished during his presidency.

I think it's important to make a difference between a passive racist and an active racist. An example of a passive racist, I think, would be President Lincoln. He didn't believe in equality between blacks and whites, and he would have preferred all the slaves to be freed and sent back to Africa... but his presidency accomplished more for black people than any to date.

Wilson was an active racist; to segregate the Federal government after it had been integrated is really something it would be impossible to make an excuse for. Furthermore, I'd like to hold Wilson to a higher standard since he wasn't your average common guy who didn't think much about the issues (not an insult to common guys, but contrast him with some of our 19th century presidents who had mediocre political careers beforehand and did minimal as president): he was the president of an Ivy League University. He should have known better.

Well, I don't rate him at the bottom or the top. I must be missing some of the better things he did for the country -- to me he was just a mediocre president.

You rate him higher than I do, then; a lot of things happened during his presidency that it would be hard to not have some sort of opinion on...

I'm not a huge fan of Wilson namely for WWI. I do think the Federal Reserve was a good thing, and although I'm not a huge fan of the income tax, I also think it's the least evil of necessary taxes. Although women were given the right to vote while he was in office, he opposed it to the point that women were going on hunger strikes chained to the White House gates to push the issue... can't really thank him for that.

I also think it rather dirty to champion self-determination of colonial holdings after WWI... but not for the colonies of allies.

Aside from all that, Prohibition didn't turn out that well, either.

When Wilson was selecting people to be the official delegates to the Versailles Peace Conference, he chose five. Here are Wilson's choices along with their occupations and who those choices were representing.

Woodrow Wilson - President - Himself
Robert Lansing - Secretary of State - The Executive
Henry White - Retired Ambassador - Nobody
Edward House - Consultant to Wilson - The Executive
Tasker Bliss - General - The Commander in Chief

In short, Wilson appointed himself four times. All of these people, except Bliss, were Democrats. Bliss was not a registered voter. Even though the Republicans controlled the Senate, which would have to approve any treaty, Wilson made a point of not appointing any Republicans as delegates. The Attorney General, Thomas Gregory, recommended that not one but two Republicans be delegates, and suggested several names, including Senator Elihu Root (Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee) and former President William Taft. Wilson would have none of that. Wilson despised Root, mainly because Root was one of the few men in Washington politics who was Wilson's intellectual equal [I]and[I] Root made his contempt of Wilson quite obvious. Wilson was not a good enough politician to realize that he needed Root's support to get the League of Nations passed.

Wilson was a genuine intellectual. He had a PhD in Political Science, had been President of Princeton University, and had been Governor of New Jersey. On paper, he should have been an outstanding President. However, his character flaws, which included arrogance, disdain for opponents, and absolute conviction in his own rectitude, kept him from being as good a President as he might have been.

Well, I don't rate him at the bottom or the top. I must be missing some of the better things he did for the country -- to me he was just a mediocre president.
I thought he accomplished a lot of things as president:
Income Tax
Clayton Anti Trust Act
Federal Reserve
Lower Tariff
Farm Loan Act
WWI
Woman's Suffrage(although I guess he wasn't really that supportive of it)

I also think it rather dirty to champion self-determination of colonial holdings after WWI... but not for the colonies of allies.

I don't think the allies colonies could be freed no matter what Wilson said.
Aside from all that, Prohibition didn't turn out that well, either
The Volstead Act was passed over his veto.

Reagan all the way.



I thought he accomplished a lot of things as president...WWI...

How did that help America at all? If Germany had won, Hitler would never have come to power!

How did that help America at all? If Germany had won, Hitler would never have come to power!
I don't look too kindly on another nation sinking our merchant ships.

I don't think the allies colonies could be freed no matter what Wilson said.

The Volstead Act was passed over his veto.

I couldn't remember the specifics of the 18th.

But it would have been less hypocritical to want self-determination for all, not just for those colonies whose imperial overlords lost WWI. The US wasn't going to join the League of Nations no matter what Wilson said, either, and he put an awful lot of effort into trying to get the American people to support it.

How did that help America at all? If Germany had won, Hitler would never have come to power!

That's a rather silly thing to say, and obviously one that the Allies couldn't have known at the time. Besides, there's plenty in the Versailles Treaty that one can't (or at least shouldn't) pin on Wilson himself.

I don't look too kindly on another nation sinking our merchant ships.

When they've been known to carry weapons to fight against Germany under the face of neutrality, I can't honestly say I blame the Germans for shooting at them.

Because George W. Bush is the worst president ever.

That sounds pretty biased to me.

My rankings:

1 Franklin Delano Roosevelt
2 Theodore Roosevelt
3 George Washington
4 Thomas Jefferson
5 Abraham Lincoln
6 Dwight D. Eisenhower
7 Grover Cleveland
8 Woodrew Wilson
9 John F. Kennedy
10 James K. Polk
11 James Monroe
12 Lyndon B. Johnson
13 Ronald Reagan
14 William Howard Taft
15 Andrew Jackson
16 William McKinley
17 James Madison
18 Harry S. Truman
19 John Quincy Adams
20 Richard Nixon
21 Bill Clinton
22 John Adams
23 Jimmy Carter
24 Chester A. Arthur
25 George W Bush
26 Martin Van Buren
27 George H. W. Bush
28 Calvin Coolidge
29 Rutherford B. Hayes
30 Gerald Ford
31 Ulysses S. Grant
32 Zachary Taylor
33 James A Garfield
34 Benjamin Harrison
35 John Tyler
36 Herbert Hoover
37 Millard Fillmore
38 Andrew Johnson
39 William Henry Harrison
40 Franklin Pierce
41 Warren G. Harding
42 James Buchanan

I'm curious, why is Eisenhower so high, or Gover Cleveland?

I do like that you put Clinton below Nixon.

J

And why is Bush Sr. so low, compared to Jimmy Carter or his son? Does anybody really think Bush Jr. was a better president than his daddy?

I don't look too kindly on another nation sinking our merchant ships.

*Ahem*

The citizens of the US were in favour of Germany in WWI but the government wanted to help Britain instead. Germans were the first to use gas in war but they warned of the war material ships getting sunk: they even put signs in harbours stating something like this:

!Warning!
Da Schip heer will sunk get if it leave da harbour mit da war material.
Bitte nicht onboard get unless du die wantest.


So they were warned, but ignoring those warnings resulted in the turning of the popular opinion.

And why is Bush Sr. so low, compared to Jimmy Carter or his son? Does anybody really think Bush Jr. was a better president than his daddy?
Definitely. Anyone that considers the Iraq invasion to be a good thing will likely feel that way. You may not, but such people are common.

J

Reagan all the way.

Why's that?

bush.......

REAGAN!!!! RONALD WILSON REAGAN, hero of American Capitalism, destroyer of the Soviet Union, deafeter of all that is leftist, and Saviour of the American Position as Superpower!!!!!!!

REAGAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I gotta ask what the hell these people are smoking when they say Ray-gun.

He was god awful.

I gotta ask what the hell these people are smoking when they say Ray-gun.

He was god awful.

T-34 tanks. Along with a bowl of Frosted Commie-O's. Because he single-handedly tore down the Soviet empire or.........something.

I'd put him in the middle of the pack of the 43 US presidents. That isn't too flattering, given how many awful or dying ones we had.

In no particular order, I'd have to say Washington, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Jefferson are in the running, but I don't know who would be first.

No contest. George Washington.

I'd put him in the middle of the pack of the 43 US presidents. That isn't too flattering, given how many awful or dying ones we had.


I'd put him at 39 (before Buchanan, Harding, G. W. Bush, and Nixon).

I gotta ask what the hell these people are smoking when they say Ray-gun.

He was god awful.

Thank you.
T-34 tanks. Along with a bowl of Frosted Commie-O's. Because he single-handedly tore down the Soviet empire or.........something.

I'd put him in the middle of the pack of the 43 US presidents. That isn't too flattering, given how many awful or dying ones we had.

In no particular order, I'd have to say Washington, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Jefferson are in the running, but I don't know who would be first.
Pretty much agreed:
I'd say Washington, Lincoln, or one of the Roosevelts. You know, the same ones any 5th grader would choose. It's a shame the only prez from my state sucked.:(

I gotta ask what the hell these people are smoking when they say Ray-gun.

He was god awful.

Amen to that. He might have been only second to Bush in the massive spending category.

Someone needs to calm down. Listen. Reagan did not defeat the Soviet Union. The economy of the Soviet Union, combined with unpopularity, defeated the Soveit Union. Your so-called "hero" of American Capitalism got us into the most debt and inflation of any president ever before him. And the "defeater" of all things leftist just made us leftists stronger. He destroyed the trust in America's government and threw us into a cynicism and ignorance that transformed in 2000 into Bush's presidency. Reagan was, undeniably, one of the worst presidents ever.

As I voted for Reagan, I believe I need to clarify a few things about our greatest president. First of all, he did hasten the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Soviet economy was in bad shape and had been getting worse since the death of Stalin and the relaxing of the state's control over ordinary peoples' lives. So how did Reagan do it? As you say, he used the American economy to spend enough money on weapons so that the Communists could not compete and their attempt led them to fall apart. It was American capitalism that enabled the United states to push the Soviet economy and nation to the brink. When the situation reached a certain point, the Russian people decided that they had had enough. Borrowing and spending money to do this also built up the debt and pushed inflation up, but it was so he could beat the Russians.
Yes, I wish we Republicans could stick to a small government budgets but this is not always the best course of action. People will talk about how Clinton's policies helped the American economy recover from the Cold War, but it was actually the changing global political climate brought on by Reagan that helped set the stage for this growth. As for trusting the government, the US government has proven time and time again that it does not deserve to be trusted for ANYTHING. :shake:
If you want a historical example, look at the trail of tears. The US government relocated the Cherokee nation and caused thousands of deaths. Other tribes that relocated themselves west of the Mississippi did it with almost no deaths. And American ignorance? Reagan had nothing to do with it. You can't tell people to ignore anything because if they would, they would already be ignoring you. About Bush's presidency, the people have a lower opinion about the Democratically controlled Congress.

About Bush's presidency, the people have a lower opinion about the Democratically controlled Congress.

Hey. "The people" voted for George Bush.

Ronald Reagan made us hate the government, making us vote for stupid leaders and not pay attention to politics, thus being ignorant about world affairs. A lot of my friends don't even read the newspaper because they think politics is "stressful." That "stress" is something I blame on Reagan. Hey molded the neoconservative warmongering movement that is now threatening our American ideals, freedoms, and values. That is why I think Reagan was one of the worst presidents ever.

Reagan built up the military and aggrevated the USSR, making us go to the brink of nuclear war. Reagan did not stand for peace or freedom or equality, our American values, and deceived the populace through his "skill" at acting. Reagan cared only about corporations and his own fortune. He was an actor! How would an actor have the life experiences to be president? Or the political experiences? Imagine today's actors being president. Would you trust them with all of that power?

EDIT: Sorry for the double posting...

If we want to give Reagan credit for anything directed against the Soviet Union, wouldn't we rather stick with the alliance we made with the mujahedin to fight the Soviets and the Soviet-backed government in Afghanistan? Even though that script had chapters written after the fact.

Ronald Reagan made us hate the government, making us vote for stupid leaders and not pay attention to politics, thus being ignorant about world affairs. A lot of my friends don't even read the newspaper because they think politics is "stressful." That "stress" is something I blame on Reagan. Hey molded the neoconservative warmongering movement that is now threatening our American ideals, freedoms, and values. That is why I think Reagan was one of the worst presidents ever.

Let me ask you this. If you happened to live in a democratic state where your vote had a direct influence on the direction that your country took and you hated your country's leadership, would you not take interest? I don't think many American's would sit by and be ignorant if they didn't like the government.

And if you did not think that your vote had an influence on the direction of your country, why would you trust your "democratic" government?

Imagine today's actors being president. Would you trust them with all of that power?

Hey, the democrats in California voted for Schwarzenegger.

It's a tough call between Lincoln and Washington. The Revolution and the Civil War were both close calls for the survival of the United States. If we didn't have such brilliant leaders in the White House, the world would be a lot different.

If we want to give Reagan credit for anything directed against the Soviet Union, wouldn't we rather stick with the alliance we made with the mujahedin to fight the Soviets and the Soviet-backed government in Afghanistan? Even though that script had chapters written after the fact.

Conceivably, you could also give him credit for scaring the Russians with SDI. Even if it was an unworkable defense system, by design or accident, it freaked out the Russians enough to back down in the arms race.

Lots of hate at President Reagan, which is a shame... after all the crap that had been going on before he took office, we needed someone to make us feel good about our country again.

First of all, he did hasten the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Soviet economy was in bad shape and had been getting worse since the death of Stalin and the relaxing of the state's control over ordinary peoples' lives. So how did Reagan do it? As you say, he used the American economy to spend enough money on weapons so that the Communists could not compete and their attempt led them to fall apart. It was American capitalism that enabled the United states to push the Soviet economy and nation to the brink. When the situation reached a certain point, the Russian people decided that they had had enough. Borrowing and spending money to do this also built up the debt and pushed inflation up, but it was so he could beat the Russians.

Fair enough, but his personality had a lot to do with it. The fact that both he and Gorbachev were the leaders of their respective countries at the same time made a huge difference. They were able to negotiate much better than any other US President - Soviet Premier combination during the Cold War.

And really, pushed inflation up? Carter's Administration is known for double-digit inflation (which isn't necessarily Jimmy's fault...); Reagan's is remembered for pushing it back down (although, again, that had more to do with the Fed than the White House).

Ronald Reagan made us hate the government, making us vote for stupid leaders and not pay attention to politics, thus being ignorant about world affairs. A lot of my friends don't even read the newspaper because they think politics is "stressful." That "stress" is something I blame on Reagan. Hey molded the neoconservative warmongering movement that is now threatening our American ideals, freedoms, and values.

Americans have never really loved our government, but I think we probably hated it far more in the 1960's than we ever did in the 1980's. I suppose it's fair to throw Ronnie in with those who didn't like the government (his inaugural address: "[G]overnment is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem" springs to mind), but really. And extrapolating that to "making us vote for stupid leaders" is absurd. You do what you like with your life and your vote, and I'll do what I like with mine. I'll just take responsibility for mine, thank you.

And molding an aggressive foreign policy? Really, now. Think about our past presidents, and then get back to me.

Reagan built up the military and aggrevated the USSR, making us go to the brink of nuclear war. Reagan did not stand for peace or freedom or equality, our American values, and deceived the populace through his "skill" at acting. Reagan cared only about corporations and his own fortune. He was an actor! How would an actor have the life experiences to be president? Or the political experiences? Imagine today's actors being president. Would you trust them with all of that power?

Reagan was the president of the Screen Actors Guild, so although he was an actor (and not really the best of his time, to put it lightly), his acting experience was heavy on negotiations and working with people. Without that skill, yes, he probably would have been dangerous with the nuclear arsenal. However, with that skill, he worked alongside PM Thatcher, Pope John Paul II, the Polish Solidarity movement, and even Premier Gorbachev to oppose the USSR's policy in a way that no president had been able to do before. Of course, I'm not giving Ron all the credit, but he was an important part of that.

Conceivably, you could also give him credit for scaring the Russians with SDI. Even if it was an unworkable defense system, by design or accident, it freaked out the Russians enough to back down in the arms race.

SDI was a huge factor, agreed.

Reagan built up the military and aggrevated the USSR, making us go to the brink of nuclear war. Reagan did not stand for peace or freedom or equality, our American values, and deceived the populace through his "skill" at acting. Reagan cared only about corporations and his own fortune. He was an actor! How would an actor have the life experiences to be president? Or the political experiences? Imagine today's actors being president. Would you trust them with all of that power?

EDIT: Sorry for the double posting...

Let's at least call it how it is. Reagan was Governor of California and ran for President in 1968 and 1976.

As for trusting the government, the US government has proven time and time again that it does not deserve to be trusted for ANYTHING. :shake:

If the government shouldn't be trusted at all, then why should we trust it with a large military?

If the government shouldn't be trusted at all, then why should we trust it with a large military?

We really shouldn't. A large military is a tool of despots, used to oppress the people they rule. A militia would be much better, the only problem is that they are technically inferior to a professional army. They would still need scientific research to keep up with professional armies and that needs to be dependent on the government as well.

Hey. "The people" voted for George Bush.

Yeah, 500000 votes less than Al Gore and the counting in Florida aborted (I thought he was against it?). If they had no problems with it why stop the counting?
On the another time he was the war president, you don't want to change goverment during a war in civ, do you?


We really shouldn't. A large military is a tool of despots, used to oppress the people they rule. A militia would be much better, the only problem is that they are technically inferior to a professional army. They would still need scientific research to keep up with professional armies and that needs to be dependent on the government as well.


Why? Who would attack the US? Hasn't 'nam proven that guerilla warfare is more effective than military if the people have a motivation? And if they don't have a motivation to defend their coutry then it should be free to conquer.

On the another time he was the war president, you don't want to change goverment during a war in civ, do you?
.

Good Lord, I hope you're not being serious about using a civ analogy to real life.

If we want to give Reagan credit for anything directed against the Soviet Union, wouldn't we rather stick with the alliance we made with the mujahedin to fight the Soviets and the Soviet-backed government in Afghanistan? Even though that script had chapters written after the fact.

You mean supporting Osama bin Laden?

You mean supporting Osama bin Laden?

Reagan went with the muhajiden (sp?) against the Soviet Union, thus fueling the modern jihadist movement. We gave them weapons and know-how, which they used against us 20 years later............

Reagan's aggressive foreign policy was one of the reasons that people around the world, including Al-Qaeda, for thinking America is a bully, ready to attack them at any moment. Also, the dissolutionment of the USSR make millions of Russians poor and distabilized the region. Weapons flowed out of the country, supplying to many of the post-Soviet world's most bloody conflicts, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Hezbollah, and others, to name a few.

Also, Reagan put us into a neoconservative mindset, so that equality and true democracy (instead of our current plutocracy), as well as peace, are now nearly unattainable. If Reagan had never happened, George Bush Sr. and George W. Bush would have never happened. Now, the nation is shroudded in a mistrust of non-capitalists that has never been so thick since the McCarthy era. Reagan introduced the idea of fear as a tool to obtain power into American politics, him using the Russophobia, Bush using 9/11.

Also, Reagan couldn't remember anything, wasn't eloquent in his speech, and lied about Iran-Contra.

Reagan seriously screwed up the situation of America and the world. He was the forerunner of Bushist Neoconservatism, which made the world even more unorderly and more unpeaceful, as well as being less safe from terrorist and military events.

Reagan went with the muhajiden (sp?) against the Soviet Union, thus fueling the modern jihadist movement. We gave them weapons and know-how, which they used against us 20 years later............

The story of the Cold War, really. Every Cold War president, regardless of party, aligned himself with undesirable elements who shared our hatred of the Soviet Union.

Also, the dissolutionment of the USSR make millions of Russians poor and distabilized the region.

Whoa. So you don't think we should have tried to undermine the Soviet Union? I agree that the transition to democracy was royally botched, but I sure don't miss the USSR.

I'm far from a Reagan fan or a neoconservative, but some of your criticisms just aren't fair at all.

Also, Reagan [...] wasn't eloquent in his speech [...] .

I just had to address this one.

Are you kidding? He was an excellent speaker.

I mean, your other points clearly prove that you know very little about the Cold War, as you seem to be both for it and against it... but have you actually seen any video of the guy speaking? Perhaps I'm just nostalgic since we haven't seen a president since him who spoke in such a manner, but he spoke very well.

I just had to address this one.

Are you kidding? He was an excellent speaker.

I mean, your other points clearly prove that you know very little about the Cold War, as you seem to be both for it and against it... but have you actually seen any video of the guy speaking? Perhaps I'm just nostalgic since we haven't seen a president since him who spoke in such a manner, but he spoke very well.

I'll agree with Irish here, his Time for Choosing speech was done very well.

I mean, your other points clearly prove that you know very little about the Cold War, as you seem to be both for it and against it...

I am never for war! I was simply outlining that there were both good and bad consequences from the Cold War and from its end. Some of its consequences were not being expressed. That is all.


Also, Reagan may have been a good speaker, but that was because he has speechwriters and HE WAS AN ACTOR!!! That doesn't mean he was eloquent.

I am never for war! I was simply outlining that there were both good and bad consequences from the Cold War and from its end. Some of its consequences were not being expressed. That is all.

Also, Reagan may have been a good speaker, but that was because he has speechwriters and HE WAS AN ACTOR!!! That doesn't mean he was eloquent.

What would you have proposed to do about the Soviets? Are you saying that we should have let them continue with their totalitarianistic expansion across the globe? Would you have tried to live in peace with something sworn to destroy your way of life? Would you have let them reduce you to rubble?

All long term effect of the end of the USSR are all good. There is no long term consequence that is negative. Of course if they had never existed the world would be a much better place, but we were not willing to take the necessary action to stop them at the time because of WWI.

What would you have proposed to do about the Soviets? Are you saying that we should have let them continue with their totalitarianistic expansion across the globe? Would you have tried to live in peace with something sworn to destroy your way of life? Would you have let them reduce you to rubble?


Pretty Much. :D :D :goodjob: :goodjob:

:sarcasm: Oh no! They're going to destroy our way of life with their matrioshka dolls and tasty pastries! What will I do?!!! :eek:

Turn the other cheek. If a man steals your tunic, give him your coat as well.

I am never for war! I was simply outlining that there were both good and bad consequences from the Cold War and from its end. Some of its consequences were not being expressed. That is all.

Also, Reagan may have been a good speaker, but that was because he has speechwriters and HE WAS AN ACTOR!!! That doesn't mean he was eloquent.

It is very difficult to tell what you really believe here, and I think it's probably just that since you don't like the current Administration, it is easiest for you to pin it on Reagan. Please correct me if I am mistaken in this.

You curse him for fighting the Cold War when he did it through negotiation with the Soviets instead of by large scale wars in other places. You curse him for playing the nuclear card at these negotiations when every other American president did the same... but Reagan focused on increasing defense rather than increasing offense. You curse him for the fact that the Soviet Union couldn't keep itself together. You complain that he couldn't speak well, and then you complain that of course he could speak well, it's because he was an actor! There are plenty of reasons to dislike the guy and his administration; you touched on one with Iran-Contra. But I think anything else you've brought up is a poor excuse to justify hating the man.

Of course, it's more difficult to know where you stand when you curse Nixon for the Vietnam conflict without laying the blame at Johnson's feet where it belongs. I assume your parents are Democrats?

Pretty Much. :D :D :goodjob: :goodjob:

:sarcasm: Oh no! They're going to destroy our way of life with their matrioshka dolls and tasty pastries! What will I do?!!! :eek:

Turn the other cheek. If a man steals your tunic, give him your coat as well.

Imagine this. The US and the rest of the free world do nothing to halt Soviet expansion after the end of WWII. The Communists take over the world. The basic freedoms of mankind become nonexistent under a totalitarian government. Corruption and crime become the only way to make a living. Millions of people die from starvation, millions of people are imprisoned/never seen again, millions of people live with out the basic necessities of life. Progress and production come to a standstill. The government increases its control over the people and becomes increasingly paranoid until it murders people for no reason.

Would this be your ideal world? Maybe you would get sent to the Gulags or die of starvation. Do you see anything wrong with this scenario?

How about if you stand from an outsiders perspective and look in. Would you ignore the plight of the people? Would you join in support of those oppressing them? I really want everybody to think this through because it is a big deal. I would fight to the death to protect my freedom. GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME DEATH

Imagine this. The US and the rest of the free world do nothing to halt Soviet expansion after the end of WWII. The Communists take over the world. The basic freedoms of mankind become nonexistent under a totalitarian government. Corruption and crime become the only way to make a living. Millions of people die from starvation, millions of people are imprisoned/never seen again, millions of people live with out the basic necessities of life. Progress and production come to a standstill. The government increases its control over the people and becomes increasingly paranoid until it murders people for no reason.

Would this be your ideal world? Maybe you would get sent to the Gulags or die of starvation. Do you see anything wrong with this scenario?

How about if you stand from an outsiders perspective and look in. Would you ignore the plight of the people? Would you join in support of those oppressing them? I really want everybody to think this through because it is a big deal. I would fight to the death to protect my freedom. GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME DEATH

Oh come on, half the stuff you mentioned still exists, it's just not here, and the Soviets weren't going to conquer the world anymore than any other nation has, sure they talked a big game, but they didn't fall just because of us. While I'm sure life in the USSR wasn't grand, I know for sure, from first hand accounts, it wasn't some kind of hell on Earth. People lived for 60+ under it, and for the most part they got by, and while it wasn't paradise (something I have yet to find) it wasn't as bad as things can get.
Excuse me, but the old rhetoric of Commies out to enslave us all is just getting old. While I'm not defending them, I don't think demonizing them is any better.

Oh come on, half the stuff you mentioned still exists, it's just not here, and the Soviets weren't going to conquer the world anymore than any other nation has, sure they talked a big game, but they didn't fall just because of us. While I'm sure life in the USSR wasn't grand, I know for sure, from first hand accounts, it wasn't some kind of hell on Earth. People lived for 60+ under it, and for the most part they got by, and while it wasn't paradise (something I have yet to find) it wasn't as bad as things can get.
Excuse me, but the old rhetoric of Commies out to enslave us all is just getting old. While I'm not defending them, I don't think demonizing them is any better.

And without totalitarians, they will eventually die out.
I never said the Soviets were going to conquer the world, people are smarter than that. It was a hypothetical situation.
I believe anywhere where I am not free is hell on earth, life span has nothing to do with it, and I'm sure things could have been worse.
And I'm not trying to simply demonize Communism, I'm pointing out everything that is wrong about it and trying to attack it on a logical basis, nothing in it makes any sense whatsoever.

My personal favorites:
Goerge Washington: Made the union. Kept it going and set many good precedents.
Franklin Roosevelt:Elevated us to the number one superpower, ended great depression, and had a economic plan I can live with.
Andrew Jackson: Prevented south Carolina from leaving the union. Saved the union without destroying it first.
Personal not favorites:
Reagan: Started that whole massive debt thing. Reaganomics were horible corrupt.
Bush: Corrupt liar. Destroyed economy.

You mean supporting Osama bin Laden?He's one and perhaps I'll cut an inch of slack because he wasn't quite as damnable when he directed his venom at the Soviets and the Soviet Afghan government.

But let's not fall into the trap of only focusing on bin Laden. Many other mujahedin were given their starts there and perfected their training. Some went on to the Taliban, others also set up the new training camps that have been a terrible thorn in our side. Some probably went and joined the Northern Alliance, also.

Would it have been possible to fund a resistance without inviting in all these foreign jihadists? I wish I knew, but since I'm no expert on the other options available (including just letting the Soviets screw around in the country and probably lose out anyway), I can't elaborate.

I just had to address this one.

Are you kidding? He was an excellent speaker.

I mean, your other points clearly prove that you know very little about the Cold War, as you seem to be both for it and against it... but have you actually seen any video of the guy speaking? Perhaps I'm just nostalgic since we haven't seen a president since him who spoke in such a manner, but he spoke very well.

Aye, Reagan was quite a good speaker. Inspirational, even.

Jefferson Davis!

http://www.rulen.com/myths/battle.gif

Jefferson Davis!

http://www.rulen.com/myths/battle.gif

That wouldn't be the United States now would it?

Traitors should be hanged.

Jefferson Davis!

http://www.rulen.com/myths/battle.gif

It's not over yet!

And it's not traitors that should be hanged, it's tyrants.
People should even be protected from the tyranny of majority vote.

Jefferson Davis!

He wasn't by any means a spectacular president.

Traitors should be hanged.

Agreed.

Considering I'll probably become a 'traitor' some day, It should just be confederates being hung (Every time I see the flag or a bumper sticker/hat saying THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN I feel like blowing it up). That is, of course, unless you can be doing things against the gov't for the greater good of humanity and not be considered a traitor, then the 'traitors should be hung' could stand.

Traitors to whom?

Traitors to whom?

To humanity, y'know, evil peoples
Like Hitler. Or yo momma!

People should even be protected from the tyranny of majority vote.

That's just sickeningly ironic. Sickening because apparently Africans don't count as people to be protected.

That's just sickeningly ironic. Sickening because apparently Africans don't count as people to be protected.

Of course the African Americans count as people that need to be protected from majority vote. The only reason that they weren't was that they were not protected from before the foundation of our government. Traditions can have far-reaching and long term effects, and the consequences of our actions must be considered carefully, both in the long and short terms.

Don't mistake me for a supporter of slavery, I'm only a supporter of Freedom

Quite frankly, any true supporter of freedom would never support the Rebels over the Union. No right was being infringed upon in the South except their right to own slaves.

1. George W. Bush :P
2. FDR(for his actions during the war, not his political beliefs)
3. Teddy
4. JFK (For actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Space Race)
5. Ronald Regan
6. George Washington
7. Abraham Lincoln
8. Harry Truman
9. David Dwight Eisenhower
10. John Adams

1. George W. Bush :P
2. FDR(for his actions during the war, not his political beliefs)
3. Teddy
4. JFK (For actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Space Race)
5. Ronald Regan
6. George Washington
7. Abraham Lincoln
8. Harry Truman
9. David Dwight Eisenhower
10. John Adams

Great List. :goodjob: I still think Reagan was the best.

But why John Adams?

Two of our most underestimated Presidents were Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson. They both did great deeds, but they were overshadowed by the more textbook-friendly Washington and Kennedy, and that's just awful.

Two of our most underestimated Presidents were Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson. They both did great deeds, but they were overshadowed by the more textbook-friendly Washington and Kennedy, and that's just awful.

Washington did more than all three combined. Jackson I understand was a good president for his time, but Wilson and Kennedy are both way overrated by historians.

Washington's friends, the Freemasons, were plotting to take over the world by slowly gaing control of a country and nurturing is into a Superpower, so they could conquer their weak neighbors with a "democratic" Government lead completely by Freemasons! But, when Jackson defeated Adams II, the Freemasons slowly lost more and more control. And when Bush II is replaced, our fine nation will finally be free of the silver-lined stain that was placed upon it so many years ago!

Woodrow Wilson just did a good job, despite his lack of charisma.

Washington's friends, the Freemasons, were plotting to take over the world by slowly gaing control of a country and nurturing is into a Superpower, so they could conquer their weak neighbors with a "democratic" Government lead completely by Freemasons! But, when Jackson defeated Adams II, the Freemasons slowly lost more and more control. And when Bush II is replaced, our fine nation will finally be free of the silver-lined stain that was placed upon it so many years ago!

Woodrow Wilson just did a good job, despite his lack of charisma.
:eek: Are you an elfing kidding me?

Wilson did some good things, but at the same time was a huge racist and wasn't big on civil rights, but I will admit that may have been the norm back then.

I think I scared West 36. Oops.:sarcasm:

I think I scared West 36. Oops.:sarcasm:

I should have clearified.
Are you elfing kidding me? :eek: (in regards to Washington, NOT Wilson)

No, I'm not "elfing" kidding you. Our founding fathers were rich people with nothing to do but pursue World Domination. Thus, they fell in with the megalomanic Freemasons.

Wilson did some good things, but at the same time was a huge racist and wasn't big on civil rights, but I will admit that may have been the norm back then.

He was a product of his time. And a complete dreamer. Most of his ideas for world unity and peace were completely silly, even for the usual nonsense that came out of the brief pacifist period between WW1 and WW2.

I'd agree that Jackson was vastly underrated.

IIRC the United States made restitution to the American Indians to the tune of ten digits way back in the 1800's.

Jackson truly was a man of the people, and fearless. I particularly like how he handled his fellow South Carolinians when they started talking of secession. :)

No, I'm not "elfing" kidding you. Our founding fathers were rich people with nothing to do but pursue World Domination. Thus, they fell in with the megalomanic Freemasons.

I'm going to assume you're being satirical, because there's so many inconsistencies in that theory that I don't even want to start thinking about it.

Polk was also not given enough credit. He expanded the U.S. more than even Jefferson! (Texas, Oregon, Washington, California, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, Idaho)

I have already highlighted the greatness of Polk. Or maybe I have not. I feel no need to do so, everyone should find the greatness that is James K. Polk on their own.

I humbly submit Grover Cleveland's name to be critiqued.

He violently suppressed strikes and did not favor women's suffrage.

He was a hard worker, incorruptible, pure, and embodied fiscal conservatism.

Lincoln, the either Washington or FDR

I humbly submit Grover Cleveland's name to be critiqued.

He violently suppressed strikes and did not favor women's suffrage.

He was a hard worker, incorruptible, pure, and embodied fiscal conservatism.

No! Goddwynn! I though you were on the left! :cry:

Greatest: Jefferson
Worst: Lincoln (so far).

Greatest: Jefferson
Worst: Lincoln (so far).

Futher explanation?

Worst 3:

Nixon
GW Bush
Reagan

Greatest: Jefferson
Worst: Lincoln (so far).

So how is Lincoln any worse that say, harding?

If your going to say Habeas Corpas, you should read the part in the constitution that allows a president to suspend civil liberties in the case of a rebellion, which is what the situation was at the time.

Worst 3:

Nixon
GW Bush
Reagan

Well you've proven yourself as a liberal economist, so what could you say about their economic policies (and other things you want to throw in there) that made them the worst?

Futher explanation?

Lincoln attacked and occupied a sovereign nation (CSA).

Yes, but he freed the slaves.

Lincoln attacked and occupied a sovereign nation (CSA).

If you consider the Confederates sovereign and rate Lincoln as one of the worst because he attacked a sovereign state, then he's been beat out by many other presidents.

Lincoln attacked and occupied a sovereign nation (CSA).

Well, since succession from the Union is actually illegal, the south was not a sovereign nation.

The South committed treason because they refused to give up slavery.

For that alone no one should have sympathy for them.

The best would be Washington, Eisenhower, T. Roosevelt, Lincoln and McKinley.

Reagan would be in there if it weren't for the Iran-Contra Affair and the Supreme Court judges he nominated. I would put him as #6, and just to get an even ten down; after him would be Polk, FDR, Cleveland and Jefferson.

Lincoln attacked and occupied a sovereign nation (CSA).

The south was never in its history a separate nation-state. And their main cause for seceding was in support of a moral abomination. Sherman should have gone Genghis on their arses.

Well you've proven yourself as a liberal economist, so what could you say about their economic policies (and other things you want to throw in there) that made them the worst?


Supply side economics comes to mind, as does monetarism. :rolleyes:

What those 3 presidents have in common the most is the massive expansion in the power of government. Where FDR and LBJ did a lot to expand the scale and scope of government, they did so with the intention of helping and protecting people. The Republican 3 went straight for increasing the power of the Presidency in ways that would appall the Founding Fathers.

The Constitution of the United States exists to protect the People of the United States from the Government of the United States.

The brilliance of the Founding Fathers was in realizing that the greatest threat to the lives and liberty of the people is their own government, not a foreign power.

The outstanding irony is that conservatives, who keep claiming to be opposed to the expansion of the power of government are also the people who are doing the most of it.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Appalling but true is that the biggest of the big government politicians are most often conservatives.

Nixon is best know for being a liar, but Dick Cheeney and Karl Rove learned a lot about expanding the power of the executive from him. And Nixon never had a scruple from doing anything to expand his own power. Using the FBI as his private KGB is just one example.

Reagan was the ultimate triumph of ideology and charismatic leadership over over all other considerations. Reagan himself was not corrupt, but he surrounded himself with people who were. Many were corrupt for their own gain, but the ones who weren't were even worse. To Reagan, the Leader/Party/Ideology defined truth and honor. If a person was of the right Party and Ideology, and loyal to the Leader, then they inherently considered to be both honorable and right on all issues. So while Reagan himself believed in a balanced budget, he never came anywhere near one because of the people he trusted. Arthur Laffer was a lunatic, but Reagan trusted him completely. So the US got a hopelessly idiotic economic policy that guaranteed permanent budget deficits. David Stockman, as his budget director, was punished when he told the truth and rewarded when he lied. And that was the pattern for the whole Reagan Administration: Lie in a way that is consistent with the Leader/Party/Ideology, and he would back you to the ends of the earth. Tell the truth and be hounded out as a heretic.

GW Bush should be obvious to anyone who is not a hardcore Leader/Party/Ideology loyalist. Like Reagan, all his subordinates are picked for their loyalty to Leader/Party/Ideology. And all "truth" (as in Pravda) is determined not by evidence, but by Leader/Party/Ideology. If the Leader/Party/Ideology says that the sun is blue and rises in the south only every 3rd day, then all the followers must believe that or be outed as heretics. There is no Pravda in the Bush Administration that is not approved by Leader/Party/Ideology. That and the fact that Bush has done more than all the other US presidents combined to create a KGB within the US government and to use that KGB to protect and increase the power of the Leader/Party/Ideology. So even though you really can't point to a single decision that Bush has ever made that turned out to be correct, he still has a loyal base of support that is as fanatical as "true believers" anywhere.

Still, of the 3 I find Reagan to be the worst. A leader should be judged on what the value of their positive accomplishments are, what the costs of their negative accomplishments are, and whether they did much at all.

When ranking most American presidents, the truth is that few accomplished much, for good or ill. A few were in a position to do great good, and chose to do nothing. A few tried to do good, and accomplished little. Few set out to do much good and succeeded.

Reagan was not malicious. But by committing the Republican party to "supply side economics" he fundamentally committed the government as a whole to permanent fiscal recklessness and slow growth. GHW Bush followed his policies got us in even deeper of a hole. But Reagan really set the stage for GW Bush, because by the time GW was elected, the concept of complete loyalty to Leader/Party/Ideology was ingrained on the Republicans to the point where any deviation draws punishment. And "supply side economics" is so ingrained as a core part of Republic ideology that most of the Republican politicians will still tell you that "tax cuts pay for themselves" even though the overwhelming majority of the most conservative economists will tell you that every dollar of tax cut will, under the very best circumstances and with the most friendly models, still add $.86 to the debt. Once you've paid the interest on that debt for 2 years, every dollar of tax cut adds more than 1 dollar to the debt.

We've been paying interest on every single penny of the debt that Reagan ran up from the moment it happened. Not a penny of his debt has been paid off. Nor will it be until we've had a Democratic president for at least 12 years. And possibly not even then.

Worse, every single penny of benefit from "supply side" tax cuts has gone to the people in the top 10% or so of wealth. Yet the Republicans have long since started on the "don't soak the rich" and "class warfare" rhetoric in order to set the stage for the future. Someday there will be a fiscally responsible president and Congress at the same time, and when that happens the Republicans will scream about "fairness" and the insist on the tax increases being across the board, or on the middle class exclusively.

So the rich get 100% of the benefit and the middle class will be asked to pick up 100% of the cost.

And I've never seen anyone produce any evidence that of the many trillions of dollars in "supply side" tax cuts, that even one penny of it has been invested in the United States.

Reagan was a fundamentally dishonest man, but ironically he probably never even knew that. Because he was a "true believer", and once he was convinced of something, no evidence mattered except his belief. Because of that the harm he did to the United States will not be overcome for decades and exceeds the harm done to the US by any other president.

Add to that he should have been impeached for the Iran Contra treason and then executed for giving aid and comfort to the enemy and I can't see any way to dispute Reagan as the worst ever US president.

Executed? Yea, you're off your rocker. You had a coherent post until that point.

Executed? Yea, you're off your rocker. You had a coherent post until that point.

i still have some anger issues :blush: