Ronald Reagan: The Greatest President Ever

This is just one of many posts that make unsubstanciated assertions that don't even deserve a response because they are so rediculously absurd. The truth about the economic boom because of the Reagan policies, as well as the increase in revenues generated by tax cuts and the resulting economic expansion and growth are well documented.

Reagan was a Captain in the US Army from 1937 to 1945.

 

I clearly stated that the Japanese Internment was the big black mark on his resume. I am not a fool, I know that is bad.

To compare him to Hitler is silly though. He didnt throw 6 million Japanese into burning ovens, try to take over the entire world by force and lead a coup of his own country.

George Washington also had peaceful protestors shot and killed who were protesting out in front of the Presidential building. They were protesting their taxes.......A big reason why Washington himself led a revolution lol.

Reagan had Iran Contra, Reagan helped fund Bin Laden and train the same soldiers we are now fighting. He also gave money and weapons to a guy named Saddam Hussein.

Truman dropped the atomic bombs.

My point is that all Presidents have to make tough decisions. The treatment of the Japanese people was HORRIBLE!! One of the worst decisions a U.S. President has ever made. With that said, I have a tattoo of FDR because he stands for economic fairness, strength, compassion, and leadership. He was a great man who rose above illness to become a legend. He had big ideas and he wasnt afraid to fight to make them a reality.



You may not agree with all of that. But dont compare him to Hitler. That is retarded.

 

I would dispute he did a ton for civil rights while acknowleging that he did order the desegregation of the military in 1948, he did not implement that order in his remaining 5 years as president, leaving that duty to his successor, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower:

Of course, being a democrat, it was tough to keep his racist party together and at the same time retain the Black vote. In fact, just attempting to appease a growing civil rights movement almost destroyed the party when the Dixiecrats left:

Further evidence that Truman's civil right agenda was purely political is the fact that he really did not have a heart felt commitment to the cause, as well as his early flirtation with Klan membership:

 

Okay, let's just make this perfectly clear...If Reagan had thrown 100,000 Americans into a concentration camp, that is the only thing we would know about Reagan. That is all we would ever hear about Reagan. For some reason, because FDR was a democrat, we are willing to overlook this historical fact.

As far as being a great man who rose above illness, he was a dictator who unlike any other president ran for not just 3 but 4 consecutive terms and won. He is our only king who died with the thrown on his head. President for life. If only the press wasn't so left wing (just as it is today) and people knew he was in such bad health, he probably would have never been reelected so many times. And if they didn't cover up for his affairs and failed marriage to Elenor he definitely wouldn't have been reelected. People of that era had very few sources of information, radio and newspapers.

While to some comparing FDR to Hitler may seem rediculous to some, I consider FDR the closest we have ever come to a Hitler like figure in American history, because of his socialist policies and racists beliefs and policies, he ruled as president with both houses of congress under his exclusive control of his political party his entire presidency which was longer that any other president. Normally that is called a dictatorship, and Hitler was also a dictator whose party had exclusive control of the government. He may not have killed 6 million, but he did not do enough to stop Hitler from doing it:

Yes, Reagan gave arms to Saddam Hussein, he was fighting our enemies the stupid Iranians who held our embassy employees for 444 days as hostages. And yes he is responsible for Iran/Contra. I am all for Iran/Contra. Congress had cut off funding for anti-communist Contras in Nigaraqua, this helped restore funding that congress had left open in a loop-hole in the law. At the same time, we got hostages freed from Lebanese terrorists supported by Iran by having arms sent to them through 3rd parties. Because Saddam had been using chemical weapons, we played both sides against each other. It was a win/win/win/win.

It is a total fallacy that has been proven to be a lie that we ever supported Bin Laden in Afganistan. We didn't. He has hated America even when we were supporting the Mujahadeen.

 

lol.....You dont really believe all of that do you?

Furthermore if you study your history, you would know that it was the Republicans who didnt want Roosevelt to get involved in WW2 until Pearl Harbor. They were non interventionist. The sentiment in the country was AGAINST joining the fight against Germany.

I dont know where you are getting your information. But it is a proven fact that the CIA gave arms, money, and training to Bin Ladens troops. Where is your source proving otherwise? A legitimate one please because I can post numerous sources that show we DID have a working relationship with Bin Laden during that time. Our aim was in stopping the Soviets. It actually worked btw. You should just own up to it.

I dont give FDR a pass on the internment camps. I openly admitted that it was a huge black mark on his presidency. I think I even called it one of the worst decisions ever made by a U.S. President. So I dont see how im giving him a pass because he is a Democrat lol. Considering the entire world was at war, the circumstances were just a LITTLE....just a bit different than if Reagan had done it in the 80's. Its not an excuse, but the world had gone mad back then.

You are comparing the Democrats controlling Congress during FDR's terms as a Dictatorship? Weren't those Congressmen elected to their office? That is QUITE the stretch that you are making there. As for FDR's many terms......Well it was perfectly legal for him to do it.

Perhaps during the toughest era in our worlds history, the American people put aside their partisan crap and elected the big boy intellectuals.....Meaning Liberals of course.

Yes the media didnt print scandalous stuff back in those days. They reported news. Failed marriages weren't important to people. Nazis trying to take over the world, and a great depression were a bit more important. Maybe our modern media (left AND right) could learn something from that. A man having an affair has nothing to do with how he does his job. And since Roosevelt was our GREATEST President ever, clearly it didnt hurt him.

Hey come to think of it, most of the great ones were having affairs. Jefferson, Clinton, Kennedy, Roosevelt......The loyal guys like the Bush's, Reagan, even Obama have all been either average or poor Presidents lol.

(That is a joke)


And I love how you just completely write off Iran Contra and our support of Sad(*)(*)(*)(*). If that had been a Democrat you clearly would be up in arms about it. You and Fox News. But since it was Reagan we will just ignore it. Perhaps if Ronald hadn't have been so intellectually shallow he could have thought ahead to how Sad(*)(*)(*)(*) would have been a problem. Instead we had to go to war with the guy twice, spend Trillions of dollars, and lose thousands of our troops to finally deal with him. Bin Laden who he funded ended up killing Thousands of Americans on our own soil.

The Russians on the other hand.......We never went to war with them. Not a single shot fired (figuratively speaking).

Its what I have always criticized Reagan for. He was good for his time. Probably the right man at that time. But most of his decisions and policies have had long term consequences. Big Business economics........Lead to our economic collapse. Period. Supporting Muslim extremists, making weapons deals with them etc etc......Obviously long term consequences.

All secondary to his biggest mistake of all.....He is more or less the father of modern Conservativsm. Spend spend spend spend spend on the military, but dont raise any money from taxes, so that the rich can by a few extra mansions and not actually use that money to hire anyone. Foreign policy? Just be a bully. Civil liberties?? Only if Jesus says its ok!!

Comparing FDR to Reagan is like comparing Jesus to a bucket of elephant poop.

One of them was a man FOR the people. The other was a man for the RICH people.

 

That wasnt a swear word. I think I misspelled Sadaam Husseins first name lol.

 

I got the title of one of my books i have at home wrong.Its actually called THE MAN WHO SOLD THE WORLD. Reagan gave away arms to El Salvadore and warlords have control of the government over there and thats because of Reagan helping them.

 

Yes.

This was true of democrats and republicans. Nobody likes going into war. Congress voted unanimously in favor of all WWII declarations of war.

I don't know where you are getting your facts from, but it is a proven fact that the US did not support Bin Laden in Afghanistan:

History give FDR a pass because he was a democrat. If Reagan was a republican president in the 1940's, that is all we would hear about.

It was legal for him to do it. It wasn't right. The democrats had amassed power and we were basically a one party country for 60 to 80 years. Yes those congressmen were elected, so were the Nazi's.

Or brainwashed into electing socialists and communists.

I think the more people understand about FDR, the more they can see he was a very flawed human being. His policies lengthened the Great Depression. There was nothing special about FDR that we needed him even for a 3rd term let alone a 4th. Any president could have done what he did in WWII.

Democrats don't support anti-communist contras, that is what got us into the Iran/Contra mess. But yeah, I believe it was a win/win/win/win situation. I've already disproved the Bin Laden crap.

So from what you've said I can conclude you have no understanding of economics, supply-side, Keynesian, or any idea of what the real economic facts are for the past 40 to 50 years. You probably don't know what the CRA is or what really caused the financial collapse of 2008.

Really? Really? Really?

 

I read some of that link. Funny stuff. Bush freed the Iranian hostages, secret deals...LOL.

 

Firstly I'm not in a courtroom and when referring to generally known events, will not impose reams and reams of sourcing on people. Secondly I don't even like Obama that much, so that's to say I don't like any of the candidates from anywhere. That Huntsman was OK but as his eyes didn't swivel and he had actually got some experience of the world, his candidacy didn't last long. It's not saying much to say that Obama is still the best candidate for the job.

Firstly, using the word "socialist" as a meaningless insult just bores me to death. It's pathetic and means nothing. Secondly, he's not my president, he's yours, unless you are actually lying about being a "patriot".

Who cares?

The USA supported a barbaric and murderous Salvadorean government whose death squads committed atrocity after atrocity including the rape and murder of Jean Donovan, Dorothy Kazel, Maura Ford and Ita Ford, missionaries and nuns, and also the barbaric killing of the conservative Archbishop Romero. The USA was on the side of evil people, and history already judges this to be so.

Firstly, Kirkpatrick was a Democrat. Secondly, the USA supported evil, murderous thugs as a result of this policy.

I think you are confused. Credit is not due to Reagan but the whole of the Western world over decades, of which the USA was the leader, over the whole period, and for much longer than just Reagan's eight years. There were many factors. Many East Germans rebelled against their leaders because of what they saw happening in West Germany. It had little to do with Reagan's speeches.

Gorbachev was a reformist. The current disaster that is Russia is due to populist corrupt tyrants controlling Russia.

Actually the collapse was more to do with economic than political repression, but you are right that the collapse was internal. But read this whole sentence. Where does the "thanks to Reagan" come from. You haven't explained at all. Communism collapsed because it didn't work. That has very little to do with Reagan. It would have collapsed anyway. Saying 'thanks to Reagan" a lot, doesn't make it so.

Even the USA has a problem with "Presidential" democracy (which is balanced by its federalist structure). It leads to elected tyrants or in the case of the USA, political stalemate. The US copes with this because it is a mature democracy and has a well developed judiciary and a strong constitution and bill of rights. Russia is not coping well with its Presidential system, and is developing as slowly as the backward tyranny it still really is. Parliamentary democracy, which is the European system, has worked out much better in other former communist countries, than the "Presidential" system has in Russia.

No, what is funny, is your seeming inability to understand the point. Let's spell it out slowly. George Washington was the first Head of State in modern times to leave office voluntarily, defying the wishes of many Americans to be crowned King. This single act defined democracy itself. Ultimately the USSR was defeated by an awareness by those governed by communism that democracy was the best system. So in that act, of passing on rule to John Adams, George Washington helped to establish a system of government that would outlast him and would eventually defeat tyranny by the power of its own ideas.

 

I won't bother going over each point by point argument since you have demonstrated that you lack any substantive knowledge about anything so to debate you is pointless. I do love the way you attempted to backpaddle out of George Washington destroyed communism comment. Ha ha.

 

Sad and pathetic. I refuted each point you made one by one. You surrender so ungraciously. Clearly you are out of your depth. At least you now understand the George Washington comment, once it was explained in kindergarten steps.

Conservatives back a lacklustre twentieth century president over the number one founding father of the USA. I think it is clear who today treasures the values of the American Revolution and who are the tea drinking, tea partying, Tories in their midst.

 

No point in arguing with you. Your comments are unsupported by facts, I know it hurts your feelings but I see no point in going on when you do not know what you are talking about.

 

Cheap insults from one who has lost the argument. Why would that hurt any feelings? Just annoyance that I let you waste my time.

It's a familiar style from the hordes of rude, ill mannered, politically illiterate conservatives who post here, thinking that political debate is just about shouting your opponents down with cliches, insults and Fox News soundbytes. It trashes the forum, but there's nothing I can do about it, so I don't worry too much.

 

I think it is wise for you not to argue with Heroclitus. You are violently overmatched and your credibility may not recover.

 

Ok, this is true.

 

When you say stuff like " USA supported evil, murderous thugs," and "Gorbachev was a reformer" without any evidence to support your assertions then what is there to debate. You are wrong and I am right? You need to back up what you say with facts, and unless you are willing to do that then it is pointless to argue with made up facts. I know you consider it ill mannered for me to tell the truth, but I was trying to let you down easy.

You obviously know less than him.

And less.

 

By the end of his term, it was generally believed Ronald Reagan was nothing more than a puppet doing the work of people behind the scenes. After it came out that he was suffering from Alzheimers, people say, "Ahhhh, now it makes sense." Now we're saying he was the greatest president EVER?

He was an actor, acting the part of president... and he did a good job.

But he was no George Washington.

 

Hero ! LOL .... I voted GW (although am late to the thread), as did my cohort above !

Clearly I think very highly of Reagan. I would rate him the best since Teddy Roosevelt. Both were very capable men who also occupied the WH at key moments that favored their talents. That timing is pretty much integral in making someone who is good to then be great.

Take GW. Had he come along 20-30 years later, he's probably just run of the mill. However, his amazing uniqueness at the time he lived made him so much more valued. He would still seem as a Godsend, after all these years, for this could be a very different country if not for him. IMMHO, no other President comes close to rating that impact.

But Jefferson ! No way !! He was a great writer. But a terrible President ! The Louisiana Purchase fell into his lap. If anything, it was Adams who took great heat for reaching out again to the French, and probably cost him the 1800 election, only to have his peace overtures prove successful after the election. Jefferson tried desperately to tar and feather Adams at every turn.

Then, if you want to credit someone for enabling the Louisiana Purchase, give it to Toussaint L'Ouverture, down in Haiti. He kicked French butt, or otherwise the French reestablish in the New World, and keep Louisiana. Napoleon offered Louisiana to the US with virtually no provocation from the US. I believe Monroe was our agent in Paris at the time, and I believe the French literally brought it up as a bit of a surprise, precisely because they had gotten their ass kicked in Haiti.

Jefferson then imposed one of the dumbest embargoes ever, thinking he could punish the British, but in essance punishing ourselves much more. He showed careless disregard for the Constitution when it suited him, particularly with illegal searches and seizures during the disastrous embargo. Jefferson truly sucked as President. Just plain awful.

He's not as bad as Obama though

 

Reagan was the worst. Set up the huge deficits, so common nowadays, with his ludicroulsy unreasonable tax cuts (28%) for the rich which caused job growth & GDP to plummet. He gave amnesty to illegal aliens. He totally screwed up on the Hezbollas/Lebabon fiasco. The Berlin wall was a stage show, where he took advantage of an already crumbling Soviet Union which overspent itself. He got lucky on that. The only thing great about him was the great acting job he did, making believe he was a good president, which some people today are still suckered into believing.

 

Heroclitus, while I am thinking of it, you would acknowledge that we have some really stupid liberals amongst us as well .....

 

Most of what Hero is talking about is common knowledge to anyone who is not driven by agenda.

As for your brilliant retort to me...rapier.

 

Oh no! Teddy Roosevelt?! What? He was a serious progressive 82, surely you realize?

 

Yes, but he was my kind of practical progressive. I am not alone in praising him either

 

I have to say, many of the names on that list would be far more at home on a worst presidents ever list. Including Barrack Obama, Ronald Reagan, and George W Bush. I also don't think Jefferson belongs on that list either, though that is more contentious. I think as a political theorist and founding father, he is rightfully liked by many. However as a practical political actor, he was not very good. So while I wouldn't rank his presidency as low as Reagan, Obama, or Bush. I certainly wouldn't put him anywhere near the top of the list either.