So, this has been happening....

[weso1]

Is there any such thing as an unbiased when talking about a politician??? You WILL notice that when anyone talks disparagingly about any Repub icon the bucket brigade WILL show up to defend them, it isn't always the same person mind you, but they will be out, usually with some prepackaged Repub talking points or a nice article from a far right website to try and discredit the disparagers (kudos to you for all original thoughts!!!) but isn't that fairly close to e behavior?? Anyway I was THE Reagan Republican back then, more hardcore than anyone on this board except for probably Vol and King and I don't know where the hell they get theirs from. You'll also notice I did say a couple of good things about him. I also remember what things were really like back then and I remember how he started (or at least oversaw) the process of a military buildup that caused the Soviet economy to implode (yeah I know there was more to it than that but I still give him a lot of credit for that) only to turn around and let the defense contractors, the savings and loan bigshots and big business in general anal rape the federal treasury for his presidency, a practice that's still going on today. He did make light of AIDS, created the concept of the welfare grandma, and did some other pretty crappy stuff. Oh and you'll notice I was a good boy this time and didn't even bring up Iran-Contra or the October Surprise.

By the way, in spite of his warts he's still more epic than any pretender Repub we've had since then.

EDIT: What second meme?

So why complain about the people who defend Reagan rather than the people who post misleading memes about Reagan? Why not make your post when libs on this board defend Obama at all costs? These centrist posts of yours ring hollow when they only lecture one side of the aisle.

But my main point on Reagan is that obviously the mistakes are there, but it's relative. You seem to agree with that.

 

[Oklahomahawk]

Shouldn't we consider the same when discussing Reagan's foreign policy decisions? Every president has blood on his hands either by action or inaction. Obama certainly has and will have blood on his hands via the middle east. But in the end I think we need to look at it from a relative sense. How did Reagan's decisions effect the US and the world compare to the decisions of other presidents? Was it truly that significant even though the blood shed existed? The US became very prosperous after Reagan and his philosophical predecessor left office in the 90's.

The mistakes of Presidents are amplified due to the magnitude of those decisions. So what were the worst decisions Reagan made and how did that impact the US in the world. Sometimes I also think we as human beings see political decisions we disagree with and assume they are mistakes.

I know this wasn't to me but I'm about to go watch TV so I thought I would throw this out first. I edited what you posted a little but not with the intent to change the meaning. I tried to keep some of both sides. I pretty much agree with what you said about Obama and Reagan. Obama gave the orders that dropped the Somali pirates and he gave the orders that got Bin Laden, big kudos for those, but other than that he has no foreign policy IMO. Reagan did some epic good things (I already noted at least some of them, with the end of the Cold War being at least partially credited to stuff he did) he also cut and run from the Middle East because he (Reagan) felt, as Sheldon said put it (about women ironically) on a past episode of Big Bang Theory, those bitches be crazy. I remember those times, I remember the headlines, the news, the other stuff and remember I was a hardcore Repub so I would have filtered out any anti Repub nonsense. Reagan was epically good in some ways, epically terrible in others. At least, I guess you could say, he was epic and not a president to bore you to death.

 

[weso1]

I know this wasn't to me but I'm about to go watch TV so I thought I would throw this out first. I edited what you posted a little but not with the intent to change the meaning. I tried to keep some of both sides. I pretty much agree with what you said about Obama and Reagan. Obama gave the orders that dropped the Somali pirates and he gave the orders that got Bin Laden, big kudos for those, but other than that he has no foreign policy IMO. Reagan did some epic good things (I already noted at least some of them, with the end of the Cold War being at least partially credited to stuff he did) he also cut and run from the Middle East because he (Reagan) felt, as Sheldon said put it (about women ironically) on a past episode of Big Bang Theory, those bitches be crazy. I remember those times, I remember the headlines, the news, the other stuff and remember I was a hardcore Repub so I would have filtered out any anti Repub nonsense. Reagan was epically good in some ways, epically terrible in others. At least, I guess you could say, he was epic and not a president to bore you to death.

I think Obama definitely has a plan on foreign policy. I think it's just a case of time will tell if it is successful. It's fun to talk about foreign policy, but it's impossible to know all the facts. I think from now on I'll just take a wait and see approach on it.

 

[The Tariff King]

I think Obama definitely has a plan on foreign policy. I think it's just a case of time will tell if it is successful. It's fun to talk about foreign policy, but it's impossible to know all the facts. I think from now on I'll just take a wait and see approach on it.

I commend you for that. That's refreshing to hear.

 

[Oklahomahawk]

So why complain about the people who defend Reagan rather than the people who post misleading memes about Reagan? Why not make your post when libs on this board defend Obama at all costs? These centrist posts of yours ring hollow when they only lecture one side of the aisle.

But my main point on Reagan is that obviously the mistakes are there, but it's relative. You seem to agree with that.

OK, help the old guy out, what exactly was misleading about the meme posted on this same page (I'm not sure about any other one if you're talking about it). Is some of the wording different than what I would have done? Yeah, somewhat, but it isn't that far off, unless we're not talking about the same things. I know being around and living through these things isn't really considered "fact based evidence" to you guys, I catch the same stuff from Bedell sometimes, you guys want to check what I say to be true/false and you can't find it on your "reliable sources". That's because it isn't there, it went the same place as the "possible evidence" O'Reilly was talking about on his show a while back regarding the JFK assassination. He wrote the book (OK somebody else wrote it but he helped!!!) and he was asked about a 2nd shooter, etc. and he said essentially he couldn't swear one way or the other but he went to Dallas and did the research and he couldn't find any such evidence. Well duh, I wonder why? It's because IF it was ever there it was eliminated 50 years ago by the Warren Commission folks, that is IF it was ever there.

As for me being a centrist, eh I"m not a centrist, I'm just an asshole who does his best to tell what he believes to be the truth, and the whole truth, not the doctored up left or right truth. I tend to think if you weigh everything in its entirety and averaged it all up I'd be somewhere in the middle but there would be some zig zagging along the way. I know you're just trying to take up for your guys and that's commendable and you want to see Obama get the same crappy treatment that your guy got and that's fine too. The fact is I don't give 2 craps about the current administration. As far as I'm concerned the Dems serve only 3 purposes in this world:
1.) They aren't the Republicans
2.) They royally piss off the Republicans
3.) Even though they claim to care about things like outsourcing, wealth inequality, the economic game being rigged, keeping the world free against aggression, and so on, they haven't done jack schidt about it for what now almost 6 years, that sucks and the only thing I can say would be worse than their utter suckiness is the current crop of Repubs who actually seem to think the rich simply aren't rich enough yet, even though the top 20% own 90% of the wealth in this country. Even if the bullschidt Repub belief that the poor are just lazy and fat (you know, the takers) and overfed (too much SNAP), the rich are just harder working, more industrious, they are the good folks, (the givers) and even though they're richer than 6 feet up a bull's arse they're really the real picked on minority in this country, which is just the BS I accused it of by the way.
In short whether you guys see it or not the Repub agenda is actively destroying the middle class in this country for their own selfish gain, the Dems are pretty much useless but at least they only passively stand by and allow it to happen more slowly.

Tell the Repubs to get their heads out of their arses and I'll think about supporting them, but they won't do that, they're sure they already have everything right and it's just the greedy poor people and those too blind to see through Obama (I mean come on, how hard can that be)??? Their arrogance is worse than it was when flipped them the bird and walked away from their TEA Party (yeah ok, pun intended) several years back. Talk radio is going to be the death of that party and quite possibly the nation. You want proof of how bad the Repubs are, Sarah Palin (who we've all spent way more time talking about lately than she deserves) is absolutely terrible and she isn't even in the top 3 big name Republican Dumas Club.

 

[Julio3000]

You consistently bring up the point that foreign policy is complicated when defending Obama. Shouldn't we consider the same when discussing Reagan's foreign policy decisions? Or do we have all the answers there? Every president has blood on his hands either by action or inaction. Obama certainly has and will have blood on his hands via the middle east. But in the end I think we need to look at it from a relative sense. How did Reagan's decisions effect the US and the world compare to the decisions of other presidents? Was it truly that significant even though the blood shed existed? The US became very prosperous after Reagan and his philosophical predecessor left office in the 90's.

The mistakes of Presidents are amplified due to the magnitude of those decisions. So what were the worst decisions Reagan made and how did that impact the US in the world. Sometimes I also think we as human beings see political decisions we disagree with and assume they are mistakes.

That's a fair point. Still, I think Iran-Contra was pretty cut-and-dried.

 

[Oklahomahawk]

I think Obama definitely has a plan on foreign policy. I think it's just a case of time will tell if it is successful. It's fun to talk about foreign policy, but it's impossible to know all the facts. I think from now on I'll just take a wait and see approach on it.

I"m sure he does, LOL. It's probably the same plan Stonewall Jackson's replacement Dick Ewell had on the first day of Gettysburg. Lee told him to take the Stonewall brigade up there to the north end of Cemetary Ridge and take that high ground as soon as it was "practicable", well Ewell went up there and fought for a little while and decided if he just waited long enough the Yankees would all just leave of their own accord and it would be a lot easier. Obama's plan is either to wait until the Russians all die or get bored and leave, or maybe he's trying to figure out if he can afford to pay them to go home. Even the German chancellor said he was batsh!t crazy (Putin) and coming from a German chancellor isn't that pretty high praise?

 

[Oklahomahawk]

So why complain about the people who defend Reagan rather than the people who post misleading memes about Reagan?

Sorry, but I did not see this sentence earlier and think it's worth addressing. I know you guys (the Repubs) don't believe me or agree with me. I get that and it's totally your right to believe that way and run with it. I agree I"m harder on you guys than I am on the Dem supporters, just I'm harder on the Repub party than I am on the Dems. I believe the Dems on this board are good folks and that they believe what the Dems tell them for all the right reasons, I just don't typically agree with a lot of those reasons. I still like them and their intentions though. When I see some of the Repub followers I just don't get why you guys can't see through the Repub crap!! I know you guys, I've known most of you for over a decade. You're smarter than that, yet you hang on and go along with their BS, I suppose for the same reason the Dems follow their people. For some reason it just bothers me more to see someone like Vol for example who is SOOOOOOOOOOOO freakin' right wing it literally makes me sick to my stomach. I don't know if you guys really know Vol but I've spent time talking to him away from this forum, we play fantasy football together and have for years so we can let the persona stuff go and just talk and I"m telling you he is a real legitimate American success story and an incredibly smart guy, in fact I'll put him up against anybody on this board, bar none, that is until he starts talking politics and then I just shake my head and don't even know what to say. He was even a big Batsh!t Glenn Beck follower for years (though he promised me he had been to rehab and wasn't any more) They don't make words to describe how that whole situation makes me feel. Maybe it's the educator in me who just can't let it go when he sees people being misled. You can literally bring up anything you've seen or heard in the news, anything that's going on in the world or even freakin' sports analogies and he's got a quip that he spits out in 3 seconds or less about how it's the Dems who effed this situation or that situation up and if the Repubs just had their way.......

Anyway, I know none of us is in any danger of saving anyone else's political soul, so thanks for letting me rant everyone, good night and I hope you guys solve all the world's problems...

 

[Oklahomahawk]

That's a fair point. Still, I think Iran-Contra was pretty cut-and-dried.

Dude, the official Repub stance on Iran-Contra is that about the first 1/2 of it didn't actually happen, it was just all a Dem lie to try and implicate "you know who" in a scandal that at least borders on treason. You're NEVER going to get them to go along with any part of that one, trust me I've been trying for over 10 years.

 

[jpx7]

Reagan is in the bottom-ten of US Presidents, in my mind, without much equivocation—though he's not quite a Grant-level ****-up.

I think either Bush has a more illustrious record—or, I should say, a less deleterious record.

 

[zitothebrave]

Reagan is in the bottom-ten of US Presidents, in my mind, without much equivocation—though he's not quite a Grant-level ****-up.

I think either Bush has a more illustrious record—or, I should say, a less deleterious record.

I could get behind Reagan being bottom 10. Mainly because of the superficial change he put on the presidency and the economic shift which has put us where we are now and who konws where in the future. I think history will not be kind to Reagan while it will be kinder to say Nixon and Bush 1.

 

[sturg33]

Reagan is in the bottom-ten of US Presidents, in my mind, without much equivocation—though he's not quite a Grant-level ****-up.

I think either Bush has a more illustrious record—or, I should say, a less deleterious record.

Where would you put someone like FDR? Who is a bottom 5 for me...

 

[Hawk]

It all depends on the criteria used to determine the top and bottom (cough) candidates.

What makes a good President? Is it his domestic policy, foreign policy, economy policy -- relationship with the citizenry, or with congress? The list goes on. And it is nigh impossible to find a President whose success is amalgamation of the aforementioned.

Liberals enjoy ****ting on Reagan because he is beloved by Conservatives.
Republicans love ****ting on Clinton because he is beloved by Liberals.

Yawn.

We can all agree that Carter is worth ****ting on, I guess. Although he was on the money about the "Crisis of Confidence" and his Energy Policy was beyond its years.

Obama, at this point in his Presidency, now has approval ratings lower than Jimmy Carter. Will we look back and applaud the ... ACA?

People think it's funny to hate on W., although he enjoyed the highest approval rating of all time (90) in 2001 (I guess the 10% who disapproved reside around these parts).

Point is, our 'approval' is rather meaningless.

 

[The Tariff King]

It all depends on the criteria used to determine the top and bottom (cough) candidates.

What makes a good President? Is it his domestic policy, foreign policy, economy policy -- relationship with the citizenry, or with congress? The list goes on. And it is nigh impossible to find a President whose success is amalgamation of the aforementioned.

Liberals enjoy ****ting on Reagan because he is beloved by Conservatives.
Republicans love ****ting on Clinton because he is beloved by Liberals.

Yawn.

We can all agree that Carter is worth ****ting on, I guess. Although he was on the money about the "Crisis of Confidence" and his Energy Policy was beyond its years.

Obama, at this point in his Presidency, now has approval ratings lower than Jimmy Carter. Will we look back and applaud the ... ACA?

People think it's funny to hate on W., although he enjoyed the highest approval rating of all time (90) in 2001 (I guess the 10% who disapproved is around these parts).

Point is, our 'approval' is rather meaningless.

His approval was after 9/11. I think most presidents would have been in and handled it similarly. After 9/11 nearly all of America was thirsty for blood. I was 11 and I was fully behind him as was my dad who is a lifelong Democrat. That was the power of fear after 9/11 the fear of going to the mall or anywhere out in public and risk having getting hurt.

Clinton left with the highest approval rating.

I think bo's rating is low in part to the huge negativity from the right. Anything he does good or bad is spun terribly. The sturg's of the world are by default not going to like anything he does.

 

[Hawk]

His approval was after 9/11. I think most presidents would have been in and handled it similarly. After 9/11 nearly all of America was thirsty for blood. I was 11 and I was fully behind him as was my dad who is a lifelong Democrat. That was the power of fear after 9/11 the fear of going to the mall or anywhere out in public and risk having getting hurt.

Clinton left with the highest approval rating.

I think bo's rating is low in part to the huge negativity from the right. Anything he does good or bad is spun terribly. The sturg's of the world are by default not going to like anything he does.

It's interesting, both Presidents Bush enjoyed higher average approval ratings than Obama has, so far, with the very distinct possibility of 44's numbers continuing to nosedive.

The 9/11 theory is worth considering, and certainly boosted Bush's approval, but I would stop short of giving the event full responsibility for his positive public opinion. FDR barely scratched 80% after the attacks on Pearl Harbor (arguably more egregious than the attacks in NYC) and Truman only reached 87% after V-E day.

 

[zitothebrave]

Where would you put someone like FDR? Who is a bottom 5 for me...

Yeah, winning WWII sure was easy.

 

[weso1]

Reagan is top ten to fifteen (top 20 at worst) for those who truly look at it from an unbiased perspective. That's a fair rating. I'd have the first Bush ranked pretty high too.

 

[zitothebrave]

Reagan is top ten to fifteen (top 20 at worst) for those who truly look at it from an unbiased perspective. That's a fair rating. I'd have the first Bush ranked pretty high too.

That's not really unbiased.

Most lists on aggregate have him around 17 or so. That's including the uber republican friendly ones. Again I think he'll come down over time.

 

[weso1]

I guess it's possible future presidents could push him down, but with all the internet snoopers out there I would be surprised. It sure aint going to be Obama unless something dramatic happens over the next couple years. So I think 10 - 20 is fair on Reagan and he'll probably stay put there for a while. Anything below 20 and you're getting into homerism territory.

 

[zitothebrave]

I hate Reagan, he's not the worst, but I think over time when we realize how terrible the movement in the economy that started in his reign was.