Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever?

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

He gave away the Panama Canal.

Because it was not ours. Because we are not the police of the world and we have no business in the affairs of other nations.

[edit on 6-6-2009 by Southern Guardian]

Excuse me for saying so, but the Panama Canal WAS in fact OURS (The United States'). We labored over it, we bled for it, and we died for it, along with our assistance in establishing the Nation of Panama as a break away from Colombia in the first place. Without US (The United States), there would never exist the Nation of Panama to begin with, and there would most certainly not exist such a Canal as there has been for the past 95 Years.

As for your ABSURD ideology that we have "No business in the affairs of other Nations", how about you speak such a thing to the Thousands of dead Americans on the beaches of Normandy. Nice one

Woodrow Wilson as the worst.
He started the income tax.


00.02

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
Excuse me for saying so, but the Panama Canal WAS in fact OURS (The United States'). We labored over it

So if china took a geographic part of Florida, built a city over it and claim the territory as theirs despite not being within their geographic region, how the hell does it make it theirs?

Heres another reality check for you buddy, the United states acquired a lease from Colombia at the time on the said piece of land where the Canal sits today. It wasnt OURS, it was never OURS to begin with, we leased it for 99years and by 2003 that lease expired, ofcourse Carter ended it quicker.

No wonder there is such hatred in the middle east and parts of the americas, because we have idiotic imperialist middle americans trying to justify every piece of territory and base the US has around the world, meddling in world affairs due to our own selfish resource needs. The Panama canal isnt ours, we had no business getting involved in the Iranian revolution of 79', we had no business invading Iraq, it was a lie to begin with and for the sake of world piece we should seriously consider moving our bases from around the world.

we bled for it

So? If China came here, chased everybody out of Alabama and bled to defend it as their territory, does this justify their invasion? Get off it.

As for your ABSURD ideology that we have "No business in the affairs of other Nations", how about you speak such a thing to the Thousands of dead Americans on the beaches of Normandy.

Absurd? since when did we become the police of the world? What justifies us to invade Iraq because we thought they had WMDs and yet North Korea blatantly testing one and we aint there? What justifies us to choose which country to liberate and invade and which one not to?

How dare you use WWII as an excuse for the military industrial complex and their imperialistic agenda around the world. Dont you use those dead men and women of WWII to excuse the corporate thugs and their war of lies.

[edit on 7-6-2009 by Southern Guardian]

Originally posted by mikerussellus
Woodrow Wilson as the worst.
He started the income tax.


00.02

As much as I hate income taxes Mikerussellus, with the money spent on defense a year, half that of the entire worlds, with our bases and our heavy involvement around the world, how on earth do you expect all of that to be paid without income taxes on working americans? Your buddy here, agentnineteen, seems to justify the corporate thugs and their involvement around the world, can you tell him, and myself here, how you expect to pay that off without income tax?

My vote goes to Carter.
If he had not been such a pal with the Godfather of terrorism, aka Yasser Arafat, the world would have been a lot different now.

Don't forget, people were taken hostage while Carter was the pushover President, and were released the day Reagan took office.

I wonder what will happen with Carter II now in office?

Originally posted by Alxandro
My vote goes to Carter.
If he had not been such a pal with the Godfather of terrorism, aka Yasser Arafat, the world would have been a lot different now.

Again with the "weak on defense and foreign policy" excuse. If this is the only reason the rightwing has as to justify Carter as the worst president, compare to the conservative presidents who shot up debt and shaked the hands with prior dictators and controversial families such as the Bin Ladens then it shouldnt be suprising why idiots like bush got voted in, twice.

I know now there is no real concern about whether the man does the right job when it comes to conservatives, its whether he keeps away the "homos from our soldiers" and keeps "our imperialistic business in other nations".


[edit on 7-6-2009 by Southern Guardian]

Pardon, but the only thing conservatives want is a president and congress who will

UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION

and

SECURE OUR BORDERS

That's all we wanted under Clinton and we didn't get it.

That's all we wanted under Bush and we didn't get it.

And, seriously, that's all we want under Obama, but we probably won't get it, because this administration and partisan Democrat Congress are too busy with their MULTI-TRILLION DOLLAR socialization projects.

As Obama told Joe the Plumber: "I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."

Unfortunately, Obama didn't tell Joe that we'll need to print mo money before we spread it around, because we'll be so far in debt as a nation that Joe's grandkids will be grown and living on Mars before we see a balanced national budget again. Thanks, Barry.

I think we need to save the "Worst President" award for a few more years, because I'm pretty sure Barry Hussein is going to bring down da house with his amateur domestic policy (not to mention his catastrophic foreign policy).


— Doc Velocity




[edit on 6/7/2009 by Doc Velocity]

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Again with the "weak on defense and foreign policy" excuse.

It's a fact. He was damn weak.

If this is the only reason the rightwing has as to justify Carter as the worst president, ...

Many reasons were given. Facts were given.
You decided to reject them all.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
I think we need to save the "Worst President" award for a few more years,

Obama is already in the running, even though he's only been in 4 months.
The damage he's already caused ... unfreak'nbelievable!!
Not to mention all the lies .. the broken promises ... etc etc



[edit on 6/7/2009 by FlyersFan]

reply to post by Doc Velocity


maybe you, as a conservative, want that. But the conservative movement, as a whole, has proven time and time again that the things you listed as what you want in a president, really don't mean jack or crap to them.

Upholding the constitution was flushed down the toilet by your last president.

And securing our borders was threatened by his potential successor who was the leading advocate for giving them more incentive (amnesty) to come to this country illegally in the first place.


[edit on 7-6-2009 by Fremd]

While I disagree with his approach to Wall street and the bank bailouts, overall I think he is doing an excellent job and at a 65% approval rating it would seem most people would agree.

Since ATS members are mostly conservatives his approval is not reflected here.

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by pavil

 

Reagan or no Reagan the Soviet Union would have collapsed from its own weight. After 20+ years retrospection that should be obvious.

You didn't answer my question. Did Reagan's policies hasten the fall of the Soviet Union, yes or no?

Originally posted by grover
Since ATS members are mostly conservatives his approval is not reflected here.

Hey ya grover. I gotta' disagree. I think it's mostly very liberal.
The thing is, most of the liberals who voted for Obama are now seeing
that he's just like every other lawyer-politician. I feel bad for them
because they were really excited about him and they bought into his
rhetoric about real change ... and now they are getting a rude
awakening. Those that voted for Obama and are now unhappy with
him aren't 'conservatives' .. they are just unhappy with Obama.
That's all. IMHO.

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
Why do you think that so many tout President Clinton as a prime example of an Economically Victorious President? The answer is that President Clinton CONTINUED President Reagan's policies, minus of course the Defense/National Security aspect, and due to such he became known as enormously productive Economically speaking, while he was a miserable failure in terms of National Defense/Security. President Clinton was not a fool, and even he realized that President Reagan's policies were right on track. If that is not a stark recognition behind the validity and success of President Reagan's Administration, then I have no idea what is (Again, minus the Collapse of the Soviet Union perhaps).

I would agree, Clinton's economic polices were starkly different from Democrats proceeding him. He was basically the "Reagan Lite" brand of economic policy. Reagan started and presided over one of the longest and greatest peacetime expansions of our country. Bush Sr. lost basically because he took steps that turned in one of the mildest and shortest recessions in recent history. He probably could have taken steps to insure the recession hit after the November elections but would have resulted in a far longer and deeper recession. Clinton was basically a recipient of Bush Sr's economic decisions. Take a look at what happened after Clinton and judge if he did the same.

Say what you will, the Reagan economic expansion was pretty impressive anyway you look at it.

Read this, it might shed some light on this subject.

www.heritage.org...



[edit on 7-6-2009 by pavil]

Originally posted by Alxandro
My vote goes to Carter.
If he had not been such a pal with the Godfather of terrorism, aka Yasser Arafat, the world would have been a lot different now.

Don't forget, people were taken hostage while Carter was the pushover President, and were released the day Reagan took office.

I wonder what will happen with Carter II now in office?

Carter II

Obamas language in Cairo made RR, GB, GWB sound like wimps.
I think I would take Obamas reach in a fist fight against any of the three anyday
to boot...

RR did such, he is the modern day father of our national debt which rose 189%
during his term

12/31/1976 FORD $ 653,544,000,000 $1,825,300,000,000 35.8%
12/31/1977 CARTER $ 718,943,000,000 10% $2,030,900,000,000 35.4%
12/31/1978 CARTER $ 789,207,000,000 10% $2,294,700,000,000 34.4%
12/31/1979 CARTER $ 845,116,000,000 7% $2,563,300,000,000 33.0%
12/31/1980 CARTER $ 930,210,000,000 10% 42% 10.6% $2,789,500,000,000 33.3%
12/31/1981 REAGAN $ 1,028,729,000,000 11% $3,128,400,000,000 32.9%
12/31/1982 REAGAN $ 1,197,073,000,000 16% $3,255,000,000,000 36.8%
12/31/1983 REAGAN $ 1,410,702,000,000 18% $3,536,700,000,000 39.9%
12/31/1984 REAGAN $ 1,662,966,000,000 18% $3,933,200,000,000 42.3%
12/31/1985 REAGAN $ 1,945,912,000,000 17% $4,220,300,000,000 46.1%
12/31/1986 REAGAN $ 2,214,835,000,000 14% $4,462,800,000,000 49.6%
12/31/1987 REAGAN $ 2,431,715,000,000 10% $4,739,500,000,000 51.3%
12/31/1988 REAGAN $ 2,684,392,000,000 10% 189% 23.6% $5,103,800,000,000 52.6%


Now if he inherited a disaster like W left that might be a different story, however that is not the case.

Also Armed IRAQ - on and on

Now if you want to nominate him on persona that is fair, not on performance

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
Why do you think that so many tout President Clinton as a prime example of an Economically Victorious President? The answer is that President Clinton CONTINUED President Reagan's policies, minus of course the Defense/National Security aspect, and due to such he became known as enormously productive Economically speaking, while he was a miserable failure in terms of National Defense/Security. President Clinton was not a fool, and even he realized that President Reagan's policies were right on track. If that is not a stark recognition behind the validity and success of President Reagan's Administration, then I have no idea what is (Again, minus the Collapse of the Soviet Union perhaps).

I would agree, Clinton's economic polices were starkly different from Democrats proceeding him. He was basically the "Reagan Lite" brand of economic policy. Reagan started and presided over one of the longest and greatest peacetime expansions of our country. Bush Sr. lost basically because he took steps that turned in one of the mildest and shortest recessions in recent history. He probably could have taken steps to insure the recession hit after the November elections but would have resulted in a far longer and deeper recession. Clinton was basically a recipient of Bush Sr's economic decisions.

Say what you will, the Reagan economic expansion was pretty impressive anyway you look at it.

Read this, it might shed some light on this subject.

www.heritage.org...

Oh ya HEritage foundation

Let me dig up an MSNBC link

And two years ago everyone claimed Bush inherited this from Clinton -

So who did Obama inherit this from using that logic

Oh.... Wait ..... Carter... Or JFK???

reply to post by mental modulator


Obamas deficit increases haven't made the history books yet.
I wonder how all of that will shrink to insignificance once those numbers are added. Oh wait they may have to add a page or two just for all those Zeros.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by grover
Since ATS members are mostly conservatives his approval is not reflected here.

Hey ya grover. I gotta' disagree. I think it's mostly very liberal.
The thing is, most of the liberals who voted for Obama are now seeing
that he's just like every other lawyer-politician. I feel bad for them
because they were really excited about him and they bought into his
rhetoric about real change ... and now they are getting a rude
awakening. Those that voted for Obama and are now unhappy with
him aren't 'conservatives' .. they are just unhappy with Obama.
That's all. IMHO.

And did you feel unhappy with W???

Sure enough the writing was on the wall in 2004, sure enough the RETURN OF W!!!

Imagine Bush with three terms???In 2010 we would be exchanging wooden sheckles and guitar picks for currency.

Then 2012 we would all blame this on JFK and ELMO

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by mental modulator

 

Obamas deficit increases haven't made the history books yet.

I wonder how all of that will shrink to insignificance once those numbers are added. Oh wait they may have to add a page or two just for all those Zeros.

they will and W's TARP... Not to mention GDP has expanded many time since 1988.

You're gonna keep laughing til 2016 (or secretly crying)

The best part is the assertion that it was unprovoked

reply to post by mental modulator



Rather than cast blanket assumptions, why don't you dispute the findings in the article? Look at the big picture and tell me Reagan didn't have a good economic record and please support it with FACTS.

reply to post by mental modulator


Well I don't know Reagan pushed the whole SDI thing aka "Star Wars" Which pushed the technological envelope and behold it helped usher in the whole "IT" thing right around the world the R&D for this push came to a head in 1988 and beyond.

Obamas pushing for what? "Infrastructure" roads and highways.