The Death of Ronald Reagan

So it's a now a terrible thing to be against the support of fascist dictators?

Frankly i'm surprised not letting women join the military was a better example to you of Franco's unsavoriness then shooting people in the street and torture, but I suppose we're all limited by our prejudices.

Care to show me where in my post I said it was a "better example"?

And civil rights violations may be rampant, but that doesn't make them OK, and it sure as hell doesn't mean that the US should support the dictators who perpetrate them.

 

Of course, that's exactly what I said and what I mean.

Care to show me where in my post I said it was a "better example"?

Well I took that from the fact when coming up with a list that's what was at the top of yours.

 

It's OK to support fascist dictators.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree then because you'll never convince me of that one.

Well I took that from the fact when coming up with a list that's what was at the top of yours.

I very rarely make lists in order of importance.

 

Maybe, however listing those first makes it very obvious what's important to you.

 

Of course it's important to me. Why wouldn't it be, unless I didn't care about the oppression of other women?

However, I don't think making an argument about what is and is not important to me, or arguing about how I made my list, is going to detract from the argument that Francisco Franco was a fascist dictator (that is an undisputable fact--unless you think it's OK not only to violate the rights of half the citizens of the country, force a religion and a linguistic dialect on people, but also to torture people and shoot them in the streets) and we shouldn't have been supporting him.

At least, it shouldn't detract from it--unless, of course, you would prefer to make this thread about my character rather than about Reagan and other Presidents, in which case I'll simply ask a moderator to lock it down.

 

And once agin if Support of Franco is reason enough for Eisenhower to be average then no president has deserved better.

 

Not only was Nancy married to an actor, she was an actress herself.

 

And once agin if Support of Franco is reason enough for Eisenhower to be average then no president has deserved better.

No President who supported Franco or any other dictator of his kind, I would agree. And I'll lower my rankings of the Presidents to reflect that if necessary.

 

So supporting Franco is somehow better then suspending habeus corpus? I mean sure you can justify it but frankly you aren't interested in any justification for Franco so why should anything else be different? And then obviously you admit to the Japanese american internments being wrong, FDR can only be average then. As for Washington wellfor all he manumitted his slaves he not only used them for the whole of his life, he allowed the institution to continue on in America! Certainly the allowing of this wrong to occur, a wrong that required a war to end it should justify his status as "merely average".

 

All of these guys had their faults.

FDR supported Somoza ("Somoza may be a son of a bitch, but he's OUR son of a bitch!")

Woodrow Wilson had the failed League of Nations and WWI.

Eisenhower had the overthrow of the Guatemalan government for the sake of the United Fruit Company.

Grant and Harding were hopelessly corrupt and Harding had the Teapot Dome Scandal.

I don't think we can say they were all great or all bad.

 

GREAT

1 George Washington
2 Abraham Lincoln
3 Franklin Roosevelt

No arguments against those presidents being where they are. Washington probably deserves being there for the sole purpose of the fact he WAS the trendsetter. He could have made himself king and decided not to and oversaw the entire way the country would begin to work.

NEAR GREAT

4 Thomas Jefferson

I think Jefferson is actually truly one of the 'great' presidents.

5 Theodore Roosevelt

Sure, ok.

6 Andrew Jackson

I agree with a_g. This guy was a real [insert mild explecltive here]. You're a SW fan and do you not know? Wars not make one great. Open the shute. Below average.


7 Harry Truman

Yeah, precisely where he should be.

8 Ronald Reagan

Again I agree with a_g. If you're going to credit Reagan with this because he brought an economy out of the doldrums (which isn't proven), where is Clinton? If you're going to credit him with victories over the Soviet Union (which isn't even proven) where is Kennedy? No, just above average please.

9 Dwight Eisenhower

Good general. Dont' exactly see what was so great about his presidency though. Dont' see anything terrible, don't see anything great. Kinda bland. I'd just say he was average, actually. See, again, people tend to rate some of these guys by how 'tough' they were.

10 James Polk

Yeah, I hear good things about him.

11 Woodrow Wilson

Well there were a number of problems with Wilson, but I guess we sort of have to, don't we? I mean, this guy engineered the modern way we conduct international politics through the UN.


ABOVE AVERAGE

12 Grover Cleveland
13 John Adams
14 William McKinley
15 James Madison
16 James Monroe

No arguments over most of these guys

17 Lyndon Johnson

I'd put Johnson lower than this. He DID get the country into Vietnam wholesale. Watch 'Fog of War', things at least from that POV seem to show Johnson as not pro-war, but reluctant to get out of Vietnam.

18 John Kennedy

Ok, Reagan gets near great and the guy who made it through the Cubban Missile Crisis is HERE? Come ON man, face facts. Reagan wouldn't have been able to pass the test of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy listened to and sided with the men who turned out to be right about the situation. Reagan was too far right to do that, he would have succumbed to the generals and we would never have been born. For the civil rights movement, for the Cuban missile crisis, for setting bold ground in the space race, for the Berlin Wall (I never saw Reagan, for instance, facing tanks there that were on the verge of being used), 'near great'.

AVERAGE

19 William Taft
20 John Quincy Adams

No arguments

21 George H.W. Bush

I think GHWB is possibly the most underrated president in modern US history. I would place him 'above average'. I think he was in fact better than Reagan, but because he didn't give good speeches, nobody paid any attention. Clinton didn't deserve to beat him, and Reagan didn't really deserve to be thought of as his better. His son, well that's another matter...


22 Rutherford Hayes
23 Martin Van Buren
24 William Clinton
25 Calvin Coolidge
26 Chester Arthur

Yeah, these guys were all pretty average.


BELOW AVERAGE

27 Benjamin Harrison
28 Gerald Ford
29 Herbert Hoover
30 Jimmy Carter
31 Zachary Taylor

Yeah, no aguments here. I hate to say it about old Jimmy C, but he just wasn't up to it. Poor guy.

32 Ulysses Grant
33 Richard Nixon

Nnnnno, these two were failures. Grant because he was just an out-and-out one, and Nixon because his successes were overshadowed by that one BIG mistake, one so big it set a precedent. When you make a mistake so big it affects not only the next presidency, the presidency after that, and even to an extent the one after that, and complicates matters for years to come, you got to chock it up as a failure. Wipe out. Do not pass go, do n

 

FDR supported Somoza ("Somoza may be a son of a bitch, but he's OUR son of a bitch!")

Sounds like what happened with Franco.

Gonk, good post.

I'm not a huge Kennedy fan, but I do think he deserves a high rating for the Cuban Missile Crisis.

My father remembers sitting in the cafeteria in middle school and talking to his friends, in all seriousness, about whether or not they were going to be alive the next day. No middle-schooler should be discussing that.

Kennedy had the Bay of Pigs invasion which was a huge mistake, but I think he made up for it by getting us out of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

As far as FDR--I'll rank Eisenhower as high as I rank him when Eisenhower gets us through the Great Depression.

 

Gotta agree with Gonk on most of his post, especially John F. Kennedy. Vastly underrated president, deserves to be rated in the 'near great' category. Especially if Ronald Reagan is there.

 

Well, see, I DO think Kennedy has been overrated in the past, but that's because in the past to have put him as the lowest scale in the 'above average' category would have been unthinkable.

Like Truman, I don't think he belongs as one of the 'Great' Presidents, but he's clearly in the second tier. Reagan? You have to do a LOT more proving on that one. JFK and his administration directly managed the Cuban missile crisis. Truman dropped the bomb, then prevented from being dropped in Korea because he saw what it did, and fired MacArthur. Not to beat up on Ronald Reagan, but how can you put someone confidently in the near great category when it's not even undeniably proven he actually did what's attributable to him? I'm comfortable having Reagan as an above average president however. The man was more memorable than others that held the office.

But I still think his Vice President was the better man for the job.

 

Well, see, I DO think Kennedy has been overrated in the past, but that's because in the past to have put him as the lowest scale in the 'above average' category would have been unthinkable.

The funny thing is if you read the article they asked a few other questions of the experts, including who the most overrated president is and who the most underrated president is.

The most overrated by a HUGE margin was JFK, with Reagan and Wilson coming in a distant 2nd and 3rd, and others coming in even a lot further. Here are some comments about it:

Nonetheless, there was a shocking consensus on the most overrated president--John Kennedy. When the opportunity to name the most overrated presidents arose, 43 of the 78 scholars named John Kennedy. That a solid majority would volunteer his name suggests that his reputation is falling. Indeed, sometimes viewed in the category of the ?near great,? Kennedy has now dropped into the bottom of the ?above average? group. Indeed, he ranks one slot below Lyndon Johnson, who left office in disgrace. Political scientist Bruce Miroff argues: ?Kennedy brought the Cold War to dangerous heights.?

Nonetheless, Kennedy has his defenders. One law professor argues that Kennedy was underrated, ?Kennedy transformed American politics; bringing to it a sense of personal style and the conviction that politics could be both idealistic and pragmatic.? Like Ronald Reagan and John Kennedy, Woodrow Wilson also has very substantial numbers of respondents who consider him overrated.

The most underrated category was a lot closer and not so clear cut, the top three by a small margn were Reagan, Coolidge, and Eisenhower.

 

In My Opinion,

Ronald Reagan is second only to Abraham Lincoln in greatness. Both were charged with and succeded in saving the american "soul".

All Eisenhower did was win World War II in Europe and organize the NATO alliance that kept the peace in Europe for 60+ Years. Better to make treaties with dictators than have the Iron Curtain cover western Europe.


"Ok, Reagan gets near great and the guy who made it through the Cubban Missile Crisis is HERE? Come ON man, face facts. Reagan wouldn't have been able to pass the test of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy listened to and sided with the men who turned out to be right about the situation. Reagan was too far right to do that, he would have succumbed to the generals and we would never have been born. For the civil rights movement, for the Cuban missile crisis, for setting bold ground in the space race, for the Berlin Wall (I never saw Reagan, for instance, facing tanks there that were on the verge of being used), 'near great"

The Man that won the Cold war couldn't have handled the cuban missle crisis. Gonk you should apply to be President of Fantasyland...

 

In My Opinion,

Ronald Reagan is second only to Abraham Lincoln in greatness. Both were charged with and succeded in saving the american "soul".

What the heck does this mean, anyway? How do you define a victory for a 'soul'? And how do you define a soul for one person, let alone for a group of people?

All Eisenhower did was win World War II in Europe and organize the NATO alliance that kept the peace in Europe for 60+ Years. Better to make treaties with dictators than have the Iron Curtain cover western Europe.

First of all its completely debatable that Eisenhower won WWII because many atribute Stalin and General Zuchov with winning WWII anyway. Secondly if you think what Reagan did comparable you have GOT to be kidding. Reagan was actually asked by Larry King -- there was a recording of his interview in 1990 -- where King asks him, "Did you ever think we were close to conflict in your eight years?" and Reagan answers "To my knowledge, no." This was definately NOT the case of Kennedy's Cuban missile crisis or the Berlin Wall crisis.


The Man that won the Cold war couldn't have handled the cuban missle crisis. Gonk you should apply to be President of Fantasyland...

Yes, because obviously your opinion is much more steeped in facts. You know, considering Reagan made treaties with the Soviet Union to lower the amounts of nuclear weapons and the Iron Curtain is worse than say, Pol Pot in your opinion... naw, you haven't contradicted yourself, not at ALL...

Reagan COULDN'T have handled the missile crisis. There are other presidents that could have, but he wasn't one of them. If you think otherwise, you ought probably have another looks at the facts.

 

The Russians won World War II? Gee, okay than maybe the world would be better off without the United States. I mean according to you Gonk, Canada probably did more to win the war too.

My point was that Eisenhower was a brillant General, maybe the best this country ever had, and executed a near impossible plan on June 6, 1944. He did this despite the critics amongst the leaders of the countries of which he led. What did the Russians do on D-Day?

Personally, as a world crisis goes, the Cuban Missle Crisis goes a long way as being overrateed. Kennedy acted cowardly IMO, he should have flexed the United States nuclear muscle. We severely "outgunned" the Russians.

Communism failed because Reagan saw its weakness. Something Kennedy and others failed to do.

 

The Russians won World War II? Gee, okay than maybe the world would be better off without the United States. I mean according to you Gonk, Canada probably did more to win the war too.

If you look at the facts, you'll clearly see the greater amount of German resources were thrown at Soviet Russia than on the western front. There was a constant battle of attrition through Russia from Operation Barbarossa through to June 6th, 1944, and the Soviets were advancing by that time. It is hotly debated that the Soviets could have won the war without American any British help. Europe would be communist afterwards, but that's not the point.

As for Canada doing more, of course it didn't. Though Canada was at war with Germany before America.


My point was that Eisenhower was a brillant General, maybe the best this country ever had, and executed a near impossible plan on June 6, 1944. He did this despite the critics amongst the leaders of the countries of which he led. What did the Russians do on D-Day?

As I recall they were fighting all over the front of Eastern Russia. If those thousands of German troops hadn't been fighting Russia, they could have been in -- oh, I dunno -- say, France? After all, what exactly did the Americans and British do during the Battle of Stalingrad?

Personally, as a world crisis goes, the Cuban Missle Crisis goes a long way as being overrateed. Kennedy acted cowardly IMO, he should have flexed the United States nuclear muscle. We severely "outgunned" the Russians.

Uh... yeah... you do realize that despite the US having more nuclear missles, they ARE still nuclear missiles? Whether or not you 'outgunned' the Russians is immaterial. How many missiles do you really need to effectively destroy a country? Had Kennedy fired a missile, the Russians would not have hesitated to fire back. You can look at the documents and see: Khruschev was under the same sort of pressure as Kennedy to not shirk away from the nuclear option. If you listen to the leaders involved and read the latest documents that come out, if Kennedy was overrated, that crisis was NOT. Recent unclassified reports reveal that we were actually closer to war than anyone thought, and McNamara himself describes it as coming to within a hair. The effects of nuclear weapons are well documented. There is no evidence that either side would have hesitated to use them had the other taken the initiative. There was no way of stopping the missiles once they launched.


Communism failed because Reagan saw its weakness. Something Kennedy and others failed to do.

Everything Reagan did was already laid out to him. What 'weakness' did he see? That it was going to fall apart on its own? That was already in the policies of the 1950s. That America would outspend the Russians with its greater economy? I kid you not: go watch Dr. Strangelove, a movie made right in the early 1960s. EVERYTHING REAGAN DID TO 'DEFEAT' THE SOVIET UNION IS DESCRIBED RIGHT THERE. The entire logic about the Russians being unable to keep up with US military spending as spoken by the Ambassador, etc. It was NOT a new concept and was known as a possibility during even the Kennedy era. The 'bomber gap' had long shown this as being an overall possible Russian weakness. Or did Stanley Kubrick somehow have a better grasp on international eco-military relations than the President of the United States?

If you want to prove Reagan's policies destroyed Soviet Russia, you need Soviet documents to prove it, not general sweeping statements about Reagan himself.

 

What did the Russians do on D-Day?

Read your history. You wanna compare D-Day to Stalingrad?

EDIT: Curse your boxy, waddling, power droid body, Gonk!

 

Sorry, but without the U.S. entry into the war, the west would've capitulated and Hitler would've concentrated his forces in the east.

And Tojo would've attacked from Manchuria.

Bad news for the Reds.

 

And even if the soviets would have single handidly won the second world war, liberty would have lost.

 

Sorry, but without the U.S. entry into the war, the west would've capitulated and Hitler would've concentrated his forces in the east.

And Tojo would've attacked from Manchuria.

Well, ok, D-Day aside, we have to keep in mind Russia had a 7 MILLION man army, which in the worst times were able to create regiments only a week after the Nazis had destroyed them. Once 1944 rolled in, they had the superior tanks and the gap in the training and calibre was closing. In order for Russia to have TRULY been defeated, Japan and Russia would have had to cooincide attacks at the time of Operation Barbarossa, and I'm not sure Japan was on that sort of footing. They had severe oil problems for armored divisions.



And even if the soviets would have single handidly won the second world war, liberty would have lost.

This is true without question.

 

Sorry, but without the U.S. entry into the war, the west would've capitulated and Hitler would've concentrated his forces in the east.

And Tojo would've attacked from Manchuria.

Bad news for the Reds.

this, i will concede, is true. but "we came in at the 11th hour and propped up Britain, thereby keeping Hitler busy on the Western front while the Soviets pounded him into the tar in the East" is a far cry from "we are the SAVIORS OF EUROPE, and you should all be kissing our feet."

 

No, we were the saviors of western Europe.

That's why there was a Warsaw Pact and NATO aligned as they were in the beginning.

The Russians did turn back national-socialism in eastern Europe;unfortunately, they replaced it with Stalinism.

Take your pick.