Help me understand this default Hero Worship of Ronald Reagan

[downtown hawk redux]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by lucas80:
When Reagan pushed the limits of executive power it was because he loved America so much he would do anything to make it better. When Obama does this it's because he's a Kenyan born, socialist with visions of an imperial presidency.

You are correct about Reagan.

You are too tough on Obama. He isn't Kenyan born, he isn't a socialist. He is an incredible egoist who doesn't like America very much.

Also, Reagan didn't routinely push -- or exceed -- the limits of his office. Iran-Contra is the only example that comes immediately to mind, and I think his biggest mistake in that case was not formally challenging the legality of the law. Obama, in contrast, doesn't let a day pass without exceeding the legal limits of his office.

He might not have (which is a dubious claim) , but plenty of others did in his administration. By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved. Pretty close, if not the worst ever and that's saying something when you consider the administrations of U.S. Grant or Andrew Johnson.

1. Lyn Nofziger--White House Press Secretary - Convicted on charges of illegal lobbying of White House in Wedtech scandal. The lobbying would not have been illegal had he not been White House Press Secretary.

2. Michael Deaver, Reagan's Chief of Staff, received three years' probation and was fined one hundred thousand dollars after being convicted for lying to a congressional subcommittee and a federal grand jury about his lobbying activities after leaving the White House. Same as with Lyn Nofziger.

3. James Watt, Reagan's Secretary of the Interior was indicted on 41 felony counts for using connections at the Department of Housing and Urban Development to help his private clients seek federal funds for housing projects in Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Watt conceded that he had received $500,000 from clients who were granted very favorable housing contracts after he had intervened on their behalf. Watt was eventually sentenced to five years in prison and 500 hours of community service.

4. John Poindexter, Reagan's national security advisor, guilty of five criminal counts involving conspiracy to mislead Congress, obstructing congressional inquiries, lying to lawmakers, used "high national security" to mask deceit and wrong-doing.




5. Richard Secord pleaded guilty to a felony charge of lying to Congress over Iran-Contra. Appointed by William Casey to assist Oliver North.




6. Elliott Abrams was appointed by President Reagan in 1985 to head the State Department's Latin American Bureau. He was closely linked with ex-White House aide Lt. Col. Oliver North's covert movement to aid the Contras. Working for North, Abrams coordinated inter-agency support for the contras and helped solicit illegal funding from foreign powers as well as domestic contributors. Abrams agreed to cooperate with Iran-Contra investigators and pled guilty to two charges reduced to misdemeanors. He was sentenced in 1991 to two years probation and 100 hours of community service but was pardoned by President George Bush

7. Robert C. McFarlane, Reagan's National Security Advisor, pled guilty to four misdemeanors and was sentenced to two years probation and 200 hours of community service. He was also fined $20,000. He received a blanket pardon from President George Bush




8. Alan D. Fiers was the Chief of the Central Intelligence Agency's Central American Task Force. Fiers pled guilty in 1991 to two counts of withholding information from congress about Oliver North's activities and the diversion of Iran arms sale money to aid the Contras. He was sentenced to one year of probation and 100 hours of community service. Alan Fiers received a blanket pardon for his crimes from President Bush...



9. Thomas G. Clines: convicted of four counts of tax-related offenses for failing to report income from the operations;



10. Carl R. Channel - Office of Public Diplomacy , partner in International Business- first person convicted in the Iran/Contra scandal, pleaded guilty of one count of defrauding the United States



11.Richard R. Miller - Partner with Oliver North in IBC, a Office of Public Diplomacy front group, convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States.



12. Clair George was Chief of the CIA's Division of Covert Operations under President Reagan. George was convicted of lying to two congressional committees in 1986. George faced a maximum five year federal prison sentence and a $20,000 fine for each of the two convictions. Jurors cleared George of five other charges including two counts of lying to a federal grand jury. Clair George received a blanket pardon for his crimes from President George Bush...



13. Rita Lavelle was indicted, tried and convicted of lying to Congress and served three months of a six-month prison sentence.



14. Philip Winn - Assistant HUD Secretary. Pleaded guilty to one count of scheming to give illegal gratuities.



15. Thomas Demery - Assistant HUD Secretary - pleaded guilty to steering HUD subsidies to politically connected donors.



16. Deborah Gore Dean - executive assistant to Samuel Pierce - indicted on thirteen counts, three counts of conspiracy, one count of accepting an illegal gratuity, four counts of perjury, and five counts of concealing articles. She was convicted on twelve accounts. She appealed and prevailed on several accounts but the convictions for conspiracy remained.



17. Joseph A. Strauss - Accepting kickbacks from developers



18. Oliver North - He was indicted on sixteen felony counts and on May 4, 1989, he was convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents (by his secretary, Fawn Hall, on his instructions). He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours community service. His conviction was later overturned.



This post was edited on 3/27 11:37 AM by downtown hawk redux

 

[Nat Algren]

Originally posted by CraigsNews:
Reaganomics: Reagan's mix of across-the-board tax cuts, deregulation, and domestic spending restraint helped fuel an economic boom that lasted two decades. Reagan inherited a misery index (the sum of the inflation and unemployment rates) of 19.99%, and when he left office it had dropped to 9.72%.

Tax reform: Not only did he cut tax rates, but the Tax Reform Act of 1986 simplified the income-tax code by eliminating many tax shelters, reducing the number of deductions and tax brackets. Reagan's dream of tax returns fitting on a postcard has been nullified as Congress has regressed and continued to make the tax code more complex, necessitating a new push for reform.

And this is known as a TAX HIKE. TEFRA was the largest tax hike in history. You are gloating that he raised revenue for the fedgov. A true conservative would like to see FED receipts cut in half. The more tax loopholes the better. It's less revenue for the crooks in DC.

The deregulation you speak of was launched under Carter and put into effect during Reagan's reign.
This post was edited on 3/27 11:40 AM by Nat Algren

 

[jthawk]

Originally posted by jscott78:
Conservatives love fairy tales. He was a c minus president. 2nd term, the alzheimer's had set in.

The left is always good for a laugh. 80% of historians who have rated Presidents in recent years, according to Wikipedia, have rated him in the top ten Presidents in history. But they must all be stupid, right?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Nat Algren]

The budget was never cut; it had always skyrocketed under Reagan. Reagan is by far the biggest spender in American history. He is also the biggest taxer. Taxes were never cut. The piddling and, much publicized income tax cut was always, from the very beginning, more than compensated by the programmed Social Security tax increases, aided by "bracket creep," that sinister system by which the federal government prints more money, thereby causing inflation, and also thereby wafting everyone into a higher tax bracket, whereupon the government completes the one-two punch by taxing away a greater proportion of his income.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by downtown hawk redux:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by lucas80:
When Reagan pushed the limits of executive power it was because he loved America so much he would do anything to make it better. When Obama does this it's because he's a Kenyan born, socialist with visions of an imperial presidency.

You are correct about Reagan.

You are too tough on Obama. He isn't Kenyan born, he isn't a socialist. He is an incredible egoist who doesn't like America very much.

Also, Reagan didn't routinely push -- or exceed -- the limits of his office. Iran-Contra is the only example that comes immediately to mind, and I think his biggest mistake in that case was not formally challenging the legality of the law. Obama, in contrast, doesn't let a day pass without exceeding the legal limits of his office.

He might not have (which is a dubious claim) , but plenty of others did in his administration. By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved. Pretty close, if not the worst ever and that's saying something when you consider the administrations of U.S. Grant or Andrew Johnson.

1. Lyn Nofziger--White House Press Secretary - Convicted on charges of illegal lobbying of White House in Wedtech scandal. The lobbying would not have been illegal had he not been White House Press Secretary.

2. Michael Deaver, Reagan's Chief of Staff, received three years' probation and was fined one hundred thousand dollars after being convicted for lying to a congressional subcommittee and a federal grand jury about his lobbying activities after leaving the White House. Same as with Lyn Nofziger.

3. James Watt, Reagan's Secretary of the Interior was indicted on 41 felony counts for using connections at the Department of Housing and Urban Development to help his private clients seek federal funds for housing projects in Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Watt conceded that he had received $500,000 from clients who were granted very favorable housing contracts after he had intervened on their behalf. Watt was eventually sentenced to five years in prison and 500 hours of community service.

4. John Poindexter, Reagan's national security advisor, guilty of five criminal counts involving conspiracy to mislead Congress, obstructing congressional inquiries, lying to lawmakers, used "high national security" to mask deceit and wrong-doing.


5. Richard Secord pleaded guilty to a felony charge of lying to Congress over Iran-Contra. Appointed by William Casey to assist Oliver North.


6. Elliott Abrams was appointed by President Reagan in 1985 to head the State Department's Latin American Bureau. He was closely linked with ex-White House aide Lt. Col. Oliver North's covert movement to aid the Contras. Working for North, Abrams coordinated inter-agency support for the contras and helped solicit illegal funding from foreign powers as well as domestic contributors. Abrams agreed to cooperate with Iran-Contra investigators and pled guilty to two charges reduced to misdemeanors. He was sentenced in 1991 to two years probation and 100 hours of community service but was pardoned by President George Bush

7. Robert C. McFarlane, Reagan's National Security Advisor, pled guilty to four misdemeanors and was sentenced to two years probation and 200 hours of community service. He was also fined $20,000. He received a blanket pardon from President George Bush


8. Alan D. Fiers was the Chief of the Central Intelligence Agency's Central American Task Force. Fiers pled guilty in 1991 to two counts of withholding information from congress about Oliver North's activities and the diversion of Iran arms sale money to aid the Contras. He was sentenced to one year of probation and 100 hours of community service. Alan Fiers received a blanket pardon for his crimes from President Bush...


9. Thomas G. Clines: convicted of four counts of tax-related offenses for failing to report income from the operations;


10. Carl R. Channel - Office of Public Diplomacy , partner in International Business- first person convicted in the Iran/Contra scandal, pleaded guilty of one count of defrauding the United States


11.Richard R. Miller - Partner with Oliver North in IBC, a Office of Public Diplomacy front group, convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States.


12. Clair George was Chief of the CIA's Division of Covert Operations under President Reagan. George was convicted of lying to two congressional committees in 1986. George faced a maximum five year federal prison sentence and a $20,000 fine for each of the two convictions. Jurors cleared George of five other charges including two counts of lying to a federal grand jury. Clair George received a blanket pardon for his crimes from President George Bush...


13. Rita Lavelle was indicted, tried and convicted of lying to Congress and served three months of a six-month prison sentence.


14. Philip Winn - Assistant HUD Secretary. Pleaded guilty to one count of scheming to give illegal gratuities.


15. Thomas Demery - Assistant HUD Secretary - pleaded guilty to steering HUD subsidies to politically connected donors.


16. Deborah Gore Dean - executive assistant to Samuel Pierce - indicted on thirteen counts, three counts of conspiracy, one count of accepting an illegal gratuity, four counts of perjury, and five counts of concealing articles. She was convicted on twelve accounts. She appealed and prevailed on several accounts but the convictions for conspiracy remained.


17. Joseph A. Strauss - Accepting kickbacks from developers


18. Oliver North - He was indicted on sixteen felony counts and on May 4, 1989, he was convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents (by his secretary, Fawn Hall, on his instructions). He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours community service. His conviction was later overturned.


This post was edited on 3/27 11:37 AM by downtown hawk redux

Assuming all the things you wrote are legit (which they are not), they amount to one example of the subject -- pressing the limits of the powers of his office -- namely, Iran-Contra. The other examples are unrelated to that subject.

Here's a hint: When a former employee of a president later violates rules or laws after leaving office, that is not an example of the president exceeding the powers of his office.

 

[BlazinHawk]

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/03/the-real-reagan-economic-record
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[strummingram]

Originally posted by jthawk:

Originally posted by jscott78:
Conservatives love fairy tales. He was a c minus president. 2nd term, the alzheimer's had set in.

The left is always good for a laugh. 80% of historians who have rated Presidents in recent years, according to Wikipedia, have rated him in the top ten Presidents in history. But they must all be stupid, right?

"Rated him"??? So, I guess this is all about just general popularity and has nothing to do with actual policies and their results? That sounds like American Politics to me! All talk and NO walk! Just a perpetual barrage of which party or side is worse than the other. It's never which side is better, it's always which side is WORSE. That is the barometer and measure of social function and governmental involvement. Which does the least amount of damage.

I gotta respect the power structure that is firmly in place in this country (and the world). There is a certain brilliance to being able to make the population content with, and even asking for, the ability to fight over table scraps. And, they stay as dumb as ever. No one considers policy and their outcomes. No one votes or supports based on the results, or even really the proposals. It's just one big beauty contest. And, THAT is the "Greatest Country In The World?" Wow... I need to start traveling more to find out.

 

[strummingram]

Originally posted by Nat Algren:
The budget was never cut; it had always skyrocketed under Reagan. Reagan is by far the biggest spender in American history. He is also the biggest taxer. Taxes were never cut. The piddling and, much publicized income tax cut was always, from the very beginning, more than compensated by the programmed Social Security tax increases, aided by "bracket creep," that sinister system by which the federal government prints more money, thereby causing inflation, and also thereby wafting everyone into a higher tax bracket, whereupon the government completes the one-two punch by taxing away a greater proportion of his income.

I guess that is "Conservatism Incognito" or "Stealth Conservatism." Kinda like Liberalism through Obama, or Clinton. More of the same with a different label on it to make people think, or make it appear, to be different.

The sad part about your presentation of facts is; these people will still refuse to believe they're being lied to and deceived. They will go right on approaching this as a left/right battle. The hardest thing for a human being to do is admit that something they trusted has betrayed them. You're almost hard-wired to resist that instinct.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by jthawk:

Originally posted by jscott78:
Conservatives love fairy tales. He was a c minus president. 2nd term, the alzheimer's had set in.

The left is always good for a laugh. 80% of historians who have rated Presidents in recent years, according to Wikipedia, have rated him in the top ten Presidents in history. But they must all be stupid, right?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Weren't you applying an entirely different standard to Obama just a couple days ago? Lets be consistent.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by jthawk:

Originally posted by jscott78:
Conservatives love fairy tales. He was a c minus president. 2nd term, the alzheimer's had set in.

The left is always good for a laugh. 80% of historians who have rated Presidents in recent years, according to Wikipedia, have rated him in the top ten Presidents in history. But they must all be stupid, right?

"Rated him"??? So, I guess this is all about just general popularity and has nothing to do with actual policies and their results? That sounds like American Politics to me! All talk and NO walk! Just a perpetual barrage of which party or side is worse than the other. It's never which side is better, it's always which side is WORSE. That is the barometer and measure of social function and governmental involvement. Which does the least amount of damage.

I gotta respect the power structure that is firmly in place in this country (and the world). There is a certain brilliance to being able to make the population content with, and even asking for, the ability to fight over table scraps. And, they stay as dumb as ever. No one considers policy and their outcomes. No one votes or supports based on the results, or even really the proposals. It's just one big beauty contest. And, THAT is the "Greatest Country In The World?" Wow... I need to start traveling more to find out.

Read what jthawk actually wrote again. If the rating is done by historians who study Presidents, thats the exact opposite of general popularity and is based on the results you claim to value. Stop debating the voices in your head and debate what people actually argue.

 

[lucas80]

Reagan was a mixed bag. I do grudgingly give him a lot of credit. Even if it's for those nebulous "He made us proud to be 'Merican", stuff. I do give credit for arms control moves.
I found it laughable for those that claim that Obama has been unwilling to work with Republicans. Reagan had somewhat cordial relations with many members of Congress. Maybe it was a generational thing. Maybe it was a different era of politics. It was heated back then, but, not hyper partisan 24 hours a day heated. Obama was never given the proper respect a President deserves. Quite a few Republican members of Congress twisted themselves up into knots trying to avoid saying that Obama was an American and a Christian. Good 'Ol Chuck Grassley famously mumbled something about he didn't have any reason to doubt Obama was a Christian. A boob from South Carolina famously shouted, "You lie", during a State of the Union address. Something no President had ever faced. No formal sanction for this action came from Republican leadership.
John Boehner as Speaker of the House refused multiple personal invitations to come to the White House, and even risked offending heads of state by rejecting offers to attend state dinners for the leaders of India and China. An unheard of breach of protocol.
It just goes on and on. If some of you want to fool yourselves that Obama is aloof, and won't compromise you keep living in that world where unicorns jump over rainbows.

 

[strummingram]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by jthawk:

Originally posted by jscott78:
Conservatives love fairy tales. He was a c minus president. 2nd term, the alzheimer's had set in.

The left is always good for a laugh. 80% of historians who have rated Presidents in recent years, according to Wikipedia, have rated him in the top ten Presidents in history. But they must all be stupid, right?

"Rated him"??? So, I guess this is all about just general popularity and has nothing to do with actual policies and their results? That sounds like American Politics to me! All talk and NO walk! Just a perpetual barrage of which party or side is worse than the other. It's never which side is better, it's always which side is WORSE. That is the barometer and measure of social function and governmental involvement. Which does the least amount of damage.

I gotta respect the power structure that is firmly in place in this country (and the world). There is a certain brilliance to being able to make the population content with, and even asking for, the ability to fight over table scraps. And, they stay as dumb as ever. No one considers policy and their outcomes. No one votes or supports based on the results, or even really the proposals. It's just one big beauty contest. And, THAT is the "Greatest Country In The World?" Wow... I need to start traveling more to find out.

Read what jthawk actually wrote again. If the rating is done by historians who study Presidents, thats the exact opposite of general popularity and is based on the results you claim to value. Stop debating the voices in your head and debate what people actually argue.

I saw what he wrote. I took it that he was speaking for them! What are the alleged historians basing the claims? Who are the historians? What are the other 20% of the alleged historians basing their opposing view? Everyone is a historian. I think "historian" is one of the most vague, useless references around. That's like calling yourself an Opinionarian, in my book.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by jthawk:

Originally posted by jscott78:
Conservatives love fairy tales. He was a c minus president. 2nd term, the alzheimer's had set in.

The left is always good for a laugh. 80% of historians who have rated Presidents in recent years, according to Wikipedia, have rated him in the top ten Presidents in history. But they must all be stupid, right?

"Rated him"??? So, I guess this is all about just general popularity and has nothing to do with actual policies and their results? That sounds like American Politics to me! All talk and NO walk! Just a perpetual barrage of which party or side is worse than the other. It's never which side is better, it's always which side is WORSE. That is the barometer and measure of social function and governmental involvement. Which does the least amount of damage.

I gotta respect the power structure that is firmly in place in this country (and the world). There is a certain brilliance to being able to make the population content with, and even asking for, the ability to fight over table scraps. And, they stay as dumb as ever. No one considers policy and their outcomes. No one votes or supports based on the results, or even really the proposals. It's just one big beauty contest. And, THAT is the "Greatest Country In The World?" Wow... I need to start traveling more to find out.

Read what jthawk actually wrote again. If the rating is done by historians who study Presidents, thats the exact opposite of general popularity and is based on the results you claim to value. Stop debating the voices in your head and debate what people actually argue.

I saw what he wrote. I took it that he was speaking for them! What are the alleged historians basing the claims? Who are the historians? What are the other 20% of the alleged historians basing their opposing view? Everyone is a historian. I think "historian" is one of the most vague, useless references around. That's like calling yourself an Opinionarian, in my book.

First of all, most historians are liberals, especially those writing today. If anything, they aren't going to give the Gipper the benefit of the doubt. However, for the same reason, they are likely to give him good marks, not bad ones, for not being a hardline conservative.

I think a lot of Reagan's critics simply do not grasp how much trouble this country was in when he was elected, or what the general attitude was regarding the country's future.

Look at FDR for an analogy (not a claim of equality). He did any number of really reprehensible things, including illegal and unconstitutional things as well as simply irresponsible things. Some of these things resulted in long-term damage to the country. I think most economists agree the net effect of his policies in the '30s was to extend, not end, the Depression. But he saved the world from Hitler. He deserves credit for that.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by jthawk:

Originally posted by jscott78:
Conservatives love fairy tales. He was a c minus president. 2nd term, the alzheimer's had set in.

The left is always good for a laugh. 80% of historians who have rated Presidents in recent years, according to Wikipedia, have rated him in the top ten Presidents in history. But they must all be stupid, right?

"Rated him"??? So, I guess this is all about just general popularity and has nothing to do with actual policies and their results? That sounds like American Politics to me! All talk and NO walk! Just a perpetual barrage of which party or side is worse than the other. It's never which side is better, it's always which side is WORSE. That is the barometer and measure of social function and governmental involvement. Which does the least amount of damage.

I gotta respect the power structure that is firmly in place in this country (and the world). There is a certain brilliance to being able to make the population content with, and even asking for, the ability to fight over table scraps. And, they stay as dumb as ever. No one considers policy and their outcomes. No one votes or supports based on the results, or even really the proposals. It's just one big beauty contest. And, THAT is the "Greatest Country In The World?" Wow... I need to start traveling more to find out.

Read what jthawk actually wrote again. If the rating is done by historians who study Presidents, thats the exact opposite of general popularity and is based on the results you claim to value. Stop debating the voices in your head and debate what people actually argue.

I saw what he wrote. I took it that he was speaking for them! What are the alleged historians basing the claims? Who are the historians? What are the other 20% of the alleged historians basing their opposing view? Everyone is a historian. I think "historian" is one of the most vague, useless references around. That's like calling yourself an Opinionarian, in my book.

Why do people keep asking me extraneous questions about 3rd party sources. You and Rocket need to learn this is not a valid debate tactic. If you have questions about a source, do the research yourself. Let me show you how easy it is:

1) Open Google.
2) Type in what jthawk said "historians who have rated Presidents in recent years, according to Wikipedia"
3) You will easily find his source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

From here you will find the answers to all your questions about methodology and who the historians are in the footnotes. You will also find out that Reagan is not in the top ten by most accounts but comes in with a respectable aggregate score of #17. Obama with limited data comes in at #14 and Bush Jr. comes in at #34 (note, that is in the bottom 10). Since this is the source jthawk advances, I assume we can count on him to agree those rankings are basically correct given the information we currently have available.

 

[jthawk]

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by jthawk:

Originally posted by jscott78:
Conservatives love fairy tales. He was a c minus president. 2nd term, the alzheimer's had set in.

The left is always good for a laugh. 80% of historians who have rated Presidents in recent years, according to Wikipedia, have rated him in the top ten Presidents in history. But they must all be stupid, right?

"Rated him"??? So, I guess this is all about just general popularity and has nothing to do with actual policies and their results? That sounds like American Politics to me! All talk and NO walk! Just a perpetual barrage of which party or side is worse than the other. It's never which side is better, it's always which side is WORSE. That is the barometer and measure of social function and governmental involvement. Which does the least amount of damage.

I gotta respect the power structure that is firmly in place in this country (and the world). There is a certain brilliance to being able to make the population content with, and even asking for, the ability to fight over table scraps. And, they stay as dumb as ever. No one considers policy and their outcomes. No one votes or supports based on the results, or even really the proposals. It's just one big beauty contest. And, THAT is the "Greatest Country In The World?" Wow... I need to start traveling more to find out.

Read what jthawk actually wrote again. If the rating is done by historians who study Presidents, thats the exact opposite of general popularity and is based on the results you claim to value. Stop debating the voices in your head and debate what people actually argue.

I saw what he wrote. I took it that he was speaking for them! What are the alleged historians basing the claims? Who are the historians? What are the other 20% of the alleged historians basing their opposing view? Everyone is a historian. I think "historian" is one of the most vague, useless references around. That's like calling yourself an Opinionarian, in my book.




OK, I will play one more time, because I am so sure that you are really, really earnest in your willingness to be convinced (not)- in 2013, Nate Silver, as a part of his 538 system, did a composite of scholars' rankings over time relative to US Presidents. Reagan ranked number 10. Ahead of him were Lincoln, FDR, Washington, T Roosevelt, Jefferson, Truman, Wilson, Eisenhower and Kennedy. Pretty good company I would say. This is the only composite ranking I have seen from a credible statistician on this subject. But I am sure you can find a reason to discount it.

If you don't believe any of this, try doing a little research on your own. You may be surprised by what you find. Now I am sure you must be convinced (sarcasm intended).

This post was edited on 3/27 1:33 PM by jthawk

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by jthawk:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by jthawk:

Originally posted by jscott78:
Conservatives love fairy tales. He was a c minus president. 2nd term, the alzheimer's had set in.

The left is always good for a laugh. 80% of historians who have rated Presidents in recent years, according to Wikipedia, have rated him in the top ten Presidents in history. But they must all be stupid, right?

"Rated him"??? So, I guess this is all about just general popularity and has nothing to do with actual policies and their results? That sounds like American Politics to me! All talk and NO walk! Just a perpetual barrage of which party or side is worse than the other. It's never which side is better, it's always which side is WORSE. That is the barometer and measure of social function and governmental involvement. Which does the least amount of damage.

I gotta respect the power structure that is firmly in place in this country (and the world). There is a certain brilliance to being able to make the population content with, and even asking for, the ability to fight over table scraps. And, they stay as dumb as ever. No one considers policy and their outcomes. No one votes or supports based on the results, or even really the proposals. It's just one big beauty contest. And, THAT is the "Greatest Country In The World?" Wow... I need to start traveling more to find out.

Read what jthawk actually wrote again. If the rating is done by historians who study Presidents, thats the exact opposite of general popularity and is based on the results you claim to value. Stop debating the voices in your head and debate what people actually argue.

I saw what he wrote. I took it that he was speaking for them! What are the alleged historians basing the claims? Who are the historians? What are the other 20% of the alleged historians basing their opposing view? Everyone is a historian. I think "historian" is one of the most vague, useless references around. That's like calling yourself an Opinionarian, in my book.




OK, I will play one more time, because I am so sure that you are really, really earnest in your willingness to be convinced (not)- in 2013, Nate Silver, as a part of his 538 system, did a composite of scholars' rankings over time relative to US Presidents. Reagan ranked number 10. Ahead of him were Lincoln, FDR, Washington, T Roosevelt, Jefferson, Truman, Wilson, Eisenhower and Kennedy. Pretty good company I would say. This is the only composite ranking I have seen from a credible statistician on this subject. But I am sure you can find a reason to discount it.

If you don't believe any of this, try doing a little research on your own. You may be surprised by what you find. Now I am sure you must be convinced (sarcasm intended).

This post was edited on 3/27 1:33 PM by jthawk

And this source is very easy to find too, just Google "historians who have rated Presidents in recent years, according to Nate Silver" and you will get this: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/contemplating-obamas-place-in-history-statistically/?_r=0

With Silver predicting that Obama will end up #17 on the list when the final analysis is done.

 

[downtown hawk redux]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by downtown hawk redux:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by lucas80:
When Reagan pushed the limits of executive power it was because he loved America so much he would do anything to make it better. When Obama does this it's because he's a Kenyan born, socialist with visions of an imperial presidency.

You are correct about Reagan.

You are too tough on Obama. He isn't Kenyan born, he isn't a socialist. He is an incredible egoist who doesn't like America very much.

Also, Reagan didn't routinely push -- or exceed -- the limits of his office. Iran-Contra is the only example that comes immediately to mind, and I think his biggest mistake in that case was not formally challenging the legality of the law. Obama, in contrast, doesn't let a day pass without exceeding the legal limits of his office.

Assuming all the things you wrote are legit (which they are not), they amount to one example of the subject -- pressing the limits of the powers of his office -- namely, Iran-Contra. The other examples are unrelated to that subject.

Here's a hint: When a former employee of a president later violates rules or laws after leaving office, that is not an example of the president exceeding the powers of his office.

Hence the sentence: He might not have (which is a dubious claim) , but plenty of others did in his administration.

Not legit? Those are on the legal record, so I don't know how more legit it gets than that. James Watt was Iran contra?

The dubious claim part of it goes to using his executive authority to enact overhaul of immigration/amnesty for one. I'm sure you'll say not the same thing as what Obama is did but yes, it is. Of course, let's not talk of Regan using executive orders to peel back regulation, some of which led to the S&L scandal either.

I get it. I could say you think he could no wrong like some accuse the Obamabots of doing, but you're not saying nor have said that. My point is yes, under the current definitions that you apply to Obama, he did exceed his authority. You can debate all you want about whether it was good or bad, but yes, I'm well aware of the hypocrisy and petty partisanship which allows people to close their eyes to one but not the other..

This is the highly liberal Business Insider:

This post was edited on 3/27 1:55 PM by downtown hawk redux

 

[Nat Algren]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by jthawk:

Originally posted by jscott78:
Conservatives love fairy tales. He was a c minus president. 2nd term, the alzheimer's had set in.

The left is always good for a laugh. 80% of historians who have rated Presidents in recent years, according to Wikipedia, have rated him in the top ten Presidents in history. But they must all be stupid, right?

"Rated him"??? So, I guess this is all about just general popularity and has nothing to do with actual policies and their results? That sounds like American Politics to me! All talk and NO walk! Just a perpetual barrage of which party or side is worse than the other. It's never which side is better, it's always which side is WORSE. That is the barometer and measure of social function and governmental involvement. Which does the least amount of damage.

I gotta respect the power structure that is firmly in place in this country (and the world). There is a certain brilliance to being able to make the population content with, and even asking for, the ability to fight over table scraps. And, they stay as dumb as ever. No one considers policy and their outcomes. No one votes or supports based on the results, or even really the proposals. It's just one big beauty contest. And, THAT is the "Greatest Country In The World?" Wow... I need to start traveling more to find out.

Read what jthawk actually wrote again. If the rating is done by historians who study Presidents, thats the exact opposite of general popularity and is based on the results you claim to value. Stop debating the voices in your head and debate what people actually argue.

I saw what he wrote. I took it that he was speaking for them! What are the alleged historians basing the claims? Who are the historians? What are the other 20% of the alleged historians basing their opposing view? Everyone is a historian. I think "historian" is one of the most vague, useless references around. That's like calling yourself an Opinionarian, in my book.

First of all, most historians are liberals, especially those writing today. If anything, they aren't going to give the Gipper the benefit of the doubt. However, for the same reason, they are likely to give him good marks, not bad ones, for not being a hardline conservative.

I think a lot of Reagan's critics simply do not grasp how much trouble this country was in when he was elected, or what the general attitude was regarding the country's future.

Look at FDR for an analogy (not a claim of equality). He did any number of really reprehensible things, including illegal and unconstitutional things as well as simply irresponsible things. Some of these things resulted in long-term damage to the country. I think most economists agree the net effect of his policies in the '30s was to extend, not end, the Depression. But he saved the world from Hitler. He deserves credit for that.

Yes...that is the load of crap sold to students at the government indoctrination camps aka public schools. Dig a little deeper and you will see how the U.S. government under FDR and well connected families like the Bush Crime Family made an ungodly amount of money doing business with Hitler. Read Wall Street and Hitler by Professor Antony Sutton. He was a senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institute. For not towing the party line, the corrupt think tank gave him his walking papers.

 

[strummingram]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by jthawk:

Originally posted by jscott78:
Conservatives love fairy tales. He was a c minus president. 2nd term, the alzheimer's had set in.

The left is always good for a laugh. 80% of historians who have rated Presidents in recent years, according to Wikipedia, have rated him in the top ten Presidents in history. But they must all be stupid, right?

"Rated him"??? So, I guess this is all about just general popularity and has nothing to do with actual policies and their results? That sounds like American Politics to me! All talk and NO walk! Just a perpetual barrage of which party or side is worse than the other. It's never which side is better, it's always which side is WORSE. That is the barometer and measure of social function and governmental involvement. Which does the least amount of damage.

I gotta respect the power structure that is firmly in place in this country (and the world). There is a certain brilliance to being able to make the population content with, and even asking for, the ability to fight over table scraps. And, they stay as dumb as ever. No one considers policy and their outcomes. No one votes or supports based on the results, or even really the proposals. It's just one big beauty contest. And, THAT is the "Greatest Country In The World?" Wow... I need to start traveling more to find out.

Read what jthawk actually wrote again. If the rating is done by historians who study Presidents, thats the exact opposite of general popularity and is based on the results you claim to value. Stop debating the voices in your head and debate what people actually argue.

I saw what he wrote. I took it that he was speaking for them! What are the alleged historians basing the claims? Who are the historians? What are the other 20% of the alleged historians basing their opposing view? Everyone is a historian. I think "historian" is one of the most vague, useless references around. That's like calling yourself an Opinionarian, in my book.

Why do people keep asking me extraneous questions about 3rd party sources. You and Rocket need to learn this is not a valid debate tactic. If you have questions about a source, do the research yourself. Let me show you how easy it is:

1) Open Google.
2) Type in what jthawk said "historians who have rated Presidents in recent years, according to Wikipedia"
3) You will easily find his source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

From here you will find the answers to all your questions about methodology and who the historians are in the footnotes. You will also find out that Reagan is not in the top ten by most accounts but comes in with a respectable aggregate score of #17. Obama with limited data comes in at #14 and Bush Jr. comes in at #34 (note, that is in the bottom 10). Since this is the source jthawk advances, I assume we can count on him to agree those rankings are basically correct given the information we currently have available.

It's a fine debate tactic for me. If you don't like it, piss-off. I wasn't asking you anyway.

I've yet to see anyone provide anything "conservative" that the man proposed, got passed, and signed into law. All I see is a bunch of ego-stroking rhetoric and growing government bigger and spending more than any predecessor. These historians are offering their OPINIONS, too! We all have one of those. Reagan was no more conservative than Bill Clinton. Maybe LESS conservative. Go back to playing left versus right and libs are better than cons.