Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

You might want to look in the mirror when you say things like that...as for your list, well, it's already been debunked, so I'll refrain any further commenting.

   

Now stop being a kneejerk jackass and point out which of these lines is 'propaganda' and is false.

   

I'm genuinely curious as to which Presidents were considered to be good Presidents?
Don't go too far back, I dunno, 50 years? "Our" lifetime? No stats, btw, just personal opinions.

   

The Presidents who generally score well along non-partisan lines include just Eisenhower and Truman. After that and before that the scores genrally split along partisan lines.

   

Cite your source on that.

   

Read Psudo's response on page 1 - I'd say his very level-headed response basically debunked much of this partisan drivel.

   

That was not my question.

They are both also not from the last 50 years.

   

Psudo did not 'debunk' the list. To the contrary, he mostly said the list was accurate and he cited additional information that substantiated the list.

On the Muslim point he didn't debunk the assertion at all. Instead he did what DD would call whatabouttery by citing hate crimes against Muslims. The point of observation still stands that some media outlets seemed far more concerned about retaliation against muslims for 9/11 than they were about the 3,000 dead people...many of whom were also muslims.

   

Then I'd say aside from Reagan (who won a 49-state landslide in 1984) there is not one President in the past fifty years who would be considered 'good' by a non-partisan majority.

   

That too, is not my question. Are you deliberately just not answering it?
I don't care who is "considered" to be anything by a "non-partisan majority".
I am asking what you personally think.
Like I said: "personal opinions".

   

Sure, he did, he called into question almost every point - saying at times they 'stretched a bit', notes however this and however that, calls other items suspicious, etc. But I guess just depends on your point of view how you want to interpret things - just like this asinine list.

   

Then I'd go with Reagan. He did things I disagree with, for sure. But he also:

1. Ended the Cold War and ended the threat of global nuclear war that I and everyone in my generation grew up with. Most young people today have no idea what it was like to see the Wall fall in Germany and then a few years later see the Soviet Union close up shop. The relief I felt after that is beyond words.

2. Made people proud to be Americans again. Jimmy Carter chastised people and generally made us all feel depressed and Reagan came in and instilled a sense of optimism and pride.

3. He knew how to use battleship diplomacy which was just cool.

4. He was one of the few Presidents who ever went out of his way to be friends with foreign heads of state. This did more for our foreign relations than any treaty or speech ever did.

5. Grenada. While that cost me personally in terms of pain and etc. that spank-down helped bring Soviet-Cuban expansionism in the Caribbean to a halt.

6. Reagan helped start an economic expansion that didn't end until the financial crisis in 2008.

It might surprise you to know who my #2 is and that would be Bill Clinton.

Why?

1. He didn't screw up the booming economy with foolish social programs or etc. and that took a LOT of political capital on his part in reigning in the socialists in his own party.

2. He maintained our good relations with our allies.

3. He plays a mean sax.

Granted, he did stuff I utterly opposed, but I'll still give credit where credit is due. Overall, he did a good job.

   

=/= debunked

   

My apologies for my insensitive post. It must still sting to be cast from paradise....

   

Thank you
I agree with you on both. I also think that Obama is a lot more like Reagan than people would like to admit. I think the Republicans should go back to being Republican the way Reagan was and Obama is coming closer to that than someone like Romney. Just my $0.02.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next