It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever?

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Once again, dead on Dooper. Woodrow Wilson is the worst we've had and since Grover seems to lack this bit of history(establishment of the Fed and the Federal Income Tax), I really pay no attention his posts because it appears to me as factless political trolling. No history, no knowledge, no substance.

Sorry Grover, you're barkin' up the wrong tree.




posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mental modulator

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???


Presidents always inherit things from their predecessors. Obama is inheriting Bushes problems to be sure. The real question should be, did a President solve the problems he inherited and leave less problems on the table?

Very few Presidents seem to leave office with a good economy going behind them. Sure at reelection they manage to do that, but not after they serve their two terms lately. Both Clinton and Bush left recessions looming, Reagan was the exception to that in modern history.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   


Just because, y'know...


... The United States invites the charge of hypocrisy when it accuses "enemy leaders" of war crimes, while it turns a blind eye to equally horrific slaughters committed by allies, sometimes guided and protected by the U.S. government.
With release of truth commission reports in several Central American countries - most recently Guatemala - there can no longer be any doubt about the historical reality.


The rest of the article- Reagan war crimes

[edit on 7/6/2009 by purehughness]

[edit on 7/6/2009 by purehughness]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Recently, a statue of Reagan was unveiled by Obama with a fair amount of fanfare. I think this stuck in the craw of a lot of left wingers. They can't abide the fact that conservatives AND some non-conservatives give him (Reagan) a lot of credit and respect. (although, the liberals that do, do it begrudgingly)

Liberals just can't stand any conservative being given credit for ANYTHING.
So, now the "campaign to tear down Reagan" has begun here and other places on the internet. I've noticed several articles/blogs like this in the last few days. I guess that they all got their "talking points" via twitter or their secret decoder rings from the DNC elite. lol

Was he perfect? No, no president is or can ever be perfect. But, he was damn sure better than any other president in the last 30 years or so.

The worst President? Yep, it was Carter.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
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.

And that's something I find really odd - just how very conservative the members of ATS are....in general. I'm very interested in UFO's and a number of conspiracies being discussed on ATS but I really wonder why so many conservatives are drawn to this site. I believe the attraction is fear. If anything conservatives have shown themselves to be motivated by fear and foster it and create it where it furthers their political agendas.

I really truly did not want to get drawn into the politics at this site but there appears to be an overwhelming number of conservatives and political operatives at work here though I think some people, you included are starting to speak up effectively against all of this foolishness.

I knew in 1980 that the middle class of the USA was going to ultimately bite the dust and I believe trickle down economics has done the job.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 

No. I think that the Soviet Union would have fallen around the the same time it did if we'd had 8 years of Carter followed by Mondale... It delt itself the death blow when it invaded Afghanistan.

If it hadn't it may have lasted a few years longer but even during the 60's the cracks were showing and and by the 70's it was obvious.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Oldnslo
 

Since historically speaking conservatism is the losing gambit in history who is barking up the wrong tree?



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


To each their own I guess. So Reagan's pressure on an already shaky Soviet Union had no effect on it? I find that hard to believe, when even former Soviets admit that he played a part in hastening the fall.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 

I didn't say that... I said that it would have fallen on its own without Reagan... but did his pressure on it help... possibly but in my humble opinion Gorbechov's changes had a far greater impact... it opened the door for the expression of discontent and once people started expressing that, it was just a matter of time.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

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".


Oh, you're just being emotional, again.
But if you want to compare and see who shot up the debt, lets do it:


President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious.

What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits?

* President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
* President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
* President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.
* President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.
* President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.
* President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

* President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.


Article here



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 



Boy, it must be really hard for you to admit that Reagan helped speed the fall of the Soviet Union. You seem loathe to give him credit for that. That's ok, I won't tell anyone.......



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


It has nothing to do with loathing Reagan... I just believe the Soviet Union would have fallen regardless... his policies may have hastened its fall but not by much. They may have survived into the 90's perhaps but they would have still fallen long before now. Their system was simply too rigid. I honestly believe that the Afghan invasion sealed its fate and Gorby's internal policies were just as critical.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by grover]



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by Oldnslo
 

Since historically speaking conservatism is the losing gambit in history who is barking up the wrong tree?


We'll just have to see whose barking up the wrong tree. There are more conservative's in this country than you might think. Obama's STEALING of the people's life long earnings and savings will convert many more to a more conservatism outlook. Everything is cyclical and what goes around comes around!!

For your own sake, read up on the Wilson administration and what was done to the American people, and also look for anything on his thoughts prior to his death. He knew he had betrayed those that elected him - The American people. Many historians believe his remorse hastened his death. At least the SOB went to his grave knowning he was used as a tool by TPTB and he had @$*%*# the American people, big time.

Justice.


I hope he rotted in Hell!

Grover, Reagan was a saint compaired to the ex-president of Princeton - Woodrow Wilson.

(You say Iran/Contra was Reagan's, but it was a GHWB/CIA operation, by the way, and it got hung on RR. The Bush family did as it please no matter what any President wanted back to the days of R. Milhaus Nixon-- Nixon tapes - and possibly to the JFK administration). Ollie worked for GHWB

As I said before, you're a little short on history.

Compared to Reagan, Omama looks like a college kid short on experience when he speaks. He couldn't talk me out of a piece of gum. Ahh, um, um, um, ahh. I would think he would have a better comand of the English language, at least be a decent speaker, with an ability to think on his feet. I guess that's asking too much these days.

Grover, you shovelled %&#* on Bush for the way he spoke, but BO and his wife are at a loss without a prepared speech on a teleprompter. Without one, they are at a loss for words ......... In my book, the nod goes to Bush, not the guy in the empty suit.

Reagan doesn't hold a candle to the likes of good ole Woodrow Wilson, the man that let the US and Internation Bankers begin their takeover of the America banking system.. What we are witnessing now is the beginning of the "end-game" of what began in 1913, the complete takeover of the US by the Internation Banking Cartel.

All this lost in one generation of Americans. What a shame.

And you don't know this, Grover?? Shame on you oh great oricle of knowledge.



[edit on 27-6-2009 by Oldnslo] - Spelling

[edit on 27-6-2009 by Oldnslo]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join