Ronald Reagan was a great man

Mott the Hoople said:
Hey if you want to think of him as a great President more power to you. I'm sure many a Libertarian think Warren G. Harding was just awesome. As for me, I set the bar just a little higher [/sarcasm].
Click to expand...

yeah... but given the fact that you think of yourself as a great strategist... your opinion has been severely diminished in value.

Most historians rank Reagan as one of the top ten Presidents (thus... upper quartile).

He was by no means perfect and some valid criticisms have been raised. That said, he was a leader this country desperately needed after the debacles that were Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter.

I know the left loves to beat on Reagan and that is understandable given how badly Reagan trounced the Dems idea of a leader (Mondale).
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You're a political novice and a complete partisan if you truely believe that. Hell all three of those political philosophers were intensely conservative. Hell Sun Tzu had two of his Kings courtesans executed for giggling, just to make a point to him. If you think any of these political machinations are the perogatives of the left or right your being foolish.
Click to expand...
Bahaha okay Mott.

If you say so.
 
Superfreak said:
yeah... but given the fact that you think of yourself as a great strategist... your opinion has been severely diminished in value.

Most historians rank Reagan as one of the top ten Presidents (thus... upper quartile).

He was by no means perfect and some valid criticisms have been raised. That said, he was a leader this country desperately needed after the debacles that were Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter.

I know the left loves to beat on Reagan and that is understandable given how badly Reagan trounced the Dems idea of a leader (Mondale).
Click to expand...
You haven't read my previous posts. I've previously states that Reagan was an average to above average US President. I said he was not great US President and historians agree with that.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You haven't read my previous posts. I've previously states that Reagan was an average to above average US President. I said he was not great US President and historians agree with that.
Click to expand...

No they actually don't.

Feel free to espouse your own hilarious opinions as fact, but kindly draw the line at pretending those hilarious opinions are shared by credible historians.
 
Considering how few good presidents we've actually had, a grudging compliment of "good" is actually high praise from those who are not Reaganites.
 
Superfreak said:
again... you can have that personal opinion, but historians DO NOT agree with you.
Click to expand...
No, they've ranked him from the second (average) to the first (above average) quartile. They don't consider him great. They consider him a significant President that's for sure. Most profesional historians only rate 3 US Presidents as being "Great". Those being Washington, Lincoln and FDR.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Look being ranked between 20 and 10 does not make him great. At least the Historians, unlike most of Reagans supporters here get it right, and know how to seperate mythology from fact.
Click to expand...

You said he was average to above average and that historians would agree with you. They do not. Ranked, 6th, 8th, 10th, 11th... that is hardly 'above average'...

But again, your recent displays of what you think is 'great' highlights exactly why your opinion should be disregarded. You are clearly out of your friggin mind.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
To some degree they all are.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say all. Right now I'm reading "A Patriots History of the US", obviously written to refute "A Peoples History of the US", but I have found it to be well balanced. It is written by two different authors from either side of the isle, and unlike "Peoples" is actually backed up with references.
 
Southern Man said:
I wouldn't say all. Right now I'm reading "A Patriots History of the US", obviously written to refute "A Peoples History of the US", but I have found it to be well balanced. It is written by two different authors from either side of the isle, and unlike "Peoples" is actually backed up with references.
Click to expand...
I'd be skeptical of both. Real history isn't balanced. At least the factual aspects of them aren't. I'm skeptical of hell of anyone (left or right) who spins a particular point of view. As the reader, isn't that my job?
 
Originally Posted by Southern Man
Facts, by definition, are not opinions.
Click to expand...

Mott the Hoople said:
I believe that was my point.
Click to expand...

Ahh, but the standard of the neocon rhetoric for the last 9 years has been that any FACT they don't like gets labled as "opinion".

Reagan being labled "The Great Communicator" was a fucking joke....because essentially his acting skills in delivering speeches with conviction didn't hide the fact that many of his proposals were either vaugue, generalized or unrealistic. It was no small event when even then VP George Bush labeled his "trickle down" economic plan as "voodoo economics"...and THAT being just one highlighted example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top