Originally Posted by mmarsh

What you got is a whole lot of nothing (and with no sources either which makes it a useless nothing).

Most unbiased shcolars consider Reagan on of the top 20 best US presidents

There have been 43 Presidents so you are selecting top 20 thats almost half that were the Greatest, and the other 23 were what exactly? What a wonderfully useless statastic (which you clearly made up). Next time when you lie say 3 or 5 greatest its more belivable.

Did I say top 20, I meant top 10 (my bad).

If you want sources here it is:

Ranking Our Presidents
This study reports results from the latest survey of 78 scholars on the presidency. Unlike most prior studies, this study surveyed experts on presidential history and politics from the fields of law and political science, as well as from history. Moreover, we explicitly balanced the group to be surveyed with approximately equal numbers of experts on the left and the right. Because political leanings can influence professional judgments, we think that these are the most politically unbiased estimates of presidential reputation yet obtained for American presidents.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/hail/math/mathintro.html

It is a survey of 78 top scholars around the country from both left and right, they ranked Reagan #8. Shows you what know, which is not much.

So much for a whole lot of nothing, you are the one with nothing coming here with your biased propaganda.

Incidently, I found acouple articles. I can give you the links if you want just ask...

Nationmaster encyclopedia. It named Washington, Lincoln and FDR.
Washington Post July 2000 Washington, Lincoln and FDR
C-SPAN Survey -Ditto
WSJ -Ditto. Incidently the WSJ names Reagan #8 behind all the names I previous mentioned. But this must be one of those 'unbias historians' you were referring to paper it not surprising. The other articles had no mention of Reagan.
Gallup was the closest. But it did a poll on most popular (not greatest). For example, Grant was popular but will go down as one of the worst. Anyway most popular on Gallup FDR, Clinton, Reagan in that order. Thats the best I could find. Yes Clinton beat Reagan 66% to 63%.

Again What are your sources? I await your response.

hahaha I gave you my source.

The poll you describes takes account only recent history, president fovaritism is skewed towards recent memory. They don't take into account the whole historical perspective as shcolars are capable of doing. Thats why Clinton ranked so high, he was ranked #24 by the scholars.

As for your anology that USSR was driven into bankruptcy by the Arms Race. Good anology except you gave credit to the wrong President 40 years too late. You cannot just cherry pick historical facts and ignore the rest. Allow me to explain:

The Arms Race didnt start with Reagan. It started with Truman. The moment the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Joe Stalin made it #1 Priority to get the bomb and to build more than the US to counterbalance the US. The race reached began in 1949 When the Russians got it. The race went on tit for tat through the next 6 presidents and finally ended with the USSRs final collapse. It just so happened Reagan was President.

Suppose the USSR survived 6 more than it did. Would you say Clinton ended the Cold War. I dont think so! And any liberal would be foolish to make that arguement.

Also, Gorbachev could have kept communism around simply by doing what Kruschev in the 60's. Tianamen Square in China prooved that sending Tanks against the demostrators is pretty effective. Gorby was pressured to do the same by the military. He CHOSE not to. He chose to let Poland go free and he Chose to let the wall fall and he decided to end communism in Russian realizing communism as a failure. Which is exactly why the Soviet Army tried to overthrow him.

Nice try, but right-wing revisionism wont work on me.

Based on what you said about Reagan, it shows me you don't know much about this either.

What Truman started Carter (the liberal ideal) ruined.

Even starting with Truman it wasn't an absolute out and out arms race, they simply went on parity with the Soviets

It was Reagan who wanted to literally outspend the Soviets. He increased the land force and wanted to build a 400 ship navy (what president before him has even sugested this, they were merely content on parity). Gorby would have never done what he did if they werent on the verge of economic ruin, which was forced about by Reagan.

This is not revisionist history, you just choose to ignore it because of your bias.

You find every reason in you biased think to keep Reagan down, when even if fact those same shcolars would disagree with you, naming Reagan the #1 most underated president in US history. So there.

Stop trying to brainwash us with you propaganda, brainwash yourself if you want.

Originally Posted by 5.56X45mm

I finally understand what the difference is between you and I. You think that communism is a legitimate form of government while I on the oher hand does not.

'Nuff Said

jesus man he's isn't saying that at all! all he's saying is that fidel is NOT a communist....or at the very most one in name only.

cool your jets a bit, dial down your rage and look at what we are saying!

no has defended castro...or his regieme. he has been called a vicious dictator and worse than saddam ever was.

####

you mentioned healthcare further back and it's great that you have the money to not wait in line....what about those who dont have the money? i pay some of the highest taxes rates in the world but i know that should i lose my job, hurt myself badly etc etc that those taxes that i paid go towards the unemployment benefit and free healthcare. it's something i would NEVER change.

i also live in a country where the most heavily armed police man i ever saw was carrying pepper spray. at the moment there is a debate going whether the police should have tazer guns (duty sargeants have pistol/rifle/shotgun in their cars however)....but despite that, i think i live in a polite society.

just because the US doesn't do it that way doesn't mean it's not a valid point.


oh and 03 & missileer. quit with the cheapshots guys, it's boring and prooves you have nothing to say.

Originally Posted by chewie_nz

jesus man he's isn't saying that at all! all he's saying is that fidel is NOT a communist....or at the very most one in name only.

He said that indeed, you just have to read:

Originally Posted by mmarsh

True Communism an evil system that should be purged from society but it is Legitmate

That's where playing it smart come in. I put money away incase somehting happens. If you work and get $100.00, and you need to spend fifty of those dollars. You save the other $50.00. That's what I do. I save my cash. I'm not filthy sticking rich. I only make about $30,000.00 a year. And I have to pay for college, car, house, INTERNET, gas, medical insurance, car insurance, food, homeowner's insurance, taxes, and so on. And I get by. What do I do. I get loans from the bank to help pay for college, along with the G.I. Bill. If I have too spend "x" amount of dollars, I'll curtail my spending on other things. It's the way that life works. I have a leg that doesn't want to work all the time. And I'm still in physical therapy for it. That cost money. Sure my medical insurance covers some of the costs and so does the VA. But I still have to pay some of it. Luckly I have a job that I really enjoy. I work by selling and repairing firearms. It's my life. And I enjoy it. And part of my recerational activities earn me money too. I shoot in competition. IDPA, Camp Perry, and NRA. That sort of stuff. I'm not great. But a extra hundred bucks here and there works for me. God dealt me a hand and I have to play it. My family isn't rich, and neither am I. But hey, I get by and work as hard as I can so I can live a good life. A friend of mine is still just a legal alien of the USA. He's the only one here. Works and goes to school. Doesn't drive a BMW or live in a mansion, but he still gets by. Pays for school, living, and his health care. If you expect for someone to help you out and give you hand outs. You're screwed. That's why socialized health care doesn't work. Sure, you'll get to see a doctor. In something like two years. And maybe you wont die of whatever it is that you need to see him/her for. I rather bust my ass and pay too see my doctor. I could not pay for a thing and let the VA do all the work for me. But I don't like waiting.

Originally Posted by 5.56X45mm

If you expect for someone to help you out and give you hand outs. You're screwed. That's why socialized health care doesn't work. Sure, you'll get to see a doctor. In something like two years. And maybe you wont die of whatever it is that you need to see him/her for. I rather bust my ass and pay too see my doctor. I could not pay for a thing and let the VA do all the work for me. But I don't like waiting.

well we are going to have to diasagree on healthcare then. as it has been my experience that socialized (stateowned) healthcare works, and is certianly a better option than in the US where so many low income folk have no health insurance.

my family was low income and my brother and i got dealt a pretty shitty hand when we were young (my brother died) but but state healthcare did right by us. and my family wasn't just expecting "handouts" they did their part through taxes, military service and working for the tax department...so dont give me that "handout" crap

Sure stateowned healthcare works if you dump enough money on it. I dont know about NZ but Canads spending about 1/3 of there money on healthcare. Thats too expensive to employ in countries that have to worry about defence.
Anybody with money in Canada comes to the US for healthcare cause its simply better. Also if you meet the qualifications in the United States there is government provided healthcare, you just dont get it if you can afford otherwise.

Originally Posted by Rabs

Sure stateowned healthcare works if you dump enough money on it. I dont know about NZ but Canads spending about 1/3 of there money on healthcare. Thats too expensive to employ in countries that have to worry about defence.
Anybody with money in Canada comes to the US for healthcare cause its simply better. Also if you meet the qualifications in the United States there is government provided healthcare, you just dont get it if you can afford otherwise.

yeah that is thrue too...NZ has the advantage of having a small population as well as being quite compact geographically.


hmmm healthcare Vs military...i know what i would prefer....but thats a different story!

Chewie_NZ, Italian Guy

I stand by my words, True communism is legitamate it is in most cases because its brought on by popular movement. Russian Revolution, Chinese Red Movement etc. Those were popular (meaning by the people) movements.

Despotism is illegitmate because it is not brought on by popular movement but by coup de etat, by military forces. As what happened recently in Madagascar. That government is illegal as it didnt have the support of the people.

Again and for the 100th time I am not defending communism in the least. Its a matter of definition thats all.

Gladus

You call that a source

A SINGLE survey run by the Federalist Society and the Wall Street Journal. Both of which are extremely conservative. Is that your idea of "unbias scholors". Yes it claimed to sample from both sides but its not scientific and frankly I start to smirk when conservatives start to claim "fair and balanced". WSJ nor the Federalist society is not exactly known for its liberal commentary. In my sources I included both the WSJ AND the Washington Post, which is liberal.
Your own survey states right of the top that only 78 of 130 responded. thats means 50% people didnt participate. In other words, Roughly 50% margin of error. That makes the stat useless. My sources were about 3-4%. So to summerize you have a single source, sponsered by conservatives with an extremely absurd margin of error. And thats your proof? And you call me bias? Your're a joke!

Thank you, I rest my case.

The next part

Its amazing how you can comment when you dont know your own history.
Read a Book!

IT wasn't parity, the USA had the bomb first in 1945, Hiroshima! Nagasaki! Remember! Sheesh. The USSR detonated its bomb in 1949, the Pentagon determined to maintain its Atomic supremacy began a unparelled military construction (conventional and non-conventional) which was accellerated during the Korean War. The USSR followed suit. That was the start of the Arms race.

Carter was a bad President, I said so yesterday. I dont know a single renouned liberal who would deny this. I have even heard people on the far left like Al Franken say it. They (and I) admire his accomplishments as an ex-president but no denies Carter was bad Leader. So to call him the 'liberal Ideal' proves that YET again that you are lying.

Secondly Carter was only in office 4 years. So you are going to have to explain how in 4 years Carter reversed 30+ years of the Truman Doctine.
The SALT II treaty was signed in 1979 I Reagan undid it in 1983. Although the treaty was honored by both sides There was enough time for it to take effect. Before Reagan recontinued the arms build up.

Although he was not a good president, your 'Blame Carter' theory doesnt hold water. There wasnt enough time for SALT II to be effective. Incidently, Remember my first post about Conservatives always blaming someone else for their mistakes. -thanks for proving me right.

You want to know why Reagan is popular amongst todays Republicans? I don't deny he was popular. I just think he was a disaster, although I admit he's nowhere near as bad as the jerk we have now. In my mind if there is any doubt about Reagan, there will be none about Bush II. He has all of Reagan and Bush Vices and none of their virtues. But I digress, Its because Reagan founded the far right wing movement (with a few others). Thats the only reason.

You have repeativly slandered me by calling me bias. I bet you must think im a liberal democat right? Wrong. I'm ex-GOP moderate.
I say this to prove I am not bias. I disagree with liberals on Bush Senior. I dont think Bush Senior was a bad president (I even voted for him). Why? Serveral reasons but principally because Bush got unfairly blamed for the economic mess left by Reagan and when he tried to fix it by raising taxes (Ok the read my lips part was stupid) the whole conservative base turned against him. But at least unlike Reagan and Bush II, he took some measure of responisiblity. I am proudly not a NEOCON, neither was Bush I. Bush I called NEOCONS 'the crazies'.

Try explaining my biasness on that!

Rabs

I think thats the whole problem. We spend too much on defense and not enough on healthcare. We are spending $5 Billion on Iraq a month! That is an outragous waste.

American Healthcare has been discribed as both the best and the worst. The best for those who can afford it, the worst for those who cannot.

Its wrong to have people go into Canada for treatment or buy drugs simply because its too expensive here. We might have the best system but if its too expensive that we cannot use it, whats the point?

Incidently, where is the vaunted Bush $40 Billion Health plan he touted during the election, ever since we won there hasn't been a peep about it (surprise, surprise). Although there was time for him to try privatizing Social Security.

Fortunately, the American public was not as stupid as Bush thinks they are.