mmarsh said:
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.