Worst President of the 20th Century

[DeletedUser]

I could have sworn I was talking about Reagan. And it was the moderator of this forum who brought up Australia, not me

 

[DeletedUser]

Just a couple of things: As Furry said, this discussion is only about US presidents, not the whole world's track record. Yes, I brought up Australia, but only as a legitimate comparison, not as an assessment of Australia's performance.

Also, the Government 101 lectures are not required. I studied US history & politics at tertiary level so I have a working understanding. Assuming ignorance is not the best assumption. But on to the actual issues, not the "why pick on Reagan" issues...

You will know point out that the first case didnt show in Australia until 1982. Meaning Australia had seen this disease around the world and it was much easier for them to unite together to begin action.

I already pointed that out. And I will further point out that this issue was already being discussed in the popular and medical press in the US in 1981. In 1981 in Australia, there was one article in the Sydney gay street press, which isn't exactly high circulation. The fact that Australia and the US responded at the same time therefore can only indicate (if it indicates anything at all) that the US was more sluggish given their knowledge and experience at the time.

In July of 1982 there were only 452 known cases reported to the CDC. A lot of what Denisero quotes of the numbers were never known at that time. Those numbers werent fully realized until the late 80's/early 90's. So to say Reagan realized the full destructive nature of AIDS with the numbers she quoted is rediculously flawed. Those numbers were not known in 1982/1983. They may be a true representation of the numbers at that time, but to say those were known numbers at that time is a blatant lie.

You know that if you wish to address Denisero's arguments, you should address her, right? We aren't the same person and I made no statements about this. But just out of interest, deaths known at the time were...

Pre-1981 – 31
1981 - 834
1982 – 853
1983 – 2304
1984 – 4251
1985 - 5636

(2 Sources:
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:t1oRd81QEp4J:snyfarvc.cc.farmingdale.edu/~grosss/lecture1.ppt
http://www.aegis.com/topics/timeline/ )

More relevant to the issue is how much information about the disease was known during which time. There was plenty of medical data made available to Reagan.

Again, the world as a whole reacted in 1983, not prior.

But Reagan did not react in 1983. He was silent in 1983. It was the Secretary of Health who spoke in 1983 and even if we assume the statement was approved or requested by the President, passing such a statement off to someone else is a pretty common political tactic when you want to pander to both sides of an issue while keeping your hands clean.

But was it actually the #1 health priority anyway? The fact that someone in his administration said it was doesn't mean it was so. When looking into that claim in 1983 the Committee on Government Operations said it wasn't. In fact, they said that some studies and research couldn't even be finished due to lack of funding and that no kind of co-ordinated plan for dealing with AIDS even existed.

Federal response to AIDS : hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, Ninety-eighth Congress, first session, August 1 and 2, 1983

As for Reagan's first use of the word in 1985, in response to a direct question on the subject (ie; he hadn't bothered raising it himself yet despite the fact that he was already being criticised for inaction on the issue), let's look at the specifics:

Reporter. Mr. President, the Nation's best-known AIDS scientist says the time has come now to boost existing research into what he called a minor moonshot program to attack this AIDS epidemic that has struck fear into the Nation's health workers and even its schoolchildren. Would you support a massive government research program against AIDS like the one that President Nixon launched against cancer?
Reagan. I have been supporting it for more than 4 years now. It's been one of the top priorities with us, and over the last 4 years, and including what we have in the budget for '86, it will amount to over a half a billion dollars that we have provided for research on AIDS in addition to what I'm sure other medical groups are doing. And we have $100 million in the budget this year; it'll be 126 million next year. So, this is a top priority with us. Yes, there's no question about the seriousness of this and the need to find an answer.
​

Wow. Half a billion dollars you say? Mr President obviously has been doing something all this time that he has been silent. Or has he? Let's check out that half a billion dollars he managed to appropriate from that hostile Democratic Congress you posited as a scapegoat.

Studds said Reagan's requests to Congress for fiscal years 1982 through 1986 were far less than that amount, and the money was appropriated only because Congress went beyond administration requests.
"The administration's request for the five fiscal years in question, '82, '83, '84, '85 and '86, adds up to $213.5 million," Studds said. "The way I read that, it's less than 'over half a billion' by a substantial amount."
Associated Press article, September 1985
​

And just to show that the President's domestic action was completely pathetic, he actually tried, unsuccessfully, to get the AIDS budget reduced in both 1986 and 1987. Do you want to suggest he didn't know enough by 1987 too? That mean, obstructive Congress you blame went ahead and spent almost double what he wanted to anyway.

Its rediculous to blame Reagan for gay bashing or bowing to christians which is all this is. Its been going on since the Clinton administration and has been proven wrong every time.

I have said absolutely nothing about gay bashing so for you to imply that is quite out of line. On the pandering to Christian conservatives issue, I suggest you go and have a closer look at the demographics of Reagan's political base. No bias is required to recognise that Reagan knew, as any politician does, which side his bread was buttered on. It isn't some kind of egregious insult. It is just how politics works.

The Reagan administration was already acting by 1983...

Um, yeah... You said, he had done “some things”. Very persuasive.

...and had already called it the first health priority for the USA.

No, he hadn't. Someone else had and it wasn't true anyway.

The democrats who controlled congress werent.

Except they were actually doing more than Reagan wanted them to.

 

[DeletedUser]

I could have sworn I was talking about Reagan. And it was the moderator of this forum who brought up Australia, not me

And you brought up Europe.

Enough childish stone throwing for you? As Vi explained is was brought up in comparison not a nice easy way to try and stop people talking about the US.

 

[DeletedUser]

Precise budget requests are difficult to calculate, as online records from the 1980s are spotty. Nevertheless, New York University's archived, hard copies of budget documents from fiscal year 1984 through FY 1989 show that Reagan proposed at least $2.79 billion for AIDS research, education, and treatment.

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200312030913.asp

Really, less than 250 million you say? Are you sure about those numbers? You quote one of the guys who said he didnt say publicly anything about AIDS til 1987. He was wrong when he said the 1987 piece and he was wrong when he gave those false numbers. Quoting someone who has lied multiple times doesnt mean much. And thats what everyone is quotng. Most of these quotes come from anti-Reagan sites. Not legitmiate AIDS sites. Other than some numbers being quoted, the rest are known people (including Studds) who has knowingly and willingly lied to mislead people about Reagan. Studds has never given an ounce of proof about what he said, he is anti-Reagan and that is not up for debate.

Reagan publicly demonstrated this outlook when he opposed Proposition 6, a 1978 ballot measure that called for the dismissal of California teachers who "advocated" homosexuality, even outside of schools. Reagan used both a September 24, 1978, statement and a syndicated newspaper column to campaign against the initiative.

That November 7, Proposition 6 lost, 41.6 percent in favor to 58.4 percent against. Reagan's opposition is considered instrumental to its defeat.

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200312030913.asp

Reagan never pandered to the christians. This was when he was Governor of California. 2 years prior to him becoming president and when he was gearing up for his presidential run. Had he been relying on the christians for support, he would have bnever taken this action. Had he been pandering to them, he would have been for Proposition 6 not against it. Reagan was a hollywood actor then became a politician as a democrat. He was never the christians "chosen son" nor did he ever pander to them. Even if politically it would have meant a better chance at getting elected president. There goes your whole pandering theory.

Yes, we could have spent more, but that can always be said of federal spending. And it's unclear that additional funding would have accomplished much. “You could have poured half the national budget into AIDS in 1983, and it would have gone down a rat hole,” says Michael Fumento, an author specializing in health and science issues. We simply didn't know enough about the disease early on to spend huge sums wisely.

http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/26671.html

So was he wrong for not draining the US economy for AIDS research when the rest of the world was doing the same. He was as active as the other world leaders when it came to AIDS. The Reagan administration was as active as anyone else in 1982 and 1983. The democrats didnt start adding onto AIDS budget proposals til after that. Once they finally got moving.

So much false information has been spread about Reagan and AIDS. Most of what gets quoted are lies, such as the quoting of a gay Massachusetts congressman named Studds.

Also just a note. Most of that last post wasnt directed at you. Even where I say, you will know bring up the first case in Australia wasnt until 1982. I was saying that meaning you would bring that up as a counter argument. I had read your previous post, which is where I got the first case in Australia being in 1982 to begin with. A lot of the info was meant as an extension on the argument/debate as a whole. Not directing them at you. Such as the CDC number which you say I should have directed at Denisero. I wasnt directing that at anyone. It was an extension to the debate at hand.

 

[DeletedUser]

And you brought up Europe.

Enough childish stone throwing for you? As Vi explained is was brought up in comparison not a nice easy way to try and stop people talking about the US.

Talk about the US all you want. Bash us as much as you feel you have to. I have never said you dont have freedom of speech, but I also have that same freedom.

 

[DeletedUser]

rant

Sooo...

We're in a thread titled "Worst President of the 20th Century" obviously we are talking about the US given everyones reponses, thank you for your permission to talk about the US.

I don't bash the US in any of my posts, if you think I have show me where.

I also never said you don't have freedom of speech or even implied it, all I have said is that this thread is about the US not Europe of Australia.

YOU responded with

And it was the moderator of this forum who brought up Australia, not me

Which is a childish "she did it, so I can do it" and you then brought up Europe.

Neither of these things have much to do with US Presidents given that they have no control over them.

So please stop lying.

 

[DeletedUser]

..hard copies of budget documents from fiscal year 1984 through FY 1989 show that Reagan proposed at least $2.79 billion for AIDS research, education, and treatment.http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200312030913.asp

As 1984-1989 was not the period we were discussing, this isn't relevant. You were making a case for his action much earlier than that.

Really, less than 250 million you say? Are you sure about those numbers? You quote one of the guys who said he didnt say publicly anything about AIDS til 1987. He was wrong when he said the 1987 piece and he was wrong when he gave those false numbers. Quoting someone who has lied multiple times doesnt mean much.

I think the key word there is "publicly". C-Span has extraordinarily high ratings, does it? Regardless of that one response to a direct question (and again, saying that it is a priority doesn't mean he was acting as though it was one), it is certainly an arguable position that it doesn't count as a "public" statement the way that a statement in a national address does.

And from looking at various sources, and not partisan sources, it looks to me as though there is a genuine lack of awareness of it, not that the mistatement is a deliberate misrepresentation. Why? Because it wasn't very public or very publicised. The 1985 comment does nothing to mitigate the fact of his extended silence.

And as for just saying someone is a "known" liar... present some evidence of lies. Who knows he is a liar? What are the many things he has lied about? Saying someone is a liar is not an argument. It is just an unsubstantiated slur.

Studds has never given an ounce of proof about what he said, he is anti-Reagan and that is not up for debate.

Anti-Reagan? Is that an argument intended to prove he isn't reliable? It makes no sense. By that measure, anyone who says anything negative about Reagan is anti-Reagan and therefore not credible and therefore Reagan must be perfect. You see the flaw in your logic there? Again, this is not an argument.

Reagan publicly demonstrated this outlook when he opposed Proposition 6, a 1978 ballot measure that called for the dismissal of California teachers who "advocated" homosexuality, even outside of schools. Reagan used both a September 24, 1978, statement and a syndicated newspaper column to campaign against the initiative.

You seem to think that in a discussion such as this, finding one exception is enough. It simply isn't. We are talking about the sum of his behaviour. Saying the word once before the usually cited date for his first public statement is laughable. Doing one thing which was in favour of gays proves nothing either, even if his attitude to gays was relevant, which it isn't.

Reagan never pandered to the christians. This was when he was Governor of California. 2 years prior to him becoming president and when he was gearing up for his presidential run. Had he been relying on the christians for support, he would have bnever taken this action. Had he been pandering to them, he would have been for Proposition 6 not against it. Reagan was a hollywood actor then became a politician as a democrat. He was never the christians "chosen son" nor did he ever pander to them. Even if politically it would have meant a better chance at getting elected president. There goes your whole pandering theory.

Well actually, no. Because that argument is essentially "I say he didn't therefore he didn't." Quite frankly, I can't see why it gets your knickers in a knot. And that is twice now you've made a specific point that he was an actor. Do you think that is somehow relevant?

"Yes, we could have spent more..."

I'm sorry but that seems to hark back to your "cure" argument which was another misdirection, as nobody had been talking about a cure. And with no context for that quote, it looks likely to me that the "author specialising in health & science" was referring specifically to medical research and not to a complete management of the issue including education and social services etc and organised cooperation between the various departments and government branches.

So was he wrong for not draining the US economy for AIDS research when the rest of the world was doing the same. He was as active as the other world leaders when it came to AIDS. The Reagan administration was as active as anyone else in 1982 and 1983. The democrats didnt start adding onto AIDS budget proposals til after that. Once they finally got moving.

Hyperbole: "Draining the economy". Seriously? Besides, that guy sunk you in a black hole of national debt. And misdirection again too about what the world was doing: "But Timmy stole a biscuit too." doesn't convince me of anything. But now you concede that Congress actually did more for AIDs than Reagan did. That is something at least.

So much false information has been spread about Reagan and AIDS. Most of what gets quoted are lies, such as the quoting of a gay Massachusetts congressman named Studds.

The quote from Studds was from Associated Press. It was news, it wasn't partisan interest groups. And it was contemporary, written in 1985 when it was said. It is late now, and I don't have time to look up further sources but feel free to do your own research to prove Studds figures were inaccurate.

Reagan said nothing and did very little. His silence and his lack of leadership on this issue was culpable negligence.

 

[DeletedUser]

Anti-Reagan? Is that an argument intended to prove he isn't reliable? It makes no sense. By that measure, anyone who says anything negative about Reagan is anti-Reagan and therefore not credible and therefore Reagan must be perfect. You see the flaw in your logic there? Again, this is not an argument.

You are correct, anti-Reagan is the wrong choice of words. Studds himself was afraid to talk about AIDS until he was outed in a congressional hearing for having sex with a 17 year old male page. (for full disclosure. 16 was the consentual age at that time and he did not commit statuatory rape. Also there was a Republican congressman named Crane who was also found to have had sex with a 17 year old girl in the same investigation) Which was in July 1983. He was afraid to push for extra AIDS funding prior to this and it wasnt until 1984 that he did so. Not sure if it was a fear of being labeled gay or what it was. For him to complain about Reagans funding of AIDS is still blatantly hypocritical.

You seem to think that in a discussion such as this, finding one exception is enough. It simply isn't. We are talking about the sum of his behaviour. ...

This goes directly to his pandering of christians. The christians did not overly like Reagan, and Reagan did not overly like them. When it was Reagan vs Carter, christians considered him the lesser of two evils. Christians as a whole were frustrated with Reagan because they wanted him to do and say certain things and he wouldnt. Primarily as it pertained to the gay community. When he allowed an openly gay couple to spend a night in the white house, the christians were very openly angry with him and quite frankly, Reagan never cared.

Well actually, no. Because that argument is essentially "I say he didn't therefore he didn't."

No.. Thats not the argument. The fact that he went against what the christians wanted him to do is the argument. Especially as he was nearing his election run. It would have been beneficial for him, as far as gaining the Republican nomination for president for him to cave in to them and support prop. 6. Reagan didnt cave to the christians at all. There were times when he believed in the same thing they did, but to believe in what you believe in and it coinciding with a christian is not pandering.

Quite frankly, I can't see why it gets your knickers in a knot. And that is twice now you've made a specific point that he was an actor. Do you think that is somehow relevant?

Im not sure why people like to say someone debating them is angry. I have not become angry at all. Havent got my blood pressure up or anything. Its a debate, and quite frankly I enjoy being in them. Oddly enough, they are fun to me.

The point about him being an actor is followed in the very next sentence. American Christians dont like Hollywood. I used it the first time in context of him having gay friends from Hollywood such as Rock Hudson. The second time I followed that up in the very next sentance.

I'm sorry but that seems to hark back to your "cure" argument which was another misdirection, as nobody had been talking about a cure. And with no context for that quote, it looks likely to me that the "author specialising in health & science" was referring specifically to medical research and not to a complete management of the issue including education and social services etc and organised cooperation between the various departments and government branches.

The cure argument was not a misdirection. its a direct counter to people who say that had Reagan done something, people who had already contracted AIDS could have been saved. My 'cure argument' as you put it, is just a direct refuting of that. Again my condolences go out to Denisero, but her Brother and Sister-in-law would still have passed away due to them contracting AIDS.

I will lay out my problem with this whole debate right here and now. The problem is people blame Reagan for AIDS. A lot of people use the "pandering to christians" comment based on them saying that christians didnt want Reagan to act on AIDS ever because of the gay disease concept. It has been said numerous times that christians wanted AIDS because they thought it would be the eradication of homosexuals across the globe. They then claim that Reagan pandered to them to make that 'dream' come true. A lot of people blame Reagan for inaction based on that concept. That he wanted gays to die. Again, part of the actor reference is simply to point out that he was friends with quite a few gay actors from Hollywood, and openly went against christians when it came to the gay community,

Reagan rarely pandered to anyone. He used bully tactics as his main political force, not pandering for a vote.

But now you concede that Congress actually did more for AIDs than Reagan did. That is something at least.

Please point out where I did because I have done no such thing.

The quote from Studds was from Associated Press. It was news, it wasn't partisan interest groups. And it was contemporary, written in 1985 when it was said.

And his answering questions in a press conference is also but that wants to be dismissed as not that public. I never said the Associated Press was partisan, just Studds himself. Plus its still a case of he said/she said with no proof to back up anythigng

Reagan said nothing and did very little. His silence and his lack of leadership on this issue was culpable negligence.

And so did the rest of the world. Meaning the entire world is guilty of culpable negligence. If you admit to that then this debate is over. Remember, I have said Reagan could have and should have done more. I have never let him off the hook. I will argue against people blaming him for 'murdering gays' which is where this argument is usually started. After all, 'The Global Programme on AIDS' launched by the WHO wasnt until 1987. Reagan was not the only one who did not act fast, that was a world failing. Not a USA failing.

Also my argument still holds that the congress of the USA has a larger hand in domestic issues than the president. That the presidents main job is foreign affairs. The congress of the USA shares just as much blame as the president does in this. The whole president is the leader of the USA is blown out of proportion as his main job is commander in chief.

I am leaving for a party for my daughter, I will try to review Studds more carefully when I get home. I didnt have the chance to do anything based on that yet. Will also respond then if there is something to respond to. If no more responses, then I will consider this argument over, If the debate continues, so be it. But please dont reference me as angry if I respond. Because I definitely will respond to political debates as I rather enjoy them.

@furry Icecubes My bringing up Europe was also as a comparison of the debate at hand. It wasnt meant as a bashing attempt towards Europe. Also on your other post you said something about not an easy way to stop talking about the USA. I read that to fast which is where my bash the USA all you want comment comes from. As I reread that, I realize now what you meant. So I apologize for the misread, thought you were saying something about if I can talk about Europe then you can talk about USA. My bad again apologies for the misread.

 

[DeletedUser]

Lets just get back on the Subject! Have some Vodka if you must, we must stay on WORST PRESIDENTS OF THE US!!!

Carter sucks.

 

[DeletedUser]

For him to complain about Reagans funding of AIDS is still blatantly hypocritical.

I consider the premise that being critical of someone for something you might not have done yourself is hypocritical to be false. Moreover, even in instances where it might be true, it does not necessarily negate the criticism.. Studds is not the president. It is also a fallacious argument in this case as the issue is the President's behaviour, not the behaviour of any other individual or group.

This goes directly to his pandering of christians. The christians did not overly like Reagan, and Reagan did not overly like them. When it was Reagan vs Carter, christians considered him the lesser of two evils. Christians as a whole were frustrated with Reagan because they wanted him to do and say certain things and he wouldnt. Primarily as it pertained to the gay community. When he allowed an openly gay couple to spend a night in the white house, the christians were very openly angry with him and quite frankly, Reagan never cared.

I would suggest to you that staying silent on the issue is a form of pandering, one even more egregious as he allowed the religious right to spread fear and false moral superiority completely unfettered despite the fact that he knew better and did not share their prejudices. And once again, his gay credentials are irrelevant to a discussion of his handling of a health issue.

I'm not going to discuss it any further as it is a distraction from the issue, just as I am not going to broaden the argument to illustrate every example of his political interactions with the fundies. I am completely satisfied that my assessment of that is well supported. It isn't just some general, lazy impression I have.

Im not sure why people like to say someone debating them is angry. I have not become angry at all. Havent got my blood pressure up or anything. Its a debate, and quite frankly I enjoy being in them. Oddly enough, they are fun to me.

I do too. But it is the harking on about side issues which made your posts seem overheated to me. With statements like the one about "this has been going on since the Clinton administration" etc etc, your arguments look like a general rants rather than specific responses. Also, as a style of argument, it is a logical fallacy because it implies your debate opponents hold views/have motivations that they do not.

The cure argument was not a misdirection. its a direct counter to people who say that had Reagan done something, people who had already contracted AIDS could have been saved. My 'cure argument' as you put it, is just a direct refuting of that.

Then we will call it a misreading. Because iirc, what was said was that he could have saved lives. Not that he could have saved the lives of those who already had HIV/AIDS. It was a straw man argument, whether you did it intentionally or not.

I will lay out my problem with this whole debate right here and now. The problem is people blame Reagan for AIDS....

This is a perfect example of the digressing into a (seeming) rant problem. What "a lot of people" think is not the issue. In a debate, you need to refute what your opponents say, not some general pattern of thought you perceive in other groups.

Please point out where I did because I have done no such thing.

You acknowledged that the Congress added more to the AIDS budget than Reagan requested.

And his answering questions in a press conference is also but that wants to be dismissed as not that public.

I think you made typos because I am not sure I understand what you are saying. I stand by my position that the statement in 1985 does not constitute speaking out on the issue by any measure.

And so did the rest of the world. Meaning the entire world is guilty of culpable negligence. If you admit to that then this debate is over.

I'm not going to bother with anymore "But Timmy stole a biscuit too" arguments. Their irrelevance has been pointed out more than once already. They do not in anyway clinch the debate because that is not the topic of the debate.

Remember, I have said Reagan could have and should have done more.

This however does clinch the debate as that is the stance of those you are arguing against.

I will argue against people blaming him for 'murdering gays' which is where this argument is usually started.

Then you should argue somewhere else, as this is not what has been said in this thread.

But please dont reference me as angry if I respond. Because I definitely will respond to political debates as I rather enjoy them.

I will take that information into account.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well here is the thing Killer. This is a thread that asked for you to list who you think the worst President is. I did that based on my opinion. Why you think it is up to you to go on a tirade about why my opinion is completely wrong I do not know. You aren't changing my mind. If anything you make yourself look like a fanatic that can't just let something you don't agree with go.

You and Vi or you and me can post all day contradictory 'evidence' regarding this matter but in the end nobody cares and no one is going to be swayed one way or the other. So maybe, if you haven't done so already, you can list who you think is worst president and then move on instead of hijacking a thread where there is nothing to be gained.

If I had said I thought he was the worst president because I didn't like the way he styled his hair or because I thought his movies sucked would you be so adamant that I was wrong? If you think my reasoning is wrong that is fine. I can live with that. If you think you are going to change my mind you won't. So you need to learn to live with that.

 

[DeletedUser1105]

I think this debate has been really interesting. For someone who knows nothing about Reagan, and very little about the outbreak of AID's, this has been informative as well as entertaining.

I don't think killer has 'hijacked' this thread. Dee voted for Reagan and blamed his inaction to AID's as a reason, and Killer felt that this allegation was untrue, so a debate began. I think it's entirely reasonable to do so in this thread. I think, at times, this debate got a little out of hand, but on the whole it's been kept sensible.

I think it is very important to quote sources and link to evidence whenever a claim in made in this forum. At the start of this debate on Reagan there wasn't a lot of that but once you all started linking and quoting etc, it made it much easier for someone like me, with no prior knowledge to form my own opinion using facts and not just the claims made in a post.

 

[DeletedUser]

I was in the U.S. military in the early 80's. In that time, I visited someone I knew from basic training and later, secondary training (MOS). I was visiting in the hospital, because he was being discharged. He had AIDS. They weren't kicking him out because he had AIDS, but because they argued AIDS was a gay disease, and gays weren't allowed in the military.

He died before they finalized the discharge process. This was in the latter part of 1984.

Killerinstinct, I was politically active, militarily active, and not the least bit clueless at the time. Denisero's statements about the status of the U.S. Government, about Reagan's continued deniability stance, are correct. My generation feared AIDS and it was through sources other than the government that we were obtaining information on what to watch out for. It was through non-profit organizations, and other groups that were not receiving any government support, that we in our generation were getting the facts. In the meantime, the U.S. Government was sweeping the whole issue under the rug. Just as the Iran-Contra affair and the U.S. supplied satellite intel on the Falklands/Malvinas incident, the Reagan adminstrations efforts were not focused on saving lives, but on taking them and turning a profit. With mistakes like replacing Paul Volcker with Alan Greenspan, (of which Carter should be partly accredited for Volcker's success in turning about the 80's stagflation, and Greenspan blamed for it's petering out into a monkey dance of eventually destructive deregulation).

Far more, but i'm not feeling well at the moment. It's just that, well, there's some people here who know what they're talking about, who are having to debate these issues with people who really don't know what they're talking about. I can see where some are a little tired of this song and dance, in which arguments are effectively refuted, only for some bit of fallacious reasoning to be thrown out as a means to redirect the issue and paint a confusing picture.

As simple as it gets, Reaganonics has been demonstrated to be a major fail. His management of the real challenges during his terms, were pandered off or sidelined, and his addressing of the AIDS pandemic was to not address it at all. For his failure to step up and provide the needed financial assistance, determining the cause of AIDS, of HIV, was delayed, the avoidance, delayed, the treatment, delayed. This, in turn, resulted in plenty more people contracting HIV, plenty more not being treated, plenty more dieing.

Dance about it all you want, but history has come about and shown Reagan's time in office was not peaches and cottage cheese.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hellstromm, I wish I was as eloquent as you, but alas, I am not.

 

[DeletedUser]

1. Hoover - He turned the Panic of 1929 into the Great Depression with his anti-trade policies.

2. Wilson - He forced the United States into a war it did not need to fight. Then he allowed the French and British to dictate such terms to end the war as basically guaranteed another. He was also responsible for a bad recession.

3. Johnson - Escalated Vietnam from a small brushfire into what it became.

Best Presidents:

1. Nixon - He won the Cold War. Caused Communist China to switch camps, thereby stretching USSR resources even tighter. Reagan gets the credit, though he doesn't deserve it.

2. Johnson - Civil Rights Act of 1964.

3. Theodore Roosevelt - He had the vision to turn America into a nascent global superpower.

 

[DeletedUser]

a) Umm...how can LBJ be the 3rd worst president and the 2nd best president? To rate how good a president was, you have to factor in the good and the bad. The only way a president can be the 2nd best and 3rd worst is if there were only four presidents.

b) Nixon as the best president completely ignores the downside of his presidency, which set a solid precedent for politicians putting their own political agenda above the Constitution. You also ignore Gorbachev's contribution towards ending the Cold War, just like the lunatics who think Reagan was solely responsible for ending the Cold War.

 

[DeletedUser]

George Bush = best president evah. When God talks to you, you can't go wrong!

 

[DeletedUser]

Also wrong century. Please read either the title of the thread or the first post.

 

[DeletedUser]

Also wrong century. Please read either the title of the thread or the first post.

What if I meant George Bush Senior?

 

[DeletedUser]

What if I meant George Bush Senior?

It's still about the worst president, not the best president.