Reagan: closer to #34 than #1
- by Pixel
To show just how terrible Reagan was, I’m going to make a list of the top 10 presidents. In order. Here we go:
- Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Dem.)
- George Washington (Ind.)
- Abraham Lincoln (Rep.)
- Lyndon Baines Johnson (Dem.)
- James Madison (Dem-Rep.)
- James Monroe (Dem-Rep.)
- Teddy Roosevelt, Jr. (Rep.)
- Thomas Jefferson (Dem-Rep.)
- Warren G. Harding (Rep.)
- Andrew Jackson (Dem.)
Notice: There was never a Ulysses S. Grant as #10 on this list, Eggo is either lying or crazy 🙂
– Πιξ
Related posts:
- 25 Greatest? Hardly. AOL and the Discovery Channel, as guided by the American public, goofed again. They’ve turned this into a popularity contest instead of an honest appraisal of our country’s history. Here is their latest list of...
- 25 Greatest? Sure My top 25 list of the Greatest Americans ever, patterned on the Discovery Channel list and along with this post. Susan B. Anthony… Neil Alden Armstrong Henry Clay*… Thomas Alva Edison Albert Einstein Henry Ford...
- 5 Greatest? Sure! My top 5 list of the Greatest Americans ever, patterned on the Discovery Channel list. Their top five only sucked in that it had Ronald Reagan earning a spot (WTF??). Here’s my list: Benjamin Franklin...
Powered by YARPP.
To show just how terrible Reagan was, I’m going to make a list of the top 10 presidents. In order. Here we go: Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Dem.) George Washington (Ind.) Abraham Lincoln (Rep.) Lyndon Baines Johnson (Dem.) James Madison (Dem-Rep.) James Monroe (Dem-Rep.) Teddy Roosevelt, Jr. (Rep.) Thomas Jefferson (Dem-Rep.) Warren G. Harding (Rep.) Andrew…
I have a question. Is the top identified by their achievements throughout their life, or only during presidency? Because if the latter applies, it is of my opinion that Grant doesn’t belong up there.
What do you have against Reagan? He got trickle down economics to actually work. That’s a sizable achievement. Not saying that he should be in the top ten, I’m just saying to go easy on the guy.
Trickle down economics didn’t work. The concept is flawed. Ask any independent economist. The very people least likely to spend are the rich business owners.
The only thing that can be said of him is that he worked on defense (STAR WARS :), but even that scares me. To me it’s the equivalent of giving the biggest bully in the playground a Glock.
And besides, he represents the very thing we should not seek in our leaders: stage presence. Do you realize that George Washington had wooden teeth? Or that FDR was crippled by Polio? If we’re electing a leader based on how good he can say “there he goes again” in a condescending matter, we’ve lost our way.
You changed the list so that grant was no longer up there without giving any form of notice, making me look crazy.
And Reaganomics boosted the economy up to the (initial) bush administration, unless my school textbook is lieing to me, and why would it do that?
Crap, I misspelled lying. I feel dirty.
Bah. Reagan didn’t know Adam Smith from Adam West. He didn’t know John Maynard Keynes from John Maynard… West.
The 1980’s had the economy artificially reinvigorated because poor, ignorant saps trusted their money to the stock market. Sound familiar? (*cough* Social Security Privatization! *cough*)
Go here.
Reagan couldn’t change the economy any more than a fisherman can change the ocean. For one man to change the economy he’d need an incredibly shrewd mind, excellent speaking skills, ten years, and the complete, unwavering trust of the entire free world.