I was the one that said it takes decades to properly assess a president or administration's impact. I stand by what I said though I hold George W. Bush in the company of Reagan and Nixon.

Take it how you like

Also since when the fuck is Wikipedia a respectable source of information - get out with that shit

/deadpan

It has been decades (albeit barely) for Reagan and his rankings have improved, not declined, during that time.

You can certainly stand by your opinion; I hope you simply recognize that it is out of sync with the vast majority of those who understand this country's history well. Great thinkers (and crackpots) have often done this.

Also, you were the one that first quoted a Presidential ranking as a source for your argument. I merely used a similar example (albeit with more data points and a link to the source.)

If you're going to use a ranking to support your argument in one post, and then basically say they're flat out wrong in the next, then I fail to see why you'd use it as a source in the first place.

Meh.

its been 3 decades since Ron took office and 2 since he left.

Veta, I did enjoy the wikipedia comment, btw. Well done.

Just because one loud asshole says Reagan was a good president doesn't make it so - in fact I'd wager if it wasn't for his getting shot he very well couldve lost his reelection, especially after that whole contra drug scandal and his administrations thus hypocritical escalation of the drug war.

The same is true for that association of loud assholes that spend all their time trying to get shit renamed after Ronnie (the one HBO exposed in their Reagan documentary).

Don't get me wrong - im sure he was a principled earnest guy, not unlike carter, but that doesn't make you a great president. As far as his position during the cold war is concerned he just came off as so polarizing, ideological and crazy to the rest of the world that the USSR really thought he wanted to start a nuclear war. Hence his brinkmanship was never challenged.

But he did raise his biological son and that kid turned out pretty fucking well so I guess he definitely did some things right. His adopted son is a cunt though. Someone should remind him he was adopted.

I also don't approve of all the jerkoffs who misremember his legacy and try to make it into some conservative utopian gilded age it wasn't. I don't think he would've approved of that either - his son sure as fuck doesn't.

Actually, if there were one loud asshole, to borrow your phrase, it would be you. (In this context; I am not calling you an asshole.)

The large majority of historians and others contributing to these surveys rank him quite high. You really think "one loud asshole" could sway the NY Times to bump their rating UP? Heh.

You may be right about Reagan, but at least acknowledge that you're an exception and not the norm. (I'm sure you don't believe in human caused global warming either. Ya know, that one loud asshole Gore is the only reason anyone buys it.*)

Also, don't you think that the people contributing to these have probably taken the things you mention into account?

*Not actually taking a position on anthropogenic global warming here, just using it for an analogy. Like all analogies, it is by definition in some way flawed.

Reagan > Obama

EOM

Do you believe in man-made climate change Verms?