Nice.

Originally Posted by MotherMan

I think there are some Americans we can put on par or above Reagan. Lincoln, FDR, MLK, Jefferson, Wilson and thats just some I could think of. Reagan was a great leader tho

FDR and Wilson? Wow, possibly the only two presidents with a more socialist record than Obama. Hell, FDR tried to have the Supreme Court expanded by four justices because they ruled against his policy and he wanted to appoint enough yes men to the court to run through his re-invention of America.

Originally Posted by ChuckTheHammer

I disagree; I think Reagan was very positive for the time he came along but we are glossing over some of the more significant flaws of his presidency and the long term consequences of those flaws, both in terms of government functioning and wider approaches to foreign policy that are coming back to bite us in the ass.

As far as the list of MotherMan, I think Woodrow Wilson should be scratched from any list other than presidents that caused significant long term harm (see massive suspension of civil liberties, segregation, and the gargantuan mess that was the Treaty of Versailles and ultimately American isolationism and various tendrils leading to WWII).

FDR: a man of context, and his social welfare programs were needed at the time and, I would argue, still are. Remember, prior to that era there were no social safety nets AT ALL; hell, there was no protection of labor rights for anyone, no regulation of financial institutions (which led to the Great Depression and the undoing of which is largely to blame for our current mess) and the concept of public works was considered a gross overreach of government. Now argue public works all you like, but without them large parts of our country (the south especially) would never have developed along current lines and there would be a severe lack of infrastructure, without which our wartime industrialization and peacetime success would be impossible. No, FDR's programs are not responsible for our mess -- funny accounting from Reagan through today is responsible and both parties share in that problem.

By the last what I mean is simple: since Reagan our mantra has been lower taxes and less regulation but there has been an increase in services during that time, and a massive explosion in military spending. Yes the military spending served its purpose, but every president and both parties in congress have expanded the government while whittling away the tax base for short term gains. The worst at this was the Bush presidency but everyone has a hand in it, and that short term gain and long term use of debt is a significant problem for which we are going to have some real tough decisions to make. The reason Reagan is part of this is that he left office with an enormous debt; again, it served its purpose but cutting taxes while expanding expenditure is nothing more than asking for long term issues. And every Republican since Reagan has followed his mantra of lower taxes, but their real problem is the lack of a larger goal as a reason to lower taxes.

Now to Reagan's credit his ultimate goal of ending the Cold War was realized but whether he was directly responsible for that is debatable. I think Reagan is a mixed bag as his administration blatantly broke federal laws to achieve their goals in an end run around congress (something that cannot be overlooked and, if the Clinton test is used, should have led to impeachment) and employed some short sighted policies to achieve their long range goals (Afghanistan and the Soviets) that we are paying for today. So does he belong on a list of top Americans? Give it time and see how things shake out. Among the most influential without a doubt, but that influence is too much of a mixed bag for me. Oh yeah, and before some respond that employ too much hyperbole and not enough information, I am independent of Democrats and Republicans and draw my political leanings from both their sources and consistently voted Republican until the most recent Bush.

You seem to blame the military for our debt more than entitlement spending. Social Security and Medicare (both created by Democrats, hell Democratic president Truman was the very first person to be enrolled in Medicare) collectively are more than double the cost of the defense budget (at it's current bloated wartime cost). To not blame entitlement spending for our budget woes is like not blaming the moon for the tides, they are inextricably linked. The only goal needed to justify lower taxes is lower taxes. And taxes can be lowered if the government spends less money. Spending is not justification for raising taxes it's an excuse to raise taxes. Obviously I'm Libertarian which means I think the government should be as small as possible and still maintain it's obligations to the citizens.

Originally Posted by MotherMan

That has more to do with Iran's relation with Carter.

Very true, they had no regard for him or his vagina (too much?).

Anyhow, happy 100th to the Gipper, you gotta love a president with the stones to bomb a French Embassy. Love him or hate him he was a strange mix of take no shit and grandfather of the nation (not in a forefather way but in a wise and charming grandfatherly way).

I'm a libertarian at heart as well. I'm not a hardcore conservative; I see the corruption in the Republican party, as well as the Democratic party. And, as you would expect from a conservative, I think there are more corrupt liberals. The liberals think the same of the conservatives.

In any case, to me, less government and less taxes makes perfect, logical sense. There is one thing I like about some of the European political systems; we need at least 3 prominent political parties, maybe 4. I know I'm going to get shit for this, but it needs to be said. There are a few countries in Europe that do quite well with even 3 political parties. I hate seeing the extremists from both sides, Democratic and Republican, get the most voice. We need more prominent moderates. More people with realistic, attainable goals.

/endrant

The only thing I hate when talking about politics is that it's makes me fell stupid, LOL. My under-educated self just gets confused, then again I don't remember a whole lot before the age of 14.

Anyways, continue on, I enjoy the read :)

Every President has their flaws; I remember being at the brink of war as a kid; great speeches; the push for "Made in USA." Like every great coach he had charisma that everybody bought into. Great American, yes; Greatest American, no. I'm still trying to figure out what Bill Clinton ever did for the USA; getting BJ's & fucking the factory workers in the ass with NAFTA.

hhaha Guerrillero sometimes thats the best way to be....A person can drive themselves crazy worrying about that shit. lol

Originally Posted by Soulzz

There is one thing I like about some of the European political systems; we need at least 3 prominent political parties, maybe 4.
/endrant

In the US a third party isnt really possible under our system. Since we have a two party "winner takes all" democracy. while Europe runs mostly on a Parliamentary system. Under that system people vote for the party they want to lead and the seats are chosen based directly on the vote: example, if the us votes 45% dem, 45% GOP, 10% other, the seats in congress are divided like that.

At a rally I went to I spoke with Ralph Nader and he said all the benefits of a parliamentary system. He said it lets more voices in and prevents partys with competing ideas from voting each other into a loss.

However, if you look at Germany after they went from the Kaiser to the more democratic parliamentary system one party grew year after year, becoming more and more heard. until it had majority power. That was the Nazi party

See, this is what I warned against. Please read what I write and not what you think is there. At what point did I blame the military? The military is nothing more than a tool used to build a broader policy, and the carpenters are a mix of people elected for various lengths of time from various regions of the country with specific responsibilities that must come together for some level of agreement.

Now, FDR and Wilson? By FDR's reinvention of America I assume you mean the New Deal in all its aspects (because you cannot really separate them) and its goal of providing a safety net for society so that the extreme cycles of boom and bust would not wreak the havoc seen in the Great Depression and other significant economic times. Again, I assume by referring to the court stacking threat you would like to return America to 1931 approach to government and society? If not, what social programs are you referring to for elimination? Would you really get rid of social security and medicare? Returning to pre New Deal America means no national infrastructure funding, no functioning education system, limited regulation of any sort (FDA, USDA, medical and scientific research, etc). Is that really a world you want to live in, because America prior to 1931 was broken and not really equipped to handle the broader forces of modernization and global economic and social developments. The New Deal was simply a response, and one widely approved by Americans, to a changing world, and one that has been tweaked many times since. Study history a bit; a static government structure is a dead one, and the beauty of ours is that it is dynamic in that its framework leaves open the need to adapt.

Now by liberal I assume you mean the left side of the political and economic spectrum and not the traditional meaning as applied in government philosophy. By our measure of "liberal" (a term I hate because it causes a great deal of modern confusion -- it simply means an openness to new ideas or, more traditionally in terms of government, a fundamental belief in the worth of the individual, his liberty, and equal rights) Woodrow Wilson would be a conservative. And about our current president, he is many things but a raving far left lunatic is far from the case. Again, no hyperbole but facts: look at the record and it is more center than far left. He is socially liberal (shocking considering his background) and fiscally moderate with a large pragmatic streak that means willing to negotiate.

Lex, Reagan was many things good but a great unifier of the people he was not. He was a culture warrior; he was polite about it at times but unapologetic in his beliefs in the culture wars and willing to see his vision through. Does that make him evil? By no means, but the Reagan years were far from unified where everyone embraced the Gipper and walked around singing hymns to the nation.

Balls, NAFTA was negotiated and signed under the first Bush; embraced by Clinton yes, negotiated and signed by Bush administration.

Hey Chuck, you remember that scene from Old School where Will Ferrell is debating James Carville? Every time you make one of your deeply intellectual and thought provoking posts that's what I'm reminded of.

I said it before and I'll say it again. Chuck For President in 2012.

That's the Way You Debate
Old School at MOVIECLIPS.com

Soldier, agreed. CROWD FUNDING FOR CHUCK!!! :).

I can't run for office; my family would take a pay cut if I started working and my wife had to be the good woman. Besides, I kind of dig my man bitchness.