Dead people having their ranks shuffled around really goes to show you the accuracy of this survey.

It's an opinion poll so it's 100% accurate in that it shows the opinions of those polled.

Bush was the worst president of all time, according to his circumstances.

Certainly, he was the worst president since FDR changed the majority of the power from states to the federal government. And he certainly furthered the Truman cause of selling us to Boeing. (Laughable that Truman was considered the fifth best president, when he sold us to the military and killed more than 100,000 people.)

But I do disagree that Lincoln was the best president. I think that because freeing the slaves was such a grand act, people today (even historians) forget the bad things he did, like ridding us of Posse Comitatus.

Also, he may have freed the slaves legally, but he did not follow up on this, and the slaves were not really free until 100 year later when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act.

And I'm not sure what Reagan did to make him 10th best. Seriously, someone help me with this. I'm so utterly confused by that.

reagan made uz feeel good about uh... america.
and WWF was all cool and stuff.

so i heard.

Bush was a lousy President but not for the reasons that have been spoon-fed by the media to foaming at the mouth idiots. He sucked because he massively increased government spending on liberal social boondoggles and did bupkiss to decrease government spending. He got the 'tax cuts' half right, but spent like a socialist on the 'spending cut' half. Iraq - irrelevant. Gitmo - irrelevant. How he talked - irrelevant. He sucked because he wasn't a fiscal conservative. End of debate.

Reagan was a great president because he (A) Cut taxes (B) Did his best in the face of a massive Democrat majority in congress to cut spending (too bad they wouldn't let him do more) (C) was directly responsible for the downfall of the Soviet Union with his policy of brinkmanship (D) taught America true conservative principles and got a lot of them to actually live them... And that's just for starters. Reagan was the last great president we ever had.

Obama? He's setting himself up to be the last 'President' of America period before it implodes on itself because of his completely moronic policies.

Iraq is not relevant? Are you completely retarded?

And Reagan brought down the Soviet Union? That would be HILARIOUS if it wasn't so damned misguided.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Bush was a lousy President but not for the reasons that have been spoon-fed by the media to foaming at the mouth idiots. He sucked because he massively increased government spending on liberal social boondoggles and did bupkiss to decrease government spending. He got the 'tax cuts' half right, but spent like a socialist on the 'spending cut' half. Iraq - irrelevant. Gitmo - irrelevant. How he talked - irrelevant. He sucked because he wasn't a fiscal conservative. End of debate.
Reagan was a great president because he (A) Cut taxes (B) Did his best in the face of a massive Democrat majority in congress to cut spending (too bad they wouldn't let him do more) (C) was directly responsible for the downfall of the Soviet Union with his policy of brinkmanship (D) taught America true conservative principles and got a lot of them to actually live them... And that's just for starters. Reagan was the last great president we ever had.
Obama? He's setting himself up to be the last 'President' of America period before it implodes on itself because of his completely moronic policies.

Iraq is irrelevant. Presidents can use the military as they see fit and you don't have to agree with them on how they choose to wield it. A lot of leftists hated the Iraq war (or were TAUGHT to hate it would be more accurate) but that's got nothing to do with why America is having problems right now. If Obama had done the same thing then you'd be praising how great he was - but since you hate Bush it is your only ammunition. But ultimately Iraq was very successful at its short term goals. Saddam - check. Terrorist focus NOT on the U.S. mainland - check. Long term its effect is still in doubt. That will depend on whether guys like Obama screw it up.

And Reagan did topple the USSR. You may lack historical perspective, but I being alive and aware at the time observed how Reagan's defense spending forced an already strained Russian economy to come apart at the seams trying to keep up. Russia couldn't make a socialist central economy work and it blew up. Without Reagan's brinkmanship and arms race the Russian economy could possibly have staggered on indefinitely. As it was, it tried to keep up and couldn't. Reagan 1. Russia 0.

Sort of like America's economy today is being strained to the breaking point by socialism. Morons like Obama and his crew just never learn from history - sadly. They labor under the fool's hope that Kenseyian economics just hasn't been given ENOUGH of a chance. Faux-economist poppycock. Like Russia in the late 80s, the US will collapse if it tries to go all socialist. No country can afford it because human beings are greedy, stupid morons and all governments are corrupt cesspits of waste and mis-management. Wise were the founding fathers to design the Bill of Rights to limit GOVERNMENT and not the people. It is then no surprise that Obama thinks that the Bill of Rights doesn't empower government enough. To Obama the Constitution is an obstacle to shoot in the head and dump off a bridge rolled up in a carpet.

OMFG.

You think the founding fathers would approve of secretly funding the afghanis to kill soviets?

Can you like, reference me some quotations to support that position?