I suppose that’s possible. Even millionaires must sometimes. Or else he was highly skilled.
Onassis and his brother had a hyper-competitive sibling rivalry going on for years and years. At one point Onassis built a huge yacht and his brother immediately built one 10’ longer. After marrying Jackie Kennedy, Onassis reportedly said, “To top this he’ll have to marry the fucking Queen of England.”
I can think of several future scenerios that would put Bush in a better light than he currently is in…and several that would indeed make him the most hated president of all time, not just the time frame of the OP. Apperantly you can only conceive of a ‘miracle’ that would put him in a better light. Thats interesting in itself.
Doubtful, but whatever floats your boat Elvis. I’ll take this to mean you agree with rfgdxm’s sentiments. Again, I find this interesting…as well as the overwhelming rush by other participants in this thread to deride rfgdxm’s stupid comment.
-XT
I’ll agree. There hasn’t been an American President this century who’d break into the “Worst Dictators” Top 100 List.
Missed his comment the first time around. As much as I disliked Reagan, he’s nowhere near worthy of Godwinization-by-proxy. Apparently Rfgdxm has never heard of Pol Pot, Stalin, Ceausescu, Pinchot, Honingger (sp?), Idi Amin, Muggabe, or even the Husseins.
Note there is more kind of evil than killing people. For example, while Stalin killed a lot of people, I would think far more favorably on his economic beliefs than I do Reagan’s. Note also the Reagan was contrained by the political system of the US. I honestly think Reagan would have killed huge numbers of people if he had the absolute power he could have got away with it.
Also, please note Godwin’s law doesn’t properly apply to me post. If I were to reply to a poster who was a Reagan supporter than all Reagan supporters were worse than Nazis, that would be a case where Godwin’s law applies. Comparing other historical figures to Hitler is OK. For example, above you name other world leaders you think are in Hitler’s league.
And the other way is to think that he cut a deal with Iran to sell them weapons in return for freeing the hostages, and then sold weapons to Iraq to counter Iran, and then weapons from both countries were used to kill our soldiers.
Nice hair, though.
Leaving aside that killing people might be a tad worse than economics and dipping a toe into this universe you inhabit…how do you figure that Stalin had a more favorable economic belief than Reagan? Did he have a more Mao, Jong-Il and Pol Pot also have more favorable economic beliefs? What made them more favorable? I know this is a complete hijack of the thread but I’m really curious how you are making this comparison work in your own head.
:rolleyes: !! And if Reagan had been born with two heads he might have been an interesting side show attraction.
-XT
By “generally hated”, does the OP mean “in America” or “worldwide”. I’m too young to personally remember what it was like when Nixon was around, but I can’t recall a President who inspired such international hatred and disdain than Bush jr.
As far as Reagan goes, I personally feared more than hated him; I’m still surprised he didn’t start WWIII and get us all killed. Since he can’t do that anymore, I’ve grown to hate him more over the years.
Clinton, while some people hate him to the point of obsession, never aquired the kind of “majority of hatred” Nixon did.
I lean toward Bush jr as most hated, but he might be edged out by Nixon. If you include world opinion in general, Shrub wins easily.
For the mix of sheer passionate hatred & generalized contempt from before he was even inaugurated, Bill Clinton seems likely. I didn’t like him. He was a smarmy guy who told us to look to our own country & “the economy” when the world was destabilizing with the USSR’s collapse. But some people liked him, & those who hated him can largely be traced to Limbaugh fandom. Clinton wasn’t widely hated, though. He was widely mocked, but especially resented by military types.
The hatred of W. now is a continuation of that same party polarization of the 1990’s.
But in hindsight, hard to beat ol’ Tricky Dick. There’s a reason Americans stopped naming their sons Richard. A reason “Dick” took over both slang senses of “prick” in a country that doesn’t normally even have rhyming slang. Nixon.
That said, these are minor acid belches compared to hatred of FDR.
Oh, & W., by getting us into war, may actually have passed Clinton. But remember, a lot of people (including me, & I officially gave up on the GOP when they nominated him for no good reason that I could see) think that some action to liberate Iraq was 12 years overdue. Most of them (unlike me) don’t seem able to understand & accept that that means an Iranian-style socially conservative democracy, but that’s another matter.
This should be easy for you to understand. My politics lean toward anarcho-syndicalism. Reagan was strongly pro-free market capitalism. If we limit looking at Stalin solely in terms of economic belief, it is easy to see why someone who leans economically significantly to the left would think Stalin was better than Reagan in terms of economic beliefs.
But Stalin was a crypto-Tsarist totalitarian, not an anarcho-syndicalist! Did you never read* Animal Farm*? I would say that Reagan & Stalin were both guilty of selling domination by those in power while calling it liberation of the common man. It’s a wash.
And paranoiacally killing off your own people, with some state mass-murder to help maintain power terroristically, might trump turning the disabled & the unlucky out to wander the streets. Maybe.
As for the Cold War threat to end the world, didn’t that go back to Nixon?
But Stalin was a better socialist than Reagan. 
Yeah, Stalin is hardly an ideal socialist. But remember I was comparing Stalin’s economics to Reagan, and Reagan sure was horrible as seen from a socialist perspective.
So Reagan was worse than Mass Murderers and you assume he would have been a mass murderer if not for built in US safeguards.
…Sounds like lunatic fringe to me. or at least communist.
BTW which US Pres did you like? I don’t think you said.
I lean towards Best President since '69 Clinton even though he out sleazed tricky Dick.
But I actually rate Reagan #2.
Carter, Ford & Bush Sr were all generally incompetents or impotent.
Nixon was an evil man with some few redeeming Qualities as a Pres.
Bush Jr, Worse Pres ever, Draft Dodger as much as Clinton, but probably a nice guy to have over for a BBQ.
xtisme specifically asked me to comment on the economic evaluations only, and leave aside the mass murder.
I’d rank Clinton as the best president, and Reagan the worst. GWB is the second worst, and still in the competition and may take over as worst president.
Because ** rfgdxm** was replying to my post.
Did I really need to fill you in on this one?!?!
Funny we agree on Clinton and disagree on Ronny so much. Aren’t you undervaluing the Nixon evil quotient. I was pretty young for Tricky Dick but reading his papers and his history has given me a greater appreciation of what a nasty little man he was.
He seems to have hated Jews, Commies, Socialists, Kennedy’s, kids, John Lennon and Pete Seeger and all hippies, most of the Congress & Senate. He was one of McCarthy’s Toadies for a while. (As a card carrying commie(I mean Socialist) you should give him bonus points for this). He manipulated everything, got caught circumventing the free elections of the USA. Seemed to get along swell with J. Edgar.
I mean it takes a lot for me to rate the nicer but horribly bad Bush Jr. Lower.
But Nixon was fairly liberal economically. Nixon was an SOB, but at least his economic policy wasn’t totally evil like Reagan’s.
Okay, you’re all about economics and I would like to think, I am looking at the complete package. I forgive Reagan a lot because I look at him as a necessary evil that rescued our military’s respect and finished off the Soviets.