Liberal Forum

That sounds mighty scurrilous, Suzie. That is just awful. We're trying to sully an excellent record and pass off a worthless hack as a much better president than he was, ya say, Nancy Panties? AND ALL YOU ARE COMPETENT TO DO IS WHINE ABOUT IT, YOU LITTLE BITCH - JUST LIKE YOUR SISTERS GOOEY AND ...

That's why these morons are working so hard to change history. Their fear, as well as establishment GOP, is that Reagan will be the measuring stick in 2016....

...

Got it. So you're good at parroting memes and I'm good at busting them wide open. We're both good at stuff - just different stuff....

That's the peoples perception of the quality....perception is everything, Pops. I've never seen Reagan on a list of the worst Presidents....

So, Carter's POPULARITY in some way makes the numbers we're debating different? We're looking at math. We're measuring objective criteria. And you're feeding a meme. So, just to get this clear: You're contribution to the argument is that Carter was soundly beaten by Reagan in 1980? He only got one...

I just have to say more. This post flabbered my entire gast. The 1980 election map is suddenly evidence in a debate on the records and merits of the two presidents under discussion? That is **** astounding to me. Is that you "bringing it?" Seriously, was that a solid effort at contributing to thi...

I was doing the quality of Carter.......I'll always have to explain myself to my retarded friends. Know what I mean, friend? Should I look up 1984?...

One of the very best ways to measure the quality of a presidency is to look at how big the win was before he ever took office. Virtually ALL of my retarded fiends swear by that measure. Know what I mean, friend?...

Those numbers are virtually meaningless. They tell us only what the change was in two arbitrarily selected metrics. Both metrics are quite important to the economy, granted. But neither separately, nor both together, are the last word on the economy. There is strong evidence that the economist who m...