A $50 lesson

[Mandalore]

I work for Comerica Bank, we did have a BBQ during the summer and I flipped a few. The press team wasn't really interested in that though. :*(

Uhhh, I think you got the wrong guy if you're looking anti-establishment. That's MC's dig. I'm a centrist and arguably pro-autocracy in some measure although I do think democracy is more stable in the long run.

As for the three I listed, it has nothing to do with being anti-establishment and all about practicality. Washington did very little to structurally improve the new government as far as I can remember. He pretty much rode his popularity all the way and has since been deified almost.

JFK had a run of two years before he got his pretty [m'kay] face blown out. During that time he failed to move any significant legislation. Including the civil rights legislation that LBJ would push through pretty quickly.

Reagan...pretty much single handedly provided the basis for massive infringements on personal freedoms via executive order 12333. The economic prosperity he saw was pretty much completely cyclical and arguably he did everything in his power to stop it. He tripled the debt of the United States during his tenure. He also reaped the accolades for the fall of the Soviet Union as if he had anything to do with it. Throw into this his nominations of Greenspan (who personally admitted that Randian style economics/Supply side very much directly played into the 2008 collapse before Congress) and Justice Antonin Scalia (Please die, I really have nothing good to say about him)

The first reaps the benefits that Americans give to the founding fathers which is ludicrous, truth be told. They were a bunch of slave raping old men with a handful of good ideas. Although I will admit that whenever a right winger talks about Jefferson's small government policies I giggle a little since Jefferson was pretty much a raging anti-organized religion guy for his age. The latter two are proof that Americans love flash over substance. Although not saying that other democracies don't suffer from the same. How many unattractive people (on balance for their age) serving in the highest level of government? Especially in the executive branch.

I would say that the United States has only had two exceptional presidents during the last century or so. Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower. Both drastically improved the structure of the nation, especially economically. TR really was the end of the gilded age in America by butt [m'kay] the monopolists into sodomized submission. This really helped paved the way for the modern American middle class by creating competitive industries. Even the complete laissez-faire presidents during the 20s couldn't completely reverse this before they helped collapse the economy and the democrats took over for twenty years.

Eisenhower did two great things. He really took America's infrastructure up to top tier during his presidency and he integrated the armed forces. We need a new Eisenhower given the fact that our infrastructure is quickly becoming third world quality. Nearly every failing super power had faulty infrastructure towards the end and it's starting to look like the US will follow suit. He was also remarkably in favor of desegregation for his time and really helped that movement along. He's the kind of Republican that I can get behind. Not these neo-con supply side theory numbies. Although at this point I think the Federal Republic is structurally defunct and could use a complete overhaul.

[haasd0gg]

Everybody knows Samantha Smiths letter to Gorbachov was what brought down the Iron Curtain.
I'm also pretty sure it was Pink Floyd that tore down The Wall...

[WD-40]

TR really was the end of the gilded age in America by butt [m'kay] the monopolists into sodomized submission.

That has a nice ring to it. I also think you may have drastically summarized a few books written about him in just one sentence.