RateItAll: The Opinion Network

This site is packed with Bush hate, read some of the reviews, better yet, type their names in the yellow box at the top of the page.

Reagan, some do. Bush, some have a terminal case of tunnel vision and can't see past their seething hatred of the man.

If a stammering senile old man befriended third-world dictators, took too much credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union, attempted to tell me what was or was not morally right, and then engage in a domestic fiscal policy that was questionable at best- then hatred might make a little sense. If a drug addict-male-cheerleader won (at best) a questionable election given by a court and then proceed to exploit a terrorist attack for the invasion of a nation that actually was at odds (!?) with said terrorist I would say that hatred is actually a rational response. . .

Hate is a terrible word to use. I don't hate Bush because I don't know the man personally but I don't like his policies and do "hate" his arrogance about staying the course in Iraq and never admitting that he made a mistake. Reagan was just an actor and I didn't hate him either but he did fool a lot of people about his supposed greatness for 8 years, didn't he?

Well,not ALL libs hated Reagan/Bush.Some have principled disagreements with them and yes,some do hate both men blindly.
Then again,I am conservative and am not a fan of Presidents Clinton,Carter and especially Roosevelt.

I never hated Reagan. I didn't agree with him on a lot of things, but there's no denying he was a likable man and I think he was sincere. I don't think he ever wanted to hurt anyone. It is not possible for me to me to hate Bush because I do not know him personally. But I do hate his policies.

I don't hate Bush and I didn't hate Reagan. I just think they are/were both stupid and that we deserve better. I don't inherently have anything against stupid people, but I think we can do better when we are electing the leader of the free world. I also don't disagree with everything they have done, just most of the things, each analyzed on an individual basis. Many liberals and conservatives disagree automatically with the "enemy". However, don't assume that because I disagree with the majority of an individual's actions, that it is a knee-jerk reaction on my part. Ironically, if you assume that your political opponents are always dogmatically opposed to everything in which you believe, maybe some of the problem lies with you, cousin. Peace.

Reagan won every state but Minnesota. HE WON MASSACHUSETS, NEW YORK, AND CALIFORNIA. The three biggest democratic strongholds. Bush, yes, but many republicans are starting to dissaprove of him too.

no, reagan won the coldwar son

Every liberal I know has deperately wanted Reagan and Bush. What are you guys talking about? Liberals hating a stauch conservative, come on now, you must be joking. Seriously, you cannot tell me that the majority of liberals don't have MAJOR issues with Bush or Reagan, because they do.

You mean they don't? I suppose the viscious lies and propoganda were all in good fun; a clever joke?

I didn't hate either of those (three) guys; I just don't like their politics.

And so do all sane Republicans.

I hate neither Bush nor Reagan. I just don't believe in the romanticized vision of them. Regan did not win the Cold War, the Soviet Union had maintained its iron grip on the populace through far worse threats than an SDI bluff, it was Mikhail Gorbachev who loosened that grip. He is also attributed for ending Stagflation and inducing economic recovery which oddly seemed to be at roughly the same time when oil prices stabilized again after having quadrupled at the end of the seventies. As for Bush, he also seems to be quite romanticized. Why not though? After all he did successfully capture Osama Bin Laden and remove Saddam's weapons of mass destr... I mean, bring freedom and Democracy to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan! Boy, I wish I could make my failures seem like successes by simply changing my stated objectives! Like I said though, I hate neither man, I try and treat everything objectively. Too many are under the impression that the sole requirement for being a liberal is simply hating certain popular conservatives. Being a contemporary liberal means, at the very least, understanding the constant necessity of change in the societal spectrum and a belief in fairness and pragmatism in the economic one.

Look Reagan may get more hype than he deserves, but he was a good prez. I mean people were going around saying The Soviet Union will crush us it's too powerful. Let's ditch capitalism and go to communism. Reagan deserves respect for helping bring down the Soviet Union. Liberals are cheap for calling Reagan and Bush stupid. I mean Reagan accomplishied a lot more than the Dems god Clinton and W. will too. P.S. Jar-Jar I feel for you because you have to call someone dumb to feel accomplished. Seriously if Liberals are so smart why is their best arguement calling other people dumb?

Reagan's now dead and we get all the he was such a nice guy bull. When he was president he was hated and lampooned as a dunce who allowed his advisors to run the White House, sound familiar? The liberals watched in horror as he deviated from the standard ethos of detente and pursued and arms escalation to crush the EVIL EMPIRE- OH MY! The media beat him down relentlessly until... what was that? The Berlin Wall came crumbling down! And a few years later so did that Red Bear the Soviet Union that the press had warned us was so strong and powerful... Eastern Europe was freed from the grip of the Iron Curtain... Yeah, that Reagan what a dunce. FWD.. another Republican president up ending the world order the way liberals see it and once again... he's a dummy, he's so stupid, he's gonna cause a World War, Europe hates us, this guy is EVIL... yada, yada, yada.....free elections in Iraq, free elections in Afghanistan....yeah we heard all that before. *****Update, following up on what James stated I found the Op-Ed piece in the Wall Street Journal today quite amusing. Apparently Der Spiegel of the leftist German News weekly that devoted a whole page toward the Oil For Blood thesis prior to war wrote an article yesterday titled Could Bush Be Right? Spiegel writes When Reagan stood before the Brandenburg Gate- and the Berlin wall- and demanded that Gorbachev 'tear down this wall', he was lampooned the next day on the editorial pages. He was a dreamer as he voiced his demand. Rather it was German politicians who were lacking in imagination- a group who in 1987 couldn't imagine that there might be an alternative to a divided Germany. I suggest if someone told you 4 short years ago Iraq would be holding FREE ELECTIONS- the first since 1921, that Afghani women no longer would be getting stoned for leaving their houses after dark but would instead be voting in their nations first ever election, that Lybia would be unilaterally disarming itself and allowing inspectors in, that Syria would be feeling a groundswell in Lebanon and could possible soon be ousted from it's long occupation of that nation, that Palestine would be voting and working for peace with Israel once again- and that Israel would be moving it's settlements from Gaza and the West Bank... if you were told that would you be dreaming? Nothing is perfect but you know who you are- all you naysayers during the 80's who mocked the Reagan Revolution and snickered at his simplemindedness. All of you who are learning nothing from history once again.

First off, just so I can get it out, even Mikhail Gorbachev gave Ronald Reagan credit for brining an end to the Cold War. It's the revisionist historians who don't give him that credit. As for the rating, the term Reagan Democrat should tell you that not all Democrats hated him. There are also the Bush Democrats if you will (Zell Miller, Ed Koch, Ron Silver) that says not ALL Democrats hate him. Politically speaking, Reagan did get a little cooperation from the Dems. With Bush, the Dems seem to wait and see what Bush says, then just say the opposite. Of course, in the 12 years between the end of Reagan's term and the beginning of Bush 43's, the Democrats became much more whiny, bitchy, and childish.

Ha ha this isn't a myth

Also seems like it to me. I don't know I am a republican.

I don't believe anyone actually hates Bush or hated Raegan, but the men were absolutely incompetent Presidents. The notion that Raegan ended the Cold War by flaring an arms race is called a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (After it, therefore because of it) fallacy. Just because those things occurred in the order and proximity in which they did doesn't mean they were at all related. Political Scientists from before Raegan was elected predicted that the Soviet Union would fall around the time that it did. One predicted that it would fall three weeks after it actually did, so Raegan may have been responsible for three weeks less of the soviet union.

Somewhat. Reagan was a terrible leader who couldn't remember how to spell his name. Bush, on the other hand, can't even read his own name. It's these Southern, Western Democrats who supported these leaders. ... I'm moving to Sweden. At least they can get their politics straight.