Ronald Reagan's Administration was one of he most successful

You have responded to my arguments, you did not refute them. The facts speak for themselves. Offtopic comments such as the strawman claim that I think economic policy is zero-sum, or that Clinton cut spending to the creation of stockpiles of superfluous nuclear weapons (the first couple thousand might have been useful), or that Reagan was friends with terrorists before they became our enemies (a concession of my point), or that Nazi Germany didn't collapse from within so the Soviet Union must not have either. -- These responses, beyond being absurd, do not address the arguments I offered. Reagan's policies have been a disaster! 1) The War on Drugs is ineffective and a waste of money. 2) Star Wars (SDI) is ineffective and a waste of money. 3) Tax cuts for the rich are ineffective and a waste of money (see Bush 2000, and strictly speaking are a waste of income). 4) Reagan tripled the national debt (to 3trillion!). 5) Reagan gave starts to terrorists: Saddam, Pinochet, Noriega, and (to a lesser extent) Osama. 6) Reagan negotiated with terrorists before being president (Iran Embassy). Reagan's achievements, are nothing of the sort! 1) The economy improved because the shock to the oil market ended which ended stagflation. 2) The Soviet Union was corrupt and collapsed as it rotted from the inside. This hero complex is no more fitting for Reagan than it would be for all the presidents from Truman onward who implemented the Truman doctrine. You have not met the burden of proof: You haven't argued any measure of success for Reagan or how and why he stacks up better than any other president as far as success goes. I am no more convinced that "Ronald Reagan's Administration was one of he [sic] most successful" than I am that the bears can fly. What is the criteria for most? Top five? Top ten? Top forty? His only successes seem to be spending lots of money on wasteful products and taking credit for stuff he didn't do. He did have some great one liners, the belief in astrology cancels out making jelly beans popular. -- I really don't see how your argument connects the dots. It doesn't meet the burden of proof on two grounds: My arguments succeed that he was in fact a bad president and you offer no grounds by which one could judge him as "most successful". --- Allow me to directly respond to some of your previous comments: No economics are zero-sum, this was a claim YOU made and I disregarded as false. Nor does anybody claim that foreign policy is zero-sum. You are battling strawmen. You say I'm not qualified to gauge the sum of money needed to fight the Cold War. My argument was simply that we only needed to buy enough nuclear weapons to level the planet once or twice, and that Reagan could have avoided spending us into a hole. Clinton switch our military over to an actual fighting force rather than a force which could only flatten some place with nukes. Modernizing the force and cutting the fat. We never needed enough nukes to flatten the world more than a dozen times over, we still don't. Clinton gave us an armed forces again rather than simply arms. I did not claim that the only good that Reagan did was give the rich money. I claimed that that was his policy, give the rich money and that it didn't do ANY good! The job surge during his Administration just like the job surge under Clinton was due to an improved economic prospects. In Reagan's case the end of Stagflation due to the stabilization of the commodities (read Oil). Clinton was in office during the IT boom. As for the foreign policy disasters you concede that "YES they may be our enimies now, in the 1980's they were not." -- This was my entire point. Reagan gave political, financial, and military support to people who would clearly bite us in the butt in the future. There was ample evidence that Pinochet and Noriega were war criminals during the time Reagan supported them. The intelligence was good that Saddam used the chemical weapons Reagan gave him to gas his own people (a claim we use to justify taking him out of power) and still Reagan gave support. -- These people would *STILL* be our allies if Reagan's policies of supporting evil men were still in place. They SHOULD have been our enemies even under Reagan. They were war criminals and needed to be dealt with later on at a great expense to the US. When Reagan could have simply never given them their start in the first place. Bill Clinton did accept the Sudan's offer to arrest Osama Bin Laden, Saudi Arabia botched the deal. However, had Reagan not given Osama his start in Afghanistan there'd be no need to offer up such false claims. Nazi Germany wasn't corrupt. Nazi Germany wasn't communist. In fact, the Nazis sent the communists to death camps, along with the atheists, homosexuals and Jews. The point isn't Nazi Germany. The point is that the Soviet Union DID collapse on it's own. It rotted from the inside and collapsed.