PDA

View Full Version : President Reaganís health said to have deteriorated



RBA
06-05-2004, 09:10 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5144264

Reaganís health said to have deteriorated
Former president, 93, has Alzheimerís disease
The Associated Press
Updated: 8:44 a.m. ET June 05, 2004PARIS - Former President Ronald Reaganís health has deteriorated, the White House has been told.

advertisement

The White House was informed that the 93-year-old former presidentís health had changed significantly in the past several days, a person familiar with Reaganís condition told The Associated Press Saturday.

Reagan has been out of the public eye since disclosing a decade ago that he had Alzheimerís disease. He has lived longer than any other U.S. president.

RedsBaron
06-05-2004, 10:37 AM
Thanks for the post RBA. Alzheimer's is such a terrible disease, and so hard on the victim's family. I have a very good friend who now suffers from the disease.

RosieRed
06-05-2004, 04:50 PM
They just said he died.

SirFelixCat
06-05-2004, 04:51 PM
RIP President. :(

Larkin Fan
06-05-2004, 05:02 PM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20040605/ap_on_re_us/reagan_obit

Former President Ronald Reagan Dies at 93

WASHINGTON - Ronald Reagan (news - web sites), the cheerful crusader who devoted his presidency to winning the Cold War, trying to scale back government and making people believe it was "morning again in America," died Saturday after a long twilight struggle with Alzheimer's disease (news - web sites), a family friend said. He was 93.

He died at his home in California, according to the friend, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The White House was told his health had taken a turn for the worse in the last several days.

Five years after leaving office, the nation's 40th president told the world in November 1994 that he had been diagnosed with the early stages of Alzheimer's, an incurable illness that destroys brain cells. He said he had begun "the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life."

Reagan body was expected to be taken to his presidential library and museum in Simi Valley, Calif., and then flown to Washington to lie in state in the Capitol Rotunda. His funeral was expected to be at the National Cathedral, an event likely to draw world leaders. The body was to be returned to California for a sunset burial at his library.

Reagan lived longer than any U.S. president, spending his last decade in the shrouded seclusion wrought by his disease, tended by his wife, Nancy, whom he called Mommy, and the select few closest to him. Now, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton (news - web sites) are the surviving ex-presidents.

Although fiercely protective of Reagan's privacy, the former first lady let people know his mental condition had deteriorated terribly. Last month, she said: "Ronnie's long journey has finally taken him to a distant place where I can no longer reach him."

Reagan's oldest daughter, Maureen, from his first marriage, died in August 2001 at age 60 from cancer. Three other children survive: Michael, from his first marriage, and Patti Davis and Ron from his second.

Over two terms, from 1981 to 1989, Reagan reshaped the Republican Party in his conservative image, fixed his eye on the demise of the Soviet Union and Eastern European communism and tripled the national debt to $3 trillion in his singleminded competition with the other superpower.

Taking office at age 69, Reagan had already lived a career outside Washington, one that spanned work as a radio sports announcer, an actor, a television performer, a spokesman for the General Electric Co., and a two-term governor of California.

At the time of his retirement, his very name suggested a populist brand of conservative politics that still inspires the Republican Party.

He declared at the outset, "Government is not the solution, it's the problem," although reducing that government proved harder to do in reality than in his rhetoric.

Even so, he challenged the status quo on welfare and other programs that had put government on a growth spurt ever since Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal strengthened the federal presence in the lives of average Americans.

In foreign affairs, he built the arsenals of war while seeking and achieving arms control agreements with the Soviet Union.

In his second term, Reagan was dogged by revelations that he authorized secret arms sales to Iran while seeking Iranian aid to gain release of American hostages held in Lebanon. Some of the money was used to aid rebels fighting the leftist government of Nicaragua.

Despite the ensuing investigations, he left office in 1989 with the highest popularity rating of any retiring president in the history of modern-day public opinion polls.

That reflected, in part, his uncommon ability as a communicator and his way of connecting with ordinary Americans, even as his policies infuriated the left and as his simple verities made him the butt of jokes. "Morning again in America" became his re-election campaign mantra in 1984, but typified his appeal to patriotrism through both terms.

At 69, Reagan was the oldest man ever elected president when he was chosen on Nov. 4, 1980, by an unexpectedly large margin over incumbent Democrat Jimmy Carter.

Near-tragedy struck on his 70th day as president. On March 30, 1981, Reagan was leaving a Washington hotel after addressing labor leaders when a young drifter, John Hinckley, fired six shots at him. A bullet lodged an inch from Reagan's heart, but he recovered.

Four years later he was re-elected by an even greater margin, carrying 49 of the 50 states in defeating Democrat Walter F. Mondale, Carter's vice president.

RedFanAlways1966
06-05-2004, 05:15 PM
RIP, President Reagan. :(

It is sad. However, the man lived a long and wonderful life. His life story is incredible... actor turned Governor turned U.S. President. A man who served as both a Democrat and a Republican. A man who was there when communism in Europe crumbled. A man who survived an assassination attempt and had to have a bullet removed from his body. The oldest U.S President ever elected. Like him or not, he has lived an incredible life. I believe that he served his country with honor and dignity. Politics aside, I believe he tried to make the world a better place. He wasn't perfect, but few are. It was sad to hear and know of his illness. An illness that has become more common in today's society. Perhaps a figure like him will bring more devotion to solving this strange disease. His one last service to the world.

It is always a sad day in America when one of our presidents passes away. Whether that person was a Democrat or Republican, it just leaves a depressed feeling in me. I was young when President Johnson passed away. I vaguely remember watching his funeral on TV w/ my parents. My folks are Rep., but I can remember feeling the sadness in our house that day. I always remembered it. President Nixon is the only other during my time. That saddened me as well. Maybe I am old-fashioned, but I like to think that all of our presidents are good people who are doing their best to help the U.S. and the world.

Larkin Fan
06-05-2004, 05:20 PM
RIP President Reagan. :(

RANDY IN INDY
06-05-2004, 05:22 PM
A truly great President, whom I always admired. In my opinion, the greatest President of my lifetime. RIP President Reagan.

Red Thunder
06-05-2004, 05:22 PM
Ronald Reagan was a well respected man beyond the borders of the US, especially in Germany. May he rest in peace.

Reds1
06-05-2004, 05:42 PM
An American Icon always is a little sad to hear, but he was ready to go back home!

KronoRed
06-05-2004, 06:57 PM
Rest In Peace

TeamCasey
06-05-2004, 07:00 PM
I'm watching the news now. They're talking about the route of the hearse, etc. I think the family deserves some respect, privacy and space. God! They irritate me sometimes.

RedsBaron
06-05-2004, 08:09 PM
"Ronald Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot"-Margaret Thatcher (herself in ill health now).
I always thiink of Reagan at the Berlin Wall in 1987, demanding "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Reagan had much to do with that wall finally coming down a couple of years later. R.I.P.

Michael Allred
06-05-2004, 08:14 PM
RIP to the thousands of people who died of AIDS while Ronald Reagan did nothing.

Dying does not make you a better man or a saint (as some conservatives no doubt will claim he was anyway) but the deaths he contributed to while in office make it impossible for me to give him a pass.

Reds4Life
06-05-2004, 09:13 PM
RIP to the thousands of people who died of AIDS while Ronald Reagan did nothing.

Dying does not make you a better man or a saint (as some conservatives no doubt will claim he was anyway) but the deaths he contributed to while in office make it impossible for me to give him a pass.

:rolleyes: Oh give me a break.

Grow up, this isn't a political thread. A former President, and leader of the free world, just died. Please show a little respect. If you don't have anything nice to say, please do everyone a favor and shut the hell up.

WVRed
06-05-2004, 09:36 PM
:rolleyes: Oh give me a break.

Grow up, this isn't a political thread. A former President, and leader of the free world, just died. Please show a little respect. If you don't have anything nice to say, please do everyone a favor and shut the hell up.

I would say 99.9% of us are thinking that. Thank you for saying it.

RBA
06-05-2004, 10:27 PM
Statement from former President Bill Clinton
By Associated Press
Saturday, June 5, 2004

``Hillary and I will always remember President Ronald Reagan for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people, and for keeping America at the forefront of the fight for freedom for people everywhere. It is fitting that a piece of the Berlin Wall adorns the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington.''

MWM
06-05-2004, 10:53 PM
I agree with Michael. He should also be blamed for my grandfather's death from heart disease as well, which happened during Reagan's presidency. Heck, I had an aunt die of cancer in 1987 as well. Had to be President Reagan's fault.

RedsBaron
06-05-2004, 10:59 PM
I agree with Michael. He should also be blamed for my grandfather's death from heart disease as well, which happened during Reagan's presidency. Heck, I had an aunt die of cancer in 1987 as well. Had to be President Reagan's fault.
Ronald Reagan did nothing to prevent the death of my paternal grandfather in 1946, but I've been able to forgive him for that.

Michael Allred
06-06-2004, 12:40 AM
:rolleyes: Oh give me a break.

Grow up, this isn't a political thread. A former President, and leader of the free world, just died. Please show a little respect. If you don't have anything nice to say, please do everyone a favor and shut the hell up.

This isn't a "tribute" thread either so my comments are acceptable. If you'd like to grovel at his memory, start one of those for yourself, I'll gladly stay out of it.

As it is, I am not required to show respect for a man who does not deserve it.

Michael Allred
06-06-2004, 12:43 AM
I agree with Michael. He should also be blamed for my grandfather's death from heart disease as well, which happened during Reagan's presidency. Heck, I had an aunt die of cancer in 1987 as well. Had to be President Reagan's fault.

Make light of Reagan's moral failures all you want. He deliberately ignored the outbreak of one of the greatest plagues of the 20th century. You can insult all the people who died because of Reagan's inaction as much as you want. It doesn't change the facts.

Dying doesn't whitewash your past.

NDRed
06-06-2004, 01:40 AM
I wonder what is in the heart of anyone who cannot express condelences for the death of someone else. I'm quite sure I do not want to know. Very sad.

Dom Heffner
06-06-2004, 02:17 AM
I think Michael is expressing sympathy for many lives, just not Reagan's, and he has the right to do that, just as you all have your right to criticize him for it.

While I am no fan of Reagan - Iran Contra was too big of a deal to load him with all the accolades the GOP will undoubtedly pour on him this week- I would certainly offer much sympathy towards his family and loved ones, and to all those who liked the man.

NDRed
06-06-2004, 02:33 AM
No- I don't think he was expressing sympathy to anyone. I think he simply was looking for a reason to attack someone who had just died. Lots of class!!!

Michael Allred
06-06-2004, 05:13 AM
No- I don't think he was expressing sympathy to anyone. I think he simply was looking for a reason to attack someone who had just died. Lots of class!!!

Don't assume 'cuz you know what that means...

Anyone who knows me has heard my thoughts on Reagan quite a bit and I've voiced them regularly. My mind hasn't changed simply because he's passed away.

I feel bad for his family, yes BUT I have no sympathy for the man himself. He sentenced thousands to die and tied the hands of American doctors/scientists by not giving them the funding they needed right from the start. I simply cannot forgive that gross injustice.

and you'll pardon me for this but somehow I doubt conservatives will be remotely sympathetic when President Clinton dies.

WVRed
06-06-2004, 08:57 AM
I wonder what is in the heart of anyone who cannot express condelences for the death of someone else. I'm quite sure I do not want to know. Very sad.

Im sure if this had been Rosie O'Donnell or Bill Clinton, it would be the other way around(extreme liberals mourning, conservatives tapdancing in the streets)

The reason I say extreme is because the liberal newsmedia has paid a great deal of respect to Reagan ever since the news broke that he died. I seem to remember when Nixon died, even though the media crucified him for Watergate, they stopped to reflect on his memory. Its a shame some people cant stop to do that.

Michael, for what its worth, I think you need to go to the Reagan funeral with picket signs. Because that is the equivalent of what you are doing on this thread.

GAC
06-06-2004, 09:24 AM
Presidents are human, just like the rest of us. And we could all find faults/weaknesses with just about everyone of them.

But when one passes away, then it is not a time to politicize the issue; but to reflect and yes, for some, to mourn.

Of all the Presidents that I have lived under, and IMO, Reagan was the best of the lot.

Kennedy was basically cut down in his prime before he had the chance to accomplish much. The Viet Nam war hampered Johnson. Nixon was a crook paranoid of everyone, and envious of power. Ford was "filler". Carter had no idea how to be President. Bush 1 got elected on the "coattails" of Reagan, and IMO was not a very good President. I felt Clinton was a good President. But like most, I felt his obsession with ego/self lead to his moral lapses. He made his decisions based on polling data. It was an issue of trust with me when it came to the Clintons.

Reagan IMO, helped to restore the American people's faith in this country and it's credibility after a decade (the 70's) inwhich everything had grown stagnate, and people's attitudes were filled with indifference and skepticism. And Reagan's popularity numbers with the American public have always shown that. He was the most popular President of the current living generation.

But anyone can look at any of the above administrations and find good and bad, negatives and positives. With me, it's how they did overall, and not on just one single issue.

RedsBaron
06-06-2004, 09:40 AM
Both Senator John Kerry and former Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder praised President Reagan's grace and love of America and Americans, displaying grace and class themselves. For a lack of grace and class.............

Michael Allred
06-06-2004, 03:18 PM
Im sure if this had been Rosie O'Donnell or Bill Clinton, it would be the other way around(extreme liberals mourning, conservatives tapdancing in the streets)

The reason I say extreme is because the liberal newsmedia has paid a great deal of respect to Reagan ever since the news broke that he died. I seem to remember when Nixon died, even though the media crucified him for Watergate, they stopped to reflect on his memory. Its a shame some people cant stop to do that.

Michael, for what its worth, I think you need to go to the Reagan funeral with picket signs. Because that is the equivalent of what you are doing on this thread.

Oh stop with the hyperbole.

Posting in a thread at a Cincinnati Reds site is quite a bit different from picketing a funeral. As best as I can recall, Nancy doesn't visit this forum. There are appropriate places to voice your opinions, funerals are not one of them. A forum thread is.

WVRed
06-06-2004, 04:40 PM
Oh stop with the hyperbole.

Posting in a thread at a Cincinnati Reds site is quite a bit different from picketing a funeral. As best as I can recall, Nancy doesn't visit this forum. There are appropriate places to voice your opinions, funerals are not one of them. A forum thread is.

So even though a person has died, its ok to trash their memory while hiding behind a keyboard?

Reds4Life
06-06-2004, 05:07 PM
So even though a person has died, its ok to trash their memory while hiding behind a keyboard?

In his mind, it appears so. If he only realized how tasteless and disrespectful his words look to many, maybe he would realize this isn't the time for a discussion on the political policy of the Reagan administration. Instead it's a time to mark the passing of a truly larger than life man, who for 8 years was the face and voice of our nation.

Perhaps it would be best if we just ignore the moronic asshat.

TeamDunn
06-06-2004, 05:20 PM
Perhaps it would be best if we just ignore the moronic asshat.

I believe the equivalent to this word got me a one week suspension. I think he deserves the same.

If you disagree with Michael stop replying to him and baiting him to continue. Simple.

Michael Allred
06-06-2004, 05:46 PM
So even though a person has died, its ok to trash their memory while hiding behind a keyboard?

I'm not sure how many times I need to say this but dying does not make you a better person nor should it make you forget what he/she has done in their life. You can hero worship all you want, I prefer to properly account for a person's deeds.

and the "hiding behind a keyboard" bit was funny, thanks for that. Would you rather have me rent billboard space?

Michael Allred
06-06-2004, 05:53 PM
In his mind, it appears so. If he only realized how tasteless and disrespectful his words look to many, maybe he would realize this isn't the time for a discussion on the political policy of the Reagan administration. Instead it's a time to mark the passing of a truly larger than life man, who for 8 years was the face and voice of our nation.

Perhaps it would be best if we just ignore the moronic asshat.

Ok Rush, just when exactly is it acceptable to discuss what Reagan did or did not do while in office? or, as most Republicans would think, is Reagan above and beyond all of us and nobody should ever dare say a thing about him?

Reagan is not a god and the more you glorify him without ever seriously looking at his administration, the more of an "asshat" you come off as.

Dear lord, watch the Fox News Channel, they've become the RTN (Reagan Tribute Network.)

westofyou
06-06-2004, 05:59 PM
The "moronic asshat" has as much right to lambast Reagen as you do him, note though he didn't stoop to breaking forum rules to do it either.

Michael is allowed to state his opinion and may continue to do so, even if it causes some of the others to have to look at aspects of Reagen's tenure that never touched their lives.

GAC
06-06-2004, 08:46 PM
I feel bad for his family, yes BUT I have no sympathy for the man himself. He sentenced thousands to die and tied the hands of American doctors/scientists by not giving them the funding they needed right from the start. I simply cannot forgive that gross injustice.


Reagan sentenced no one to die. Individuals, regardless if they are homosexual or heterosexual, that is not the issue, place the sentence upon themselves when they feel they can live a promiscuous lifestyle, while laughing at monogomous relationships, and think they can do so with impunity.

So I think it is hyperbole to try and divert the blame onto any one individual, whether it is a President or whoever, just because many in our society want to practice behaviour that now carries with it an even greater and more deadlier risk than just an STD, but basically a death sentence.... AIDS.

It's funny how many want more and more money for research, which I am not against one bit because they have increased research monies/grants over the last 20 years; but they are still no closer to finding a cure for this virus. But what concerns me is that many within our society still want to put the burden of accountability and responsibility on others (i.e. the government, scientists, etc), while not accepting any themselves.

And they may not be the politically correct thing to be saying; but it is the hard truth.

WVRed
06-06-2004, 08:56 PM
Reagan sentenced no one to die. Individuals, regardless if they are homosexual or heterosexual, that is not the issue, place the sentence upon themselves when they feel they can live a promiscuous lifestyle, while laughing at monogomous relationships, and think they can do so with impunity.

So I think it is hyperbole to try and divert the blame onto any one individual, whether it is a President or whoever, just because many in our society want to practice behaviour that now carries with it an even greater and more deadlier risk than just an STD, but basically a death sentence.... AIDS.

It's funny how many want more and more money for research, which I am not against one bit because they have increased research monies/grants over the last 20 years; but they are still no closer to finding a cure for this virus. But what concerns me is that many within our society still want to put the burden of accountability and responsibility on others (i.e. the government, scientists, etc), while not accepting any themselves.

And they may not be the politically correct thing to be saying; but it is the hard truth.

Exactly.

BTW, Ive noticed the Clinton News Network and MSNBC carrying nothing but Reagan. I guess we should label them conservative now;).

Does anybody listen to Air America? Id love to hear what the FoxNews wannabes have to say.

Larkin Fan
06-06-2004, 10:54 PM
GAC, I completely agree with the vast majority of your post, but there was one part of it that bothered me.


Reagan sentenced no one to die. Individuals, regardless if they are homosexual or heterosexual, that is not the issue, place the sentence upon themselves when they feel they can live a promiscuous lifestyle, while laughing at monogomous relationships, and think they can do so with impunity.

There is a great number of people that are suffering from HIV/AIDS that acquired the disease from other means than a promiscuous life style. There are Doctors, nurses, paramedics, firefighters, police officers, etc. that have acquired the virus "in the line of duty" so to speak and in some cases have passed it on to the person that they are in a monogamous relationship with. While a large number of sufferers acquire the disease as a result of their behavior, there's other ones that acquired it through no fault of their own so I don't think it's fair to make that generalization.

But I totally agree with the rest of your post. Reagan didn't kill anybody. It's not like they've found a cure for the disease. They're not even close. So no one can say that if he had paid more attention to the disease that there would have been lives saved. Three presidents and many billions of dollars later, we're still wracking up huge numbers of victims each year. Is that his fault too?

RosieRed
06-06-2004, 11:54 PM
There is a great number of people that are suffering from HIV/AIDS that acquired the disease from other means than a promiscuous life style. There are Doctors, nurses, paramedics, firefighters, police officers, etc. that have acquired the virus "in the line of duty" so to speak and in some cases have passed it on to the person that they are in a monogamous relationship with.

Not to mention the large number of people who did absolutely nothing at all besides have a blood transfusion, or was given a shot with a contaminated needle.

I know there are tons of things individuals can do to try to prevent getting HIV/AIDS, but I strongly dislike the implication that anyone "deserves" to get it because of their behavior. That's just wrong.

Dom Heffner
06-07-2004, 01:13 AM
The great divider
In the orgy of fond memories of Ronald Reagan, let's keep the historical record straight: Our sunny former president could use fear and hate as political weapons when he had to.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

June 7, 2004 | I feel bound to respect Ronald Reagan, as every American should -- not least because he chose a career of public service when he could have made a lot more money doing something else, and not least because he took genuine risks for peace. (President Bush, in contrast, seems to know only how to derange the world with war.) But in the necrophiliac orgy that is now upon us, there are three messages that I -- as a historian of the rise of the modern conservative movement in the 1960s, and as a reporter on the conservative regency in election year 2004 -- wish that more people would hear.

The first is that if Reagan's partisans succeed in creating an indelible memory of him as someone that everyone loved all the time, they will have won an important political struggle with consequences for today.

The second is that if his partisans succeed in minting Reagan in public memory as a repository of bedrock principle, they will have been complicit in letting forgetting win the battle against remembering -- because on their own, conservative terms, Reagan was often a sellout.

And last, if they manage to make the rest of us remember Reagan as the embodiment of the kind of genial conservative even a liberal could love -- a refreshing counterweight to the lunatic conservatives we have to deal with now -- they will have scrambled history instead of helping to inform it. Because Reagan was always much more frightening than the sunny optimist of now-popular legend.

The Reagan memory industry has been chugging along at full steam for over a decade now, from the successful attempt to put Reagan's name on the former National Airport in Washington to the (so far) unsuccessful ones to put his mug on the dime and Mount Rushmore. Do not mistake the deeply ideological thrust behind these campaigns. The aim is to make the notion that Reagan was the most beloved American politician ever seem self-evident -- and to make the kind of militaristic, minimal-government conservatism he championed seem just as natural.

For a short period at the beginning of his presidency, after John Hinckley's assassination attempt against him, and in the middle of his term, before the Iran-Contra scandal, Reagan was indeed stratospherically popular. But averaged out over his political lifetime -- Reagan first won office as governor of California in 1967, serving two terms prior to his two terms as president beginning in 1981 -- Reagan's popularity was, well, just average. Often, it was far below average.

When Reagan was governor, he worried about the "very dangerous precedent" of the state Constitution's recall provision being exploited by "well-organized groups for political recrimination." Yes, that's right. Though Reagan's latter-day acolytes led the lusty campaign to recall Democratic Gov. Gray Davis in 2003, Reagan would not have approved. And for good reason: He was the subject of two recall attempts himself. The first came in 1968, and it wasn't hard to understand why a group of liberal organizers, working on a shoestring, were able to obtain hundreds of thousands of signatures for his ouster: His approval rating was an anemic 30 percent. (In the next few weeks you are unlikely to hear that Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan had roughly equivalent degrees of popularity during their presidencies, with Clinton's often higher, including when both left office.)

The activists in the second recall attempt weren't liberals, however. In 1967, Reagan, after campaigning, as he always did, as a tax cutter, passed the single largest tax hike in the history of any state up to that point. By 1971, some of his former supporters on the right had tired of what they saw as Reagan's serial betrayals of conservative principles and launched a recall movement of their own.

We didn't hear a lot about that movement when conservatives were dropping Reagan's name left and right in support of their bid to run Gov. Gray Davis out of Sacramento on a rail in large part because he had ... raised taxes.


Reagan's hagiographers, having their cake, eating their cake and smearing their cake all over the historical record, have a word for the occasions when this supposedly principled man violated his principles: They call them "pragmatism." But liberals have to give the man credit for his ability, unlike President Bush, to shift course when he was walking into a wall.

Still, it's too easy to convert the image of Reagan the pragmatist into a Reagan who wasn't really right wing. And from that it is but a short step to the most irritating Reagan myth of all: that he was nothing but a sunny optimist. Do not forget that he also frightened people with talk of apocalypse.

Reagan first came to public prominence as a political figure in the early '60s. The movie actor, hard on his luck, had become a kind of roving motivational speaker for General Electric. More and more, however, as he became more and more conservative, his talks focused on politics. Much of Reagan's stomping ground of Southern California had converted itself into a kind of McCarthyite petri dish, breeding paranoid patio dads and housewives by the thousands, each one eager and ready to find Reds beneath, beside and on top of every bed.

On any given weekend, interested citizens in Orange County could watch showings of films like "Communism on the Map" -- a geopolitical melodrama in which blood- or pink-colored ink leached over country after country, sparing only Spain, Switzerland and the United States (which was covered by a giant question mark) -- or find a study group assiduously poring over the organizational structure of what J. Edgar Hoover laughably called a "state within a state" -- the almost nonexistent Communist Party.

Reagan soon became one of the hottest tickets on the anti-Communist lecture circuit -- where sunny optimism was not the order of the day. "We have 10 years," he would say in just about every speech. "Not 10 years to make up our mind." (He was referring to the choice as to whether to embrace the Republican right or the march of communism, among whose avatars he numbered, in a famous 1960 letter to Richard Nixon, John F. Kennedy.) But "10 years to win or lose -- by 1970 the world will be all slave or all free."

Remember this: The hellfire never left him, and the hellfire ended up making the world a more dangerous place. As a candidate for elective office, even as president, his handlers always cleaned him up for popular consumption, but the same strange holdovers from the McCarthyite fever dreams continued to pop up in his discourse. One of his favorites was an invented quote of Lenin, popularized by the founder of the John Birch Society, to the effect that after the Reds took over Eastern Europe, they would "organize the hordes of Asia," as Reagan said in a 1975 interview, they would move on to Latin America and "then the United States, the last bastion of capitalism, [would] fall into their outstretched hands like overripe fruit."

Overripe words, yes, but also very characteristic of Reagan. It is a quirk of American culture that each generation of nonconservatives sees the right-wingers of its own generation as the scary ones, then chooses to remember the right-wingers of the last generation as sort of cuddly. In 1964, observers horrified by Barry Goldwater pined for the sensible Robert Taft, the conservative leader of the 1950s. When Reagan was president, liberals spoke fondly of sweet old Goldwater.

Nowadays, as we grapple with the malevolence of President Bush, it's Reagan we remember as the sensible one. At the risk of speaking ill of the dead, let memory at least acknowledge that there was much about Reagan that was not so sensible.

Again and again as president, Reagan let it slip that he concurred with fundamentalists' belief that the world would end in a fiery Armageddon. This did not hurt him politically. The kind of people offended by such talk had already largely abandoned the Republican Party. Those attracted by it -- evangelicals who had gone overwhelmingly for fellow evangelical Jimmy Carter in 1976 -- adopted Reagan, and his conservative Republicanism, as their own, and they never looked back. And in the eschatology of Cold War America, Christian apocalyptic thinking had everything to do with the assumption that the Armageddon would be a nuclear one, a confrontation with the anti-Christ bailiwick Russia, which Reagan identified in a March 1983 speech to the National Association of Evangelicals as the "Evil Empire."

No wonder that when, in November 1983, NATO launched a war games exercise code-named Able Archer, the Soviet Union misread its intentions as offensive and put its nuclear forces on alert, and the world came closer to ending than it ever had before.

It took this near miss -- and not, certainly, the largest mass demonstration in American history, the million people who gathered in Central Park in 1982 to demonstrate for a nuclear freeze (another moment you probably won't read about in all the Reagan eulogies) -- to get Reagan thinking seriously about negotiating an arms control agreement with the Soviet Union. To his enormous credit.

But he never did make a similar peace with the "welfare queens" he fabricated out of whole cloth to push his anti-compassionate conservatism. Nor with the African Americans he insulted by launching his 1980 presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were slaughtered by the Ku Klux Klan in 1964. Nor with the Berkeley students demonstrating in a closed-off plaza whom he ordered tear-gassed by helicopter in 1969.

Nor, last but not least, with the tens of thousands of AIDS corpses whose disease he did not even deign to publicly acknowledge until 1987.

As the eulogies come down the pike, don't let conservatives, once again, win the ideological struggle to determine mainstream discourse. Remember Reagan; respect him. But don't let them make you revere him. He was a divider, not a uniter.

Boss-Hog
06-07-2004, 01:28 AM
I just saw this thread and the problem with the insulting language (which violates two board rules) has been addressed.

Larkin Fan
06-07-2004, 07:45 AM
Not to mention the large number of people who did absolutely nothing at all besides have a blood transfusion, or was given a shot with a contaminated needle.

I know there are tons of things individuals can do to try to prevent getting HIV/AIDS, but I strongly dislike the implication that anyone "deserves" to get it because of their behavior. That's just wrong.

Totally agree, Rosie Red. No one deserves this awful disease regardless of their behavior. Didn't mean to imply that I agreed with that.

GAC
06-07-2004, 08:11 AM
GAC, I completely agree with the vast majority of your post, but there was one part of it that bothered me.



There is a great number of people that are suffering from HIV/AIDS that acquired the disease from other means than a promiscuous life style. There are Doctors, nurses, paramedics, firefighters, police officers, etc. that have acquired the virus "in the line of duty" so to speak and in some cases have passed it on to the person that they are in a monogamous relationship with. While a large number of sufferers acquire the disease as a result of their behavior, there's other ones that acquired it through no fault of their own so I don't think it's fair to make that generalization.

But I totally agree with the rest of your post. Reagan didn't kill anybody. It's not like they've found a cure for the disease. They're not even close. So no one can say that if he had paid more attention to the disease that there would have been lives saved. Three presidents and many billions of dollars later, we're still wracking up huge numbers of victims each year. Is that his fault too?

And you are absolutely right LF. And there have been alot of subsequent "victims" from the AIDS epidemic. But overall, what was the initial cause and effect that spread the virus like "wildfire" to the point where it was affecting those within certain segments of our society, as you mentioned above? Who/what created the circumstances that placed those healthcare workers, fireman, paramedics, etc. at risk? What really was the root cause that helped this disease become the epidemic that it is?

And I absolutely agree with Rosie when she says that no one deserves this disease. And I sincerely hope that no one interprets what I stated above as meaning that. It carries a "death sentence". My point was that each of us has a responsibility, now that the threat is even greater, to examine ourselves and look at the choices/decisions we make when it comes to sexual practices/lifestyles. It's all about personal accountability IMO.

RedsBaron
06-07-2004, 08:42 AM
A representative of the Gallup polling organization was on one the cable newschannels this morning, I think it was CNN Headline News. Of recent presidents, while Reagan's average approval rating while in office of 53% exceeded Jimmy Carter's average of 45%, it slightly trailed Bill Clinton's average of 55%. George H. W. Bush had an average of 61%.
I find that interesting but of little real importance. While the representative didn't discuss the approval ratings of less recent presidents, I can recall that Harry Truman's approval rating sank to something like 23% by the early 1950s, even lower than Richard Nixon's was during Watergate, yet most people, including me, now highly regard Truman's overall performance as president. Despite the biases among historians, I expect that Reagan will eventually be more highly ranked among U.S. presidents than will any of his immediate predecessors and successors.

TeamDunn
06-07-2004, 09:02 AM
And when information about the disease was FINALLY given to the public, homosexual males were the proactive ones that took the precautions needed....but by then the disease was in the blood supply and many non homosexual persons had contracted it.

Had info been given out 5 years earlier none of us know how the death totals and spreading of the disease would have gone.

And someone on another board used Elizabeth Glaser & the Pediatric Aids Foundation and how he was there for them!!!! Of course he was, because those people got it *the respectable* way. Most during blood transfusions where the blood was not tested because of the expense.

He may have done a hundred things right, but he was completely wrong in how he handled this matter. To his defense I guess any President (especially at that time) that did not want to commit political suicide would have done the same thing, that is what is really sad. Have we learned from our mistake? If another deadly disease comes along and is first spread between a minority group of some sort, will future leaders just let it go until it attacks the general population?

While no cure has been found people are living longer, productive lives when diagnosed with it. Maybe that will be enough for some of them to survive until there is a cure found.

Ravenlord
06-07-2004, 09:05 AM
i'm amazed. it actually took longer for this thread to turn into a *****slap fight than i though i would. everything else about it though, is exactly in line with what i was expecting when i opened the thread.

TeamDunn
06-07-2004, 09:07 AM
Oh, and this disease is still as sneaky as it was years ago.

A former police officer that worked in the same city as I did came into contact with an AIDS infected person. The guy kicked out the cruiser window and the officer cut himself on the glass (as did the suspect) and their blood mingled.

9 years later, after being tested every 6 months in that time frame he has now tested positive for HIV. :thumbdn: :thumbdn: :thumbdn:

WVRed
06-07-2004, 09:14 AM
And when information about the disease was FINALLY given to the public, homosexual males were the proactive ones that took the precautions needed....but by then the disease was in the blood supply and many non homosexual persons had contracted it.

From avert.com-


At the end of the December 2002, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported approximately 384, 906 persons in the United States living with AIDS.

Of these,


46% were in whites,
34% in blacks,
18% in Hispanics,
<1% in Asians and Pacific Islanders,
and <1% in American Indians and Alaska Natives;
Of the 298,248 men (of 13 years or older) who were living with AIDS

57% were men who had sex with men (MSM),
23% were intravenous durg users (IDU)
10% were exposed through heterosexual contact
8% were both MSM and IDU
Of the 82,764 adult and adolescent women with AIDS,

61% were exposed through heterosexual contact
36% were exposed through intravenous drug use
3893 children were living with AIDS.

http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm

WVRed
06-07-2004, 09:19 AM
Heres another one with statistics of how each was exposed.

http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm

TeamDunn
06-07-2004, 09:24 AM
Rewording:

So these are people that could have already been infected in the 80's before anything came out to the public.

I have friends that are gay. They take precautions because they are now educated.

WVRed
06-07-2004, 09:34 AM
reported through December 2002.:)

RedFanAlways1966
06-07-2004, 01:27 PM
Gee... my eyes have been opened by the likes of Michael Allred with their infinite wisdom.

I now hate every President of the United States. Why? Because I am a diabetic. You see, for the people who agree with Michael, diabetes has been around since this country began. It has killed WAY-WAY-WAY more people than AIDS. But some people, like Michael, have the gall to think that AIDS deserves more attention. Dont' deny it, Michael. Your attitude in this thread is not only selfish, but it also reeks of ignorance.

Care to tell people, Michael, how many people have died from AIDS compared to: diabetes, kidney-related diseases or blood-poisoning from infections? Are you just as concerned with finding cures for these diseases? Diseases that have been around WAY-WAY-WAY longer than AIDS. I doubt it b/c you have already shown that you are very short-sighted in what you believe.

I won't even bring up heart disease. Why? because lots of people bring that upon themselves (smoking). Kind of like people who get AIDS by having unprotecetd sex and/or do illegal drugs with a dirty needle (the vast majority of those afflicted, pal!).

Coming from a diabetic, my disease was not obtained by foolish behavior. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? It was caused by nothing that I did. It was caused by something in my genes. Like those who get terrible things like Cystic Fibrosis, Cerebral Palsy, MD & Kidney-realted diseases. Diseases that have been around WAY-WAY-WAY longer than AIDS.

As a matter of fact, AIDS research should be put on hold until all the other illnesses that I have mentioned are cured first. HEY... they have been around WAY-WAY-WAY longer AIDS. They have killed MILLIONS more than AIDS. And they inflict people who are not using irresponsible behavior (the majority of AIDS patients did not use responsible behavior when they caught the HIV virus... FACT!).

You see... my new way of thinking (hating all presidents who did not cure my illness, solving the diseases/viruses that are closest to me-me-me) are from reading Michael's views. Michael's views remind me of Rev. Fred Barnes. You know... the guy who leads a band of people into protests against gays and lesbians. Seems to come across as though they ARE HAPPY when a gay or lesbian dies. Michael and Fred may be on opposite sides of the spectrum on their opinions, but they both come across as hateful in their message. They both have no sense of class or respect when conveying their message. Rev. Fred and Michael Allred... one in the same. Don't be fooled... they are using hatred to deliver and show no human respect in delivering their message.

No hyperboles here. Just fact. How concerned are you about diseases that kill WAY-WAY-WAY more people than AIDS, Michael? Come on... answer the question. Diseases that were not 1st discovered in 1981 or whenever.

Don't be selfish and try not to be ignorant when answering. And try to use a bit of class and/or respect... more than used in your 1st post in this thread. If you are capable.

p.s. - glad I have the right to express my opinions here.

westofyou
06-07-2004, 01:37 PM
Coming from a diabetic, my disease was not obtained by foolish behavior.

I know a guy who died from a blood transfusion he got in Africa in the 80's.

Sad.... but hardly *foolish*

RedFanAlways1966
06-07-2004, 01:45 PM
I know a guy who died from a blood transfusion he got in Africa in the 80's. Sad.... but hardly *foolish*

A sad thing... what happened to your friend. I guess I'd be more caring if he was a diabetic (my new way of thinking).

I said the MAJORITY... I think I said it twice. Please feel free to re-read and try to catch all of it (if your mind will allow it). And also feel free to comment on the real points that I make.

westofyou
06-07-2004, 01:47 PM
(if your mind will allow it).

Sorry your arrogance lost me there... enjoy your day.

Dom Heffner
06-07-2004, 02:06 PM
RFA: For all the talk of Mr. Allred being bitter, you are surely putting on a show.

I now hate every President of the United States. Why? Because I am a diabetic. You see, for the people who agree with Michael, diabetes has been around since this country began. It has killed WAY-WAY-WAY more people than AIDS. But some people, like Michael, have the gall to think that AIDS deserves more attention. Dont' deny it, Michael. Your attitude in this thread is not only selfish, but it also reeks of ignorance.

I think that Michael's point - inherently lost on you- is that Ronald Reagan's administration did not even acknowledge the fact that people had died of this disease until 1987. Can you name any administration that didn't acknowledge diabetes or heart disease? The president gets involved with drug policy (remember the "Just say No" programs?) and other matters like this to raise awareness and spur federal policy. Imagine being 5 years ahead of treating AIDS?

The reason I do not vote Republican is that you guys are just mean. Read the quote at the bottom of all my posts. Go ahead, read it right now.That came from Reagan's administration, and I have several more of them if you'd like to read them. It sounds a lot like what comes out of your posts on here.

People deserve what they get, no? I would like to think that we all hope we don't get what's coming to all of us, because we all deserve something in one way or another.

And it's pretty ironic that when you think someone is being mean to you, you suddenly pull out the Miss Manners book on everyone. People with AIDS deserve it...we'll, ever think that maybe you and everyone else with the disease deserve diabetes?

We're all sinners, right? So we all deserve all the diseases we have on earth. All because Eve ate some fruit.

Maybe you cheated on your girlfriend or took the name of the lord in vain? Perhaps you coveted your neighbor's property...

Maybe you judged others - like you are doing on your latest post- before taking a hard look at yourself?

Hey, I'm just using irony and satire like you are with Michael, so relax, RFA.

We all have the right to our opinion.

RedFanAlways1966
06-07-2004, 02:31 PM
Sorry your arrogance lost me there... enjoy your day.

That I will not argue wth you. From the first day I joined here you seem to be an expert in this area. Arrognace. Go figure.

You too have a nice day.

RedFanAlways1966
06-07-2004, 02:43 PM
Please share your opinions, Dom...

(1) Was it proper for Michael to START this argument in a thread that had obviously become a tribute to Pres. Reagan after his passing? Get over the freedom of speech crap too. I am talking from the decent thing to do as a human being. Something that only seems to concern you when it goes along w/your political thinking (imagine that).

(2) Could Michael have started his own thread (that would be a first) to share his opinions on Pres. Reagan? He chose to START crap in a thread that OBVIOUSLY became a tribute to Pres. Reagan. Classless. Dis-respectful.

TeamDunn
06-07-2004, 02:56 PM
I'm still trying to find out how all the diseases we knew about prior to AIDS has anything to do with the current rant?

This is about Reagan and about what he did and did not do when it came to the biggest disease to strike this planet during his watch.

Diabetes is horrible, as is cancer and MD, MS and a zillion other diseases. It is not that one is more important than the other. It is that the gvt did nothing to warn about AIDS to stop its spread.

Why work on curing all these other horrible diseases if you let one deadly one go and get in your blood supply? You save someone from hemophilia and in turn give them a deadly virus!!

That is what my beef is with how Reagan handled it. In my eyes the way I saw it was that as long as it was only gay men dying then it was an acceptable loss. After women & children and straight males were getting it via the blood supply or even drug use then he acted...at that point it was becoming a national epidemic.

No one disease should get more money or attention than another, but one that you can catch and can kill you in a short amount of time does need to be addressed...all of them in that category, not just AIDS. It just happened that AIDS came while he was in the White House.

The progress made with AIDS research has taught us quite a lot over the years. We know about retroviruses, we have a much better understanding of the immune system and how it works with us and against us (for all diseases, not just AIDS) and we have a lot more antiviral drugs on the market than ever before. I don't work day to day with this stuff or with any people that it may effect...but I hope that these things are progress and will someday lead to a cure for AIDS and other disease we currently have no cure for.

I don't hate Reagan, I never have. I simply disagree with the stand he took on this subject. If I can't disagree with how a politician does something then why bother to vote?

I don't know why all this has struck RFA with such emotion. It could be because this is the first president he really remembers as a child and it holds to a time frame when we in our 30's were young and innocent. :)

I am not saying that to make fun of you, I am being serious. His death has not effected me the way it has you. Maybe because in my mind he has been *dead* for 10 years now. Know what I mean? Kind of like if my biological dad died right now. I'd feel sad for him and for his family, but to me he has been dead for awhile now so it won't hit close to home.

I'm glad you have that kind of passion for the things you believe in. I think a few of us here have that same passion. But just because we are of opposite opinions on that passion does not make either of us more right or more wrong...just different. :)

I am truly sorry that you are feeling a deep loss. I mean that. You know you have always been one of my favorite people here and this disagreement will not change that.

I also hope they do find a cure for diabetes...it is a scary disease as well. My grandmother had it. She was able to regulate her meds and diet to keep it under control for probably 25 years or so I guess. Maybe longer. It seems like she had it for as long as I could remember so I was pretty young. She was onry though...that kept her going! :thumbup: She was not supposed to drink beer but she would have a can here and there. When family would show up she would shove the glass of beer in front of me, like it was mine. And I would hold it and let the fizz tickle my nose...cause the taste was just nasty!! I could never drink it!!! :p:

I had not thought about that for years. :)

I wish you the best RFA! :)

Michael Allred
06-07-2004, 03:26 PM
Gee... my eyes have been opened by the likes of Michael Allred with their infinite wisdom.

I now hate every President of the United States. Why? Because I am a diabetic. You see, for the people who agree with Michael, diabetes has been around since this country began. It has killed WAY-WAY-WAY more people than AIDS. But some people, like Michael, have the gall to think that AIDS deserves more attention. Dont' deny it, Michael. Your attitude in this thread is not only selfish, but it also reeks of ignorance.

Care to tell people, Michael, how many people have died from AIDS compared to: diabetes, kidney-related diseases or blood-poisoning from infections? Are you just as concerned with finding cures for these diseases? Diseases that have been around WAY-WAY-WAY longer than AIDS. I doubt it b/c you have already shown that you are very short-sighted in what you believe.

I won't even bring up heart disease. Why? because lots of people bring that upon themselves (smoking). Kind of like people who get AIDS by having unprotecetd sex and/or do illegal drugs with a dirty needle (the vast majority of those afflicted, pal!).

Coming from a diabetic, my disease was not obtained by foolish behavior. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? It was caused by nothing that I did. It was caused by something in my genes. Like those who get terrible things like Cystic Fibrosis, Cerebral Palsy, MD & Kidney-realted diseases. Diseases that have been around WAY-WAY-WAY longer than AIDS.

As a matter of fact, AIDS research should be put on hold until all the other illnesses that I have mentioned are cured first. HEY... they have been around WAY-WAY-WAY longer AIDS. They have killed MILLIONS more than AIDS. And they inflict people who are not using irresponsible behavior (the majority of AIDS patients did not use responsible behavior when they caught the HIV virus... FACT!).

You see... my new way of thinking (hating all presidents who did not cure my illness, solving the diseases/viruses that are closest to me-me-me) are from reading Michael's views. Michael's views remind me of Rev. Fred Barnes. You know... the guy who leads a band of people into protests against gays and lesbians. Seems to come across as though they ARE HAPPY when a gay or lesbian dies. Michael and Fred may be on opposite sides of the spectrum on their opinions, but they both come across as hateful in their message. They both have no sense of class or respect when conveying their message. Rev. Fred and Michael Allred... one in the same. Don't be fooled... they are using hatred to deliver and show no human respect in delivering their message.

No hyperboles here. Just fact. How concerned are you about diseases that kill WAY-WAY-WAY more people than AIDS, Michael? Come on... answer the question. Diseases that were not 1st discovered in 1981 or whenever.

Don't be selfish and try not to be ignorant when answering. And try to use a bit of class and/or respect... more than used in your 1st post in this thread. If you are capable.

p.s. - glad I have the right to express my opinions here.

LOL, my goodness, I have no idea where to begin with that one.

Without having a ton of time here, I'll simply say that AIDS is the greater threat to public safety because it is communicable. Cancer, diabetes, etc of course, are not. Naturally all diseases should be a major concern for the medical/scientific community to deal with but (IMO) what should you rush to fix first, a broken dam with a river pouring through it or a dam with a small leak? Which threatens a town more?

My stepfather has diabetes by the way...and liver/kidney problems...suffered two strokes...I DO realize there are other medical problems out there people face every day.

Now please, come down off your cross. We need the firewood.

Michael Allred
06-07-2004, 03:40 PM
Please share your opinions, Dom...

(1) Was it proper for Michael to START this argument in a thread that had obviously become a tribute to Pres. Reagan after his passing? Get over the freedom of speech crap too. I am talking from the decent thing to do as a human being. Something that only seems to concern you when it goes along w/your political thinking (imagine that).

(2) Could Michael have started his own thread (that would be a first) to share his opinions on Pres. Reagan? He chose to START crap in a thread that OBVIOUSLY became a tribute to Pres. Reagan. Classless. Dis-respectful.

First, I wasn't starting any "argument." Reagan was a public figure and as president, we as Americans *should* look at his administration with a critical eye. That's what I was doing. Second, looking at the subject title for this thread, it certainly didn't seem like a "tribute" either (there's one now though, please enjoy it if you like.) This is a forum for discussion is it not?

You talk about the "decent thing to do", well if you feel a certain person was not decent himself and you strongly disagreed with him, why would you roll over and not say anything? This isn't anything like protesting someone's funeral (regardless of what some would have you believe) nor have I resorted to calling Reagan childish names (like some of his supporters have done with me) but my main focus has been his *policies*. That my friend, is fair game and yes, that also applies to Democrats as well.

Finally, as for starting yet another thread about him. Why? One already existed when I came here the other day. What makes my opinion so much better that it deserves it's own seperate thread? This thread OBVIOUSLY became a discussion thread, read the posts for yourself. That's the direction it went. There's a memorial thread now though so everyone should be happy.

WVRed
06-07-2004, 03:50 PM
You see... my new way of thinking (hating all presidents who did not cure my illness, solving the diseases/viruses that are closest to me-me-me) are from reading Michael's views. Michael's views remind me of Rev. Fred Barnes. You know... the guy who leads a band of people into protests against gays and lesbians. Seems to come across as though they ARE HAPPY when a gay or lesbian dies. Michael and Fred may be on opposite sides of the spectrum on their opinions, but they both come across as hateful in their message. They both have no sense of class or respect when conveying their message. Rev. Fred and Michael Allred... one in the same. Don't be fooled... they are using hatred to deliver and show no human respect in delivering their message.

For correction purposes, its Fred Phelps.

RedFanAlways1966
06-07-2004, 07:10 PM
RIP to the thousands of people who died of AIDS while Ronald Reagan did nothing.

Dying does not make you a better man or a saint (as some conservatives no doubt will claim he was anyway) but the deaths he contributed to while in office make it impossible for me to give him a pass.

This after 9-10 posts saying something like "RIP" or "a sad day in America". These 9-10 posts after a post that stated that Pres. Reagan was very ill and post which stated that he had finally died.

Now, MICHAEL, you tell me how the above post fit in to everything else that had been posted before your post (that according to you was not meant to be argumentative). YOU turned it into a political thing. YOU, not anyone else. And then YOU still argue that you did not do such a thing. It seemed (9-10 posts to start) that this thread became a tribute to a U.S. President who had just passed away.

I am pretty sure that MOST people saw what this thread was about. That is b/c MOST people understand about something called human compassion that follows a person's death. I know of a few here that would be more than willing to put in their two cents worth on President Reagan. However, I like to think that those people chose not to START what you did (keep denying it... the proof is on page one, friend). They instead understand about human compassion. They understand what is "PC" (imagine that) following the death of a person. That means keeping your mouth shut if you have nothing good to say. And let's be honest... we are not talking about the passing of a Hitler, Saddam or bin Laden. Not even close... no matter your sexuality or political beliefs. And then some here say, "Well I know that conservatives would be saying the same things about certain Dems." That is called "heresay". And that statement would not apply to this conservative... b/c my parents taught me better.

Start a new thread? Out of respect to a person who served his country. Out of respect to a former president of the United States. Out of respect to a person who passed away. A person who was far from perfect (aren't we all?). Respect is usually something that we show when a person has passed (see the comments of Sen. Kerry and other people you will vote for).

Please forgive my diabetes comments. I think that many people (gay, straight, diabetics, heart-attack victims, kids with MD, etc.) can blame any assortmernt of people that they choose. I am a diabetic (31 years now). I do not want sympathy. In the same regard I do not blame people for my condition (presidents, doctors, etc.). I just hope for a brighter future... and I feel the same way about the HIV virus and those affected. I have made it known here that I have a close family member who is at a much greater risk of contacting the HIV virus. It scares me. But this person is also responsible. So that makes it easier on my mind.

Bottom-line... IMO (IN MY OPINION) I thought you were out-of-line to say what you said (timing and the thread as it was). I waited days before saying anything. 9-10 posts, Michael. That you cannot argue. You started it, Michael. That you cannot argue. You presented yourself well (to give credit) in the sense that you would not be censored by the mods here. But, in the name of human compassion, your timing and choice of thread was improper. If you do not like Reagan, then that is your right. Start a new thread, but do not state it after 9-10 posts about "RIP, Pres. Reagan".

M2
06-07-2004, 07:16 PM
Just wanted to say the title of this thread may be one of the great understatements of all time.

MWM
06-07-2004, 09:00 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol:


Just wanted to say the title of this thread may be one of the great understatements of all time.

Michael Allred
06-07-2004, 09:22 PM
This after 9-10 posts saying something like "RIP" or "a sad day in America". These 9-10 posts after a post that stated that Pres. Reagan was very ill and post which stated that he had finally died.

Now, MICHAEL, you tell me how the above post fit in to everything else that had been posted before your post (that according to you was not meant to be argumentative). YOU turned it into a political thing. YOU, not anyone else. And then YOU still argue that you did not do such a thing. It seemed (9-10 posts to start) that this thread became a tribute to a U.S. President who had just passed away.

Starting an argument is far different from political discussion and giving serious thought to a person's actions. One is trying to get people angry on purpose, the other is an attempt to get people talking about serious issues.

As I said previously, the subject title of the thread never implied it was intended to be something of a tribute. I would gather that since there were no other threads about the topic, people posted their feelings in the only available thread, which is what I did.

Conversations or discussions don't play by any set of rules, their course is dictated by each sucessive posting. Clearly you cannot have a discussion by yourself, others have also chimed in with comments other than "RIP", etc and that also includes yourself.

Why you're still harping about this issue now that there is a proper memorial thread (which I'm staying out of, as I've said) is beyond me.



I am pretty sure that MOST people saw what this thread was about. That is b/c MOST people understand about something called human compassion that follows a person's death. I know of a few here that would be more than willing to put in their two cents worth on President Reagan. However, I like to think that those people chose not to START what you did (keep denying it... the proof is on page one, friend). They instead understand about human compassion. They understand what is "PC" (imagine that) following the death of a person. That means keeping your mouth shut if you have nothing good to say.

Why do you insist that compassion be showered upon someone who clearly had none for certain segments of the population? What's good for the goose and all that.....

So I understand you, because someone has died, NOBODY should be allowed to be even the slightest bit critical or him/her? Was Reagan not a public figure? Why is he exempt from criticism? Again, nobody is rejoicing in his death, there is no celebration. There has been nothing but honest criticism of his policies.

I'm getting the feeling that you're angry about it because my opinions are different from yours.



And let's be honest... we are not talking about the passing of a Hitler, Saddam or bin Laden. Not even close... no matter your sexuality or political beliefs. And then some here say, "Well I know that conservatives would be saying the same things about certain Dems." That is called "heresay". And that statement would not apply to this conservative... b/c my parents taught me better.

Perhaps that statement wouldn't apply to you but I'll bet it would to others.




Start a new thread? Out of respect to a person who served his country. Out of respect to a former president of the United States. Out of respect to a person who passed away. A person who was far from perfect (aren't we all?). Respect is usually something that we show when a person has passed (see the comments of Sen. Kerry and other people you will vote for).

If he wasn't perfect, then why should ALL comments about the man be 100% positive? I don't understand your logic here.

Should all presidents be respected? Nixon too? You get respect by earning it, not because of a job you once held.

Because someone has died, we should all shut our mouths and show respect? Does that include someone who, let's say, murdered a family member of yours? Granted, that's an extreme example but my point is still valid. Dying does not mean your past is forgiven and forgotten.




Bottom-line... IMO (IN MY OPINION) I thought you were out-of-line to say what you said (timing and the thread as it was). I waited days before saying anything. 9-10 posts, Michael. That you cannot argue. You started it, Michael. That you cannot argue. You presented yourself well (to give credit) in the sense that you would not be censored by the mods here. But, in the name of human compassion, your timing and choice of thread was improper. If you do not like Reagan, then that is your right. Start a new thread, but do not state it after 9-10 posts about "RIP, Pres. Reagan".

Here we go with timing again. I asked this before but I don't believe anyone answered it - when IS it "ok" to criticize someone after they die? A week? A month? It seems as if you would have us say nothing....ever.

My choice of threads was proper. Have you seen me say anything in the clearly identified memorial thread? No (even though a certain person refered to me in it in a negative manner but whatever.)

Let's be clear on something, I don't answer to you or your undefined rules. The only rules I must follow here are the ones decided by the folks who run the forum and unless I'm mistaken, I've broken none of those (no mods have contacted me about it either.) The only rules I've seen broken are name calling and well....I wasn't the one doing that.

Dom Heffner
06-07-2004, 11:04 PM
This is an excerpt from an article that criticizes Reagan without being disrespectful, and even has nice things to say about the man....

By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations.

These cases affected the nation's health, security and financial soundness. Consider the example of the EPA, where Reagan's contempt for environmental regulation led to the appointment of dishonest, incompetent people who coddled polluters instead of curbing them. Dozens of them were forced to resign in disgrace, after criminal and congressional investigations, and several went to prison. Or consider the HUD scandal, in which politically connected Republicans criminally exploited the same housing assistance programs they routinely denounced as "wasteful." Billions in EPA Superfund and HUD dollars were indeed wasted because of their corruption.

Reagan's HUD Secretary Sam Pierce took the Fifth Amendment when called to testify about the looting of his agency -- the first Cabinet official to seek that constitutional protection since the Teapot Dome scandal. But he wasn't the only Cabinet official to fall in scandal. So did Attorney General Edwin Meese, in the Wedtech contracting scandal, and so did Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger in the Iran-contra affair (although he was pardoned at the 11th hour by President George H.W. Bush).

The Pentagon procurement scandals, which involved literally dozens of rather unpatriotic schemes to rip off the military, revealed the system of bid-rigging and gift-greasing that accompanied Reagan's defense buildup. Worse, the president had been warned, two years before the scandal broke, about the growing allegations of fraud within the Defense Department by a blue-ribbon commission he had appointed. When the scandal broke with a series of FBI raids in 1988, he was about to leave the White House.

Most emblematic of the Reaganite attitude toward government was the savings-and-loan scandal. The president's advisors had convinced him that if he would only deregulate the thrift industry, a gigantic bonanza of growth and investment was sure to follow. His sunny quip when he signed the deregulation bill in 1982 was typical Reagan: "All in all, I think we've hit the jackpot." There's no reason to doubt he sincerely believed that with government shoved aside, everyone would prosper. The best reckoning of the costs of his benign intentions is a trillion dollars.

Even Reagan's harshest critics didn't claim that he condoned the abuses that were tolerated -- and in some cases perpetrated -- by his appointees. Nor did he profit personally from those abuses. He was a "big picture" president who was detached from the details of government, delegating authority to aides he trusted too much. Historians will determine Reagan's personal responsibility for the disasters as well as the triumphs on his watch.

So let the former president be remembered for his optimism, his achievements, and his love of country. But let his mistakes be remembered as well. Reagan deserves no less. The sentimental version doesn't do justice to him and his legacy, for better and worse.

Johnny Footstool
06-07-2004, 11:16 PM
So let the former president be remembered for his optimism, his achievements, and his love of country. But let his mistakes be remembered as well.

I agree.

RedsBaron
06-08-2004, 06:58 AM
So let the former president be remembered for his optimism, his achievements, and his love of country. But let his mistakes be remembered as well. Reagan deserves no less. The sentimental version doesn't do justice to him and his legacy, for better and worse.
I understand that you have posted a portion of an article, so I'll concede that perhaps the entire article may be more comprehensive that your post. The portion you posted, while going into detail regarding shortcomings of the Reagan administration, has only a general reference to Reagan's "optimism," "love of country" and unspecified "achievements."
Let his achievements be remembered as well; the portion of the article you decided to post makes me wonder if the author actually believes Reagan had any achievements.

TeamCasey
06-08-2004, 07:32 AM
This is completed unrelated to whatever you guys are talking about, but I wasn't sure where to put it, and didn't want to start a thread.

I was watching many of the memorials, and watching the casket going into the Library on C-SPAN. I was pretty mortified with the people viewing the casket. They looked like they were either going to play golf, or sightseeing at Niagra Falls. Straw hats, old jeans, shorts etc. You're at a memorial for a world leader, you're not at Disney. Spruce it up a little, People!. A little respect.

RANDY IN INDY
06-08-2004, 09:12 AM
After reading the whole of this thread, it seems to me that there is a time for voicing displeasure, and there is a time for respect, or if you have none, just keeping your mouth shut. The actual time of a person's death would seem to fall into the latter. At least that is the way that I was brought up. There is something to be said for exhibiting the traits of a true gentleman, or a lady. There will still be plenty of time to debate the former President's record after he is laid to rest. Just my opinion.

RedsBaron
06-08-2004, 09:25 AM
[QUOTE=RANDY IN CHAR NC] There is something to be said for exhibiting the traits of a true gentleman, or a lady. /QUOTE]
Amen.

TeamDunn
06-08-2004, 09:27 AM
After reading the whole of this thread, it seems to me that there is a time for voicing displeasure, and there is a time for respect, or if you have none, just keeping your mouth shut. The actual time of a person's death would seem to fall into the latter. At least that is the way that I was brought up. There is something to be said for exhibiting the traits of a true gentleman, or a lady. There will still be plenty of time to debate the former President's record after he is laid to rest. Just my opinion.

I don't need you or anyone else passing judgement as to if I am a lady or not. I voiced an opinion and if it was one that no one wanted to hear then that is too bad. As for the timing of it, I believe Michael has asked when you guys consider the time frame to be that it is appropriate to discuss his short comings.

Telling people to keep their mouth shut because they don't agree with you pretty much says what kind of person you are as well.

:thumbdn:

Kind of ironic that insults can be passed all through this thread to other LIVING Redszone members, but the sacred cow that has died should be off limits, simply because he died.

Yeah, ok.

I guess some of us were not brought up correctly, I'll be sure to let my parents know.

Dom Heffner
06-08-2004, 09:50 AM
Redsbaron, I think the author is merely trying to balance the scale. The "liberal" media is barely recognizing that he did anything short of being the sunny optimist. I really don't mind it so much, as I wholly expected this treatment, but come on, there is now talk of Reagan replacing Alexander Hamilton on the 10 dollar bill. These people have grossly exaggerated Reagan's importance and all because the man died. I think it's totally fair to point out that he had a pretty crooked administration and that he truly wasn't so sunny all the time.

If anything, the author is pretty kind to Reagan, especially in the area of Iran-Contra. Reagan authorized that whole thing, denied he knew anything about it, and then finally admitted it, though he sounded very Clintonian before there was ever such a thing. And everyone gave him a pass. If you ever want to debate the difference between lying about oral sex and waging an illegal war, just post the thread, and we'll have at it. There will never be a discussion about Clinton being on the currency because the GOP made sure he would never have any sort of legacy. That impeachment was about as legitimate as the tales they told about him killing people, having illegitimate children, and all the other crap they threw on him to see what would stick. You guys are the worst when it comes to character assassination, and you even do it to your own - remember what Bush did to McCain in South Carolina?

I find it odd that someone like GAC claims that Clinton was a good president but he didn't trust him because of his moral lapses. So Clinton was good, but he couldn't be trusted. That makes sense. Reagan was the greatest president of his lifetime, yet he used an astrologist to help make decisions in the White House- something the Bible would prohibit, no?- yet Reagan did not have any moral lapses. That illegal war was okay, I guess, because he wasn't cheating on his wife. And, according to the Bible- the literal word of God, we're told- divorcing and remarrying is considered adultery, yet when Reagan does this, this is fine. He is moral. He is teflon. Let's put him on the $10 bill. Let's call him the "Great Communicator," even though if Reagan is to be believed, the whole Iran-Contra scandal was caused by a complete lack of communication within his own administration to say the least. I mean, you guys have all your witty jokes about Clinton and cigars, yet Reagan does this and he's the greatest president of your lifetime. I'm not sure if that says more about Reagan or the men he's up against.

A sunny optimist? Reagan actually said this: "[Not] until now has there ever been a time in which so many of the prophecies are coming together. There have been times in the past when people thought the end of the world was coming, and so forth, but never anything like this" (1983)

What a bright and cheerful thing to say. Why would Reagan say such a thing? Perhaps he was influenced by his very own Secretary of the Intrerior, James Watt, who in 1981, when asked if natural resources should be preserved for future generations said, "I do not know how many future generations we can count on until the Lord returns."

I'm not making this up.

You wonder why people think the GOP is exclusionary and racist? Look to Reagan's administration. When speaking of the diversity of his staff, James Watt said, "I have a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple."

Since pompous white a**holes were the majority in this administration, he left them off the list.

When Reagan was asked why there were no women on a commisison to Central America, Reagan said, "We're no longer seeking a token or something."

Wow. The Great Communicator sure had a way with words.

Reagan's favorite joke involved a bartender, a parrot, and a black man. It's a real knee-slapper.

He misidentified the only black member of his cabinet -his very own housing secretary- at a reception for Mayors at the White House. "How are you, Mr. Mayor?" Reagan said. "How are things in your city?"

Well, you know, they all look alike.

One member of his administration thought it would be funny to say that the leader of Libya, Moammar Khaddafi (sp?), should be given AIDS.

This is the sort of sensitivity we're dealing with in this group.

So sorry if everyone isn't praising the man you think is so great.

Anyway, here's the rest of the article. I left it off because it seemed too long, but I guess it isn't.

June 8, 2004 | In death as in life, Ronald Reagan maintains an extraordinary, almost elemental capacity to attract the positive and repel the negative. His energy, his grit, his poise and his powers of public persuasion were the pride of his supporters and the envy of his opponents. We will hear much more about all those qualities during the coming week, as the nation prepares for his funeral. During the period of mourning, most criticism of the deceased leader will be tempered by respect for his family and friends.

Yet it should be possible to eulogize rather than mythologize the 40th president and his times -- to acknowledge the skill, charm and commitment, without indulging in a sentimental revisionism that erases the historical reality of the 1980s. On the passing of a former president, celebration and commemoration overwhelm clarity and accuracy; and that is especially true in this instance. The American press was rarely critical of Reagan, and the partisan mythmaking process began more than a decade ago.

Ideas matter, as the conservatives like to say, and so do the stubborn facts. As Republicans seize this singular opportunity to advance their agenda behind the Reagan cortege, it's imperative to recall what actually happened during his eight years in the White House -- and to underline the consequences of the ideas that he promoted.

At his 1981 inauguration, the new president voiced his simple revolutionary credo: "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."

That remark was prescient, although not in the sense that Reagan intended. His naive faith in the private sector's capacity to regulate itself, along with his disdain for many of the necessary functions of the modern state, allowed cronies and crooks to flourish. Inept government, corrupt government and cynical government became severe problems during his tenure, leaving fiscal wreckage that remained for many years after he returned to private life.

The millions of words of hagiographic copy uttered and written this week will make scant mention of the scandal epidemic that marred Reagan's presidency (aside from the Iran-contra affair, which few commentators understand well enough to explain accurately). Disabled by historical amnesia, most Americans won't recall -- or be reminded of -- the scores of administration officials indicted, convicted or expelled on ethics charges between 1981 and 1989.

However historians will assess Reagan's responsibility, the record is what it is. Gathering dust in the news archives are thousands of clippings about the gross influence peddling, bribery, fraud, illegal lobbying and sundry abuses that engulfed the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Justice Department, and the Pentagon, to name a few of the most notorious cases.

RANDY IN INDY
06-08-2004, 10:25 AM
I don't need you or anyone else passing judgement as to if I am a lady or not. I voiced an opinion and if it was one that no one wanted to hear then that is too bad. As for the timing of it, I believe Michael has asked when you guys consider the time frame to be that it is appropriate to discuss his short comings.

Telling people to keep their mouth shut because they don't agree with you pretty much says what kind of person you are as well.

:thumbdn:

Kind of ironic that insults can be passed all through this thread to other LIVING Redszone members, but the sacred cow that has died should be off limits, simply because he died.

Yeah, ok.

I guess some of us were not brought up correctly, I'll be sure to let my parents know.

:eek:Wow! :eek:

MWM
06-08-2004, 10:37 AM
I agree with the sentiment that death does not turn someone into a saint and that evaluation of the person's accomplishments ought to be balanced and fair. But I also believe that focusing on the shortcomings before the person is even buried seems a bit tacky. But that's just my opinion.

There will be plenty of time to discuss Ronald Reagan's legacy.

Dom Heffner
06-08-2004, 10:40 AM
TD, you should know better than to voice an opinion against the coalition on here. There will be no discussion, just a "shut up" and a question thrown at your woman/manhood, your morality or patriotism.

On a side note- anyone hear if old Rush Limbaugh has been making any funny jokes about Reagan the way he did when JFK, Jr. died?

That ol' Rush has such a good sense of humor during sensitive times, that I'm sort of pining for an Alzheimer's joke from the guy. :)

Dom Heffner
06-08-2004, 10:54 AM
I agree with the sentiment that death does not turn someone into a saint and that evaluation of the person's accomplishments ought to be balanced and fair. But I also believe that focusing on the shortcomings before the person is even buried seems a bit tacky. But that's just my opinion.

In a perfect world, yes, but if we don't balance the record -funny how fair and balanced doesn't apply to a person's death- then we have to put up with this:

GOP hopes Reagan death boosts Bush

Officially, Republicans say it's unseemly to discuss the political impact of Ronald Reagan's death. Unofficially, GOP strategists tell the Los Angeles Times the Gipper sure did hand Bush a golden opportunity.

"Several Republican strategists said the nation's outpouring of nostalgia and respect for Reagan may have offered Bush an opportunity to improve his flagging popularity -- if he can find a way to don the mantle of his well-loved predecessor. Even before Reagan's death, Bush and his campaign deliberately borrowed some favorite themes from the Republican revolution of 1980: optimism, national confidence, military strength, tax cuts, economic recovery."

"This week, trying not to sound overtly political, Republican spokesmen again looked for polite ways to remind voters that Bush is, in many ways, Reagan's ideological heir. 'The life and example of Ronald Reagan reinforces how important conviction and determination are in a president," Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt said in an apparent dig at Bush's presumed Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), whom Republicans have accused of flip-flops. 'Reagan's legacy of optimism and of patriotism should inspire everybody, regardless of political party.'"

"On Friday, in a eulogy he is to deliver for Reagan at the Washington National Cathedral, Bush will have a chance to make that point himself -- if only by implication. The eulogy is being prepared by Bush's chief speechwriter, Michael Gerson, who also wrote the president's moving speech for a memorial service in the same cathedral after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The cycle of mourning for Reagan could bring Bush one other bonus, Republican pollster Bill McInturff said: It will take Americans' minds off the recent spate of bad news from Iraq."

RANDY IN INDY
06-08-2004, 11:09 AM
You know guys, I was just stating my own personal opinion. Maybe I am not entitled to that from your point of view, I don't know. Just because I believe something to be appropriate or innappropriate doesn't mean you have to conduct yourself in that particular manner, and have no unrealistic expectation that you do so . You guys can do, or say whatever you wish. I'm nothing but a poor country boy who was brought up in a way that said you had a quiet respect for folks and their family at the time of a death, even if you didn't really care for them or the way that they lived. I would conduct myself the same way, if it were someone that I may not have had respect for in life, and whose ideas and actions that I may have disagreed with vehemently.

As my dad always told me, I am more concerned about my son, growing up to be a gentleman, than just about any other facet of his life. Maybe it is a trait that many don't value anymore, but it is still one that I put at the top of the list. I have no unrealistic expectation that you folks would agree with me or feel the need to change the behavior that you might deem appropriate.

As far as the "telling what kind of person that I am," comment, I would be interested to know what I told about myself with my comments?

Dom Heffner
06-08-2004, 12:41 PM
Randy, your point is well taken. I would point out that you were probably also raised to not say anything at all if you couldn't say something nice, but did you always follow that with Bill Clinton? Is it polite to make fun of a man's infidelity when his wife is still alive to hear it? Help me to understand the good ol' boy manners system here. I sure hope you raise your son to be a man who doesn't delight in someone's infidelity.

You are trying to make us all feel guilty with your home grown wisdom, but manners never seem to affect the Grand Old Party when it comes to Democrats. BIll Clinton has an ugly kid? Call her a dog. Don't like someone's political views? Pander videotapes telling made-up stories of murder. JFK, Jr. dies in a plane crash? Tell a joke about how he can walk on water but just not fly over it.

I realize you did not do these things, Randy, but I've never read as eloquent of a criticism of those people as you've written towards us.

And I would never go to a man's funeral and point out the negative side of things. I just lost my father two months ago and someone did just that at the funeral home to my face. It was very hurtful, indeed. But I wouldn't be so bold as to say that person could not express their opinions about my father to their friends, or on a message board that I would never read. A funeral is as much a time for mourning as it is a celebration, and my comments on this board would undoubtedly be inappropriate for such an occasion.

But we aren't at a funeral, the Reagans don't read this board, and quite frankly, I'm not going to give a grace period in which some sort of mythological legacy is built up in the name of manners. What you guys want is a blank check upon which to write out your version of history, and in my opinion, that's more rude than what you are accusing us of. You are taking advantage of a person's death to perpetuate things that aren't so.

MWM
06-08-2004, 01:01 PM
Dom, good points. Trying to intentionally capitalize on a person's death is defintely no better, and even worse IMO, than pointing out flaws. If it's a coincidence that they will gain political capital from this, not much you can do. But if they are actively looking for ways to profit from this, then that's disgusting.


I realize you did not do these things, Randy, but I've never read as eloquent of a criticism of those people as you've written towards us.

OK Dom. You know I have to do this, but let's hear your eloquent and well-reasoned criticism of Bill Clinton. You did such a good job on Reagan. :)

Rojo
06-08-2004, 01:12 PM
I went through this thread and the first political utterance was this:


A truly great President, whom I always admired. In my opinion, the greatest President of my lifetime. RIP President Reagan.

By Randy on post #8. If you don't want politics then don't talk politics.

Rojo
06-08-2004, 01:14 PM
Clinton was a good, not great, second-tier President. Reagan, IMO, was one of the worst.

RedsBaron
06-08-2004, 01:17 PM
Clinton was a good, not great, second-tier President. Reagan, IMO, was one of the worst.
Clinton was a poor, not good, third-tier President. Reagan, IMO, was one of the best. ;)

letsgojunior
06-08-2004, 01:36 PM
Kind of ironic that insults can be passed all through this thread to other LIVING Redszone members, but the sacred cow that has died should be off limits, simply because he died.



Just wow. A man just died. His family and most of the nation are in a major state of grief. A woman has to wake up tomorrow knowing she'll never see the love of her life again. Kids have to wake up knowing that the guy who helped shape their life died a pretty horrible death.

I can't at all see the correlation between insults in the heat of debate with insults thrown at someone who passed hours before, leaving behind a major ripple effect of pain and sadness.

No one is saying his presidency is off-limits - they are just saying that there should be a period for the family to grieve and pay their respects.

M2
06-08-2004, 01:40 PM
I don't understand what metric you'd use to separate Reagan and Clinton.

Both redefined their parties and practiced brazen partisan social politics. Both overcame rocky starts to win a comfortable re-election and experienced disappointing second terms mired in scandal. Both enjoyed wild economic booms, Clinton's lasted a bit longer. Both talked a good game on foreign policy, but headed administrations that were spectators more than participants on the international stage. The chief strength of each one was his optimism, Reagan's took on the form of nationalism, Clinton's the form of humanism. Both gave great speech. If you look at the final record of both, the long-term accomplishments are a little lacking. Mostly they made their party faithful happy campers.

Frankly, I wouldn't go carving either one of their heads into the side of a mountain.

Redsfaithful
06-08-2004, 01:40 PM
Clinton was a poor, not good, third-tier President. Reagan, IMO, was one of the best. ;)

If selling weapons to Iraq (knowing full well that they were committing war crimes with said weapons) and Iran, killing tens of thousands of Central Americans, deregulating the S&L industry, and tripling the national debt make for a good president, than yes Reagan was indeed one of the best.

I think the Reagan presidency was when Republicans stopped caring about the size of government, although they continue to give lipservice to the idea.

As far as speaking ill of the man so soon after his death ... he's been as good as dead to this country for the past decade. If people are attacking the man personally, then yes I agree that that's distasteful. But there's nothing wrong with discussing Reagan's record as president.

RedsBaron
06-08-2004, 02:03 PM
Both talked a good game on foreign policy, but headed administrations that were spectators more than participants on the international stage.
Reagan's administration was a "spectator" rather than a "participant" on the international stage?

RedsBaron
06-08-2004, 02:10 PM
Historian Michael Beschloss is not normally regarded to be a Reaganite Republican. In the current issue of Newsweek, he wrote the following (page 41):
"After FDR's death in 1945, The New York Times predicted that 'men will thank God on their knees a hundred years from now' that FDR had been the president to fight Hitler and Tojo. It is not too much to suggest that, with Ronald Reagan's death, Americans might now give similar thanks that they twice elected a president who saw the chance to end the cold war in his own time."

Johnny Footstool
06-08-2004, 02:15 PM
His family and most of the nation are in a major state of grief.

That's a little melodramatic. I think "most of the nation" would mourn the death of a sitting president, since that loss would be quite startling and would put the leadership of this country into disarray. Reagan has been out of power and the public eye for so long, I can't believe "most of the nation" is really that shocked or upset at his passing. I think many people are paying their respects, but I doubt there exists a "major state of grief," even though MSNBC and Fox would have you believe otherwise, what with their round-the-clock coverage of the event.

M2
06-08-2004, 03:58 PM
Reagan's administration was a "spectator" rather than a "participant" on the international stage?

Yep, the primary credit the Reaganites give themselves is that they changed the world through internal spending. Circuitous logic at best. In terms of actively doing stuff, there was a lot talk and little action. I give Reagan credit for dutifully standing his turn on Cold War watch just like every President back to Truman, but I think it's a tossup as to whether Reagan's posturing had as much effect on the Eastern Bloc as Cyndi Lauper's "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun."

Rojo
06-08-2004, 04:07 PM
I don't understand what metric you'd use to separate Reagan and Clinton.

Is the National Debt a metric?

M2
06-08-2004, 04:19 PM
Is the National Debt a metric?

Returning to fiscal responsibility certainly was Clinton's chief accomplishment. IMO, keeping his head during the turbulent period between Brezhnev and Gorbachev was Reagan's.

But Clinton's balanced budget disappeared in a flash and Reagan never laid down a blueprint for a post-Cold War world. Their primary gains came in the form of good stewardship. Yet those things ultimately prove ephemeral.

Rojo
06-08-2004, 04:35 PM
Good stewardship is why Clinton is second-tier. I do give credit for Reagan's trust of Gorby, but, unless your very wealthy, the Reagan Revolution was a disaster.

RANDY IN INDY
06-08-2004, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Dom Heffner:

Randy, your point is well taken. I would point out that you were probably also raised to not say anything at all if you couldn't say something nice, but did you always follow that with Bill Clinton? Is it polite to make fun of a man's infidelity when his wife is still alive to hear it? Help me to understand the good ol' boy manners system here. I sure hope you raise your son to be a man who doesn't delight in someone's infidelity.

You are trying to make us all feel guilty with your home grown wisdom, but manners never seem to affect the Grand Old Party when it comes to Democrats. BIll Clinton has an ugly kid? Call her a dog. Don't like someone's political views? Pander videotapes telling made-up stories of murder. JFK, Jr. dies in a plane crash? Tell a joke about how he can walk on water but just not fly over it.

I realize you did not do these things, Randy, but I've never read as eloquent of a criticism of those people as you've written towards us.

You make some good points Dom. First, let me say that I am hardly always in agreement with everything that the Grand Old Party does. Some of the nastiness that goes on within the political world is revolting, and it sure as heck isn't confined to a single party. It's pretty obvious that morality, acting according to a proper upbringing, good manners, and gentlemanly or ladylike behavior are not words that come to mind when describing a lot of our political figures these days. Come to think of it, those words don't describe a majority of the population anymore. Seems like anything goes these days, and nothing is truly right or wrong. In my mind, that is a sad state, but then again, that is only my opinion, for what it is worth.

As far as delighting in Bill Clinton's marital infidelity, I did not. It actually made me feel pretty bad. What his lack of control accomplished was to just keep lowering the level of integrity of the office of the President of the United States, and the way it is viewed at home and abroad. I've always wanted to feel like the President of the United States should be held to a very high moral code. Again, these days, it seems anything goes. I felt the same sort of sadness and scorn when Nixon and Watergate lowered the bar before Clinton. Didn't matter that he was a Republican. He should have been above that, and finally did the right thing by stepping down, albeit, much too late.

I realize that my "Down home, good ol' boy" manners are not necessarily popular these days in our anything goes society. I am not ashamed of them, though. I was taught a lot of things that have served me well. I was always taught to treat everyone with dignity and respect, to stand when a woman entered the room. To always tell the truth. To say yes sir and no sir and yes ma'm and no ma'm. To always say thank you. To be more concerned about what I could do for others than what they could do for me. That the truth was more important than being right. To lend a hand when it was needed. You are right in your assuming that I was taught not to say anything about someone if I couldn't say something good. Heaven knows, I have not always adhered to that, as much as I have tried. I've had to go back and apologize to folks for things that I have said. That's never easy, but it is right. The particular set of values, that I was given by my family, is not easy to live by, but it sure gives me something to shoot for. The anything goes mentality was pretty foreign in my family life. The correction for bad behavior was always swift and tough.

Your points about the negative quotes attributed to democratic political figures are well taken, but there are just as many out there to go with the republicans. There's another one of those "Down Home" messages that was impressed upon me at an early age. "Two wrongs don't make a right."

You know, I'm real sorry if I made you or anyone else feel bad with my "eloquent criticism," as you put it. Really wasn't my intent. It was just my opinion, which doesn't make it right for everyone, and it wasn't aimed at you or anyone else in particular. Just stating my take on the thread and its content. Again, sorry if it offended.

GAC
06-08-2004, 05:31 PM
Just wow. A man just died. His family and most of the nation are in a major state of grief. A woman has to wake up tomorrow knowing she'll never see the love of her life again. Kids have to wake up knowing that the guy who helped shape their life died a pretty horrible death.

I can't at all see the correlation between insults in the heat of debate with insults thrown at someone who passed hours before, leaving behind a major ripple effect of pain and sadness.

No one is saying his presidency is off-limits - they are just saying that there should be a period for the family to grieve and pay their respects.

Exactly LGJ! :thumbup:

No one is attempting to "deify" Reagan or say he was a saint. A former President has died, and people simply want to pay their respects (or in some cases... disrespect ;) ).

Let me put it this way folks... the next time someone you know, or were close to (maybe a family member, friend, whatever) dies, then lets see you go to the funeral or the wake and start "highlighting" all their faults and weaknesses and see what it gets you.

There is a time and place....but this isn't want of them IMO.

There is, and will be, plenty of time to discuss the Reagan "legacy".

Redsfaithful
06-08-2004, 05:36 PM
Let me put it this way folks... the next time someone you know, or were close to (maybe a family member, friend, whatever) dies, then lets see you go to the funeral or the wake and start "highlighting" all their faults and weaknesses and see what it gets you.

There is a time and place....but this isn't want of them IMO.


I don't neccessarily disagree with your last sentence, but comparing a thread on RedsZone to a funeral or wake is a pretty big leap.

And once again, I don't think anyone is personally attacking Reagan in this thread, just his record as president. Its not at all disrespectful to discuss what he did while in office.

Johnny Footstool
06-08-2004, 05:45 PM
Let me put it this way folks... the next time someone you know, or were close to (maybe a family member, friend, whatever) dies, then lets see you go to the funeral or the wake and start "highlighting" all their faults and weaknesses and see what it gets you.

We're not at the man's funeral (as I understand it, that won't happen until Friday). He's not a family member or a friend. We all have a vast emotional distance from the man. He's a public figure, and I don't think there's anything wrong with remembering his faults as well as his strengths.

If people are offended that others want to discuss those faults, there's a separate thread they can visit to post their fond remembrances.

Now, if someone posted criticism of Reagan on that other thread, it would really upset me, because it would be incredibly disrespectful to the other members of RedsZone who specifically asked that no one do that.

GAC
06-08-2004, 05:50 PM
I don't neccessarily disagree with your last sentence, but comparing a thread on RedsZone to a funeral or wake is a pretty big leap.

I don't care if it's on Redszone or wherever. It's not the place or location, but the timing of the attitude being expressed.


And once again, I don't think anyone is personally attacking Reagan in this thread, just his record as president. Its not at all disrespectful to discuss what he did while in office.

Semantics RF. They are basically trying to "backdoor" the guy when they are attacking his administration or record.

And I could care less if anyone wants to attack Reagan. ALL of our Presidents leave room to be attacked.

It can be debated all one wants.

But at this present time, IMO, is not the right place, and is very disrespectful.

It's all about etiquette, and yes, there is a time and place for everything.

Obviously, you don't see that.

Redsfaithful
06-08-2004, 06:16 PM
It's not the place or location, but the timing of the attitude being expressed.


then lets see you go to the funeral or the wake and start "highlighting" all their faults and weaknesses and see what it gets you.

You made it about the place GAC.

Discussing the man's administration on an internet message board is a different thing than going to his funeral and bashing him.

And I hope I'm not the only one that sees the irony here:


It's not the place or location


there is a time and place for everything.

WVRed
06-08-2004, 07:15 PM
Would this be the other way around if Clinton died? Just wondering.

RosieRed
06-08-2004, 07:50 PM
But at this present time, IMO, is not the right place, and is very disrespectful.

It's all about etiquette, and yes, there is a time and place for everything.

When exactly, then, would you say one can state opinions and thoughts on Reagan and/or his administration, without being disrespectful?

TeamDunn
06-08-2004, 07:52 PM
By the looks of the view counts on this thread I would say more people are looking at this one than the other one so I will post this here.

Reagan's biography is on A&E at 8:00 PM Eastern

RBA
06-08-2004, 08:20 PM
Good to see Sen Kerry take the high road.


Kerry Pays Respects to Reagan

Tuesday, June 08, 2004



SIMI VALLEY, Calif. ó John Kerry (search) paused for a moment of silent reflection before the flag-draped casket of former President Reagan (search) on Tuesday, a brief appearance in a national spotlight that suddenly has shifted from politics and the Democratic presidential candidate.

Head bowed, eyes closed and hands clasped in front, the Massachusetts senator stood for about a minute to pay his respects to Reagan, the Republican icon who died Saturday and whose body lay in repose at the presidential library.

Kerry, a Roman Catholic, made the sign of the cross and quietly recited the accompanying prayer before departing.

Like other dignitaries, Kerry did not have to wait hours with tens of thousands of mourners; an exception was made for the candidate and his visit lasted about 20 minutes.

Traveling to California to attend his daughter's graduation from film school, Kerry decided to make a last-minute trip to the library in Simi Valley, a community northwest of Los Angeles. Aboard his campaign plane, Kerry spoke to reporters about Reagan, the current White House occupant ó President Bush (search) ó and Bush's father.

"I didn't agree with a lot of the things he was doing, obviously," Kerry said of Reagan, whom he called a "very likable guy." But he added that he got along well with the Republican, was able to work with him and visited the White House a number of times during his two terms.

"I met with Reagan a lot more than I've met with this president," Kerry said.

The Democrat also said he had more meetings with George H.W. Bush (search) during his one term than he has had with President Bush.

"I liked his father very much. I like his dad. He's a very good guy. He used to write notes. I have a number of notes from him. He's very thoughtful," Kerry said.

Kerry suspended campaign activities this week in deference to Reagan. The presumptive Democratic nominee said he first took note of Reagan in the 1960s, a time when some were wary of the California Republican.

"He got your notice," Kerry said. He praised Reagan's 1964 speech for Barry Goldwater, calling it "better than anything else you heard from the campaign."

Kerry's rival, President Bush, will deliver the eulogy for the 40th president during a state funeral Friday at Washington's National Cathedral. Kerry will be one of dozens of notables attending the service, a face in the political crowd.

In suspending his overt political activities, Kerry risks losing momentum with voters just as Bush's popularity is at its most vulnerable. To do anything else, however, would appear unseemly amid the outpouring of praise for a president remembered for bridging political divisions.

"Campaigning is campaigning, regardless of where you are and what you're doing," said Stephanie Cutter, the Democrat's spokeswoman. "Out of respect for President Reagan and his family, he felt canceling those campaign events was the right thing to do."

Marc Kruman, chairman of the Wayne State University Department of History in Detroit, said nobody outside Washington will fault Kerry for taking a week off the campaign trail.

"It strikes me as a wise decision. He's not going to get any national political attention and it shows his respect for President Reagan, which is appropriate this week," said Kruman, an expert in the history of presidential elections.

Kerry aides, already split over whether to cancel the week's schedule, remain divided over how soon to renew campaigning. Other Democrats applauded Kerry's decision to set politics aside, though some privately complained that he didn't at least schedule a few non-partisan events in battleground states that could have gained him some local media notice.

Once again enjoying the advantages of an incumbent, Bush can go about the business of the president without fear of appearing insensitive. By attending D-Day ceremonies in France, hosting world leaders for the the Group of Eight summit and euologizing a GOP icon, Bush takes center stage for a week, unchallenged by Kerry or his immediate surrogates.

"Look, the president is the president and this is part of the, if not luxury, the advantage of being the sitting president," Democratic strategist Tricia Enright said. "It appears the Kerry campaign is taking that into account and altering its course."

With political events stripped from his schedule, Kerry and his top advisers were getting behind-the-scenes work accomplished in Washington.

Bush advisers, meanwhile, insisted that they weren't trying to compare Bush to Reagan for political gain, even as they did so.

"This week we're focused on paying tribute to him. We will leave it to other people to try to draw contrasts or parallels or similarities," White House communications director Dan Bartlett told CNN.

A day earlier, Bush campaign chairman Ken Mehlman posted a tribute to Reagan on the campaign's blog that made several comparisons, including: "Just like President Reagan, President George W. Bush speaks with moral clarity about the enemies of freedom."

Campaign officials said Mehlman's letter was intended for distribution to his staff. A version posted on the campaign's official Web Site did not include the comparison, only praise of the former president.

Democrats used Reagan's memory to take subtle digs at Bush.

"There are those who don't seem to be as willing to compromise as President Reagan was" and as a result, things haven't been achieved "that were within our reach," said Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D.

Asked to compare Reagan to Bush, he said: "This administration has a harder time finding middle ground ... and that's unfortunate."

Rojo
06-08-2004, 08:42 PM
Stem-cell research might one day lead to a cure for Alzheimers.

GAC
06-08-2004, 08:50 PM
When exactly, then, would you say one can state opinions and thoughts on Reagan and/or his administration, without being disrespectful?

RBA started the thread to alert eveyone that Reagan's health had deteriorated, and then, within several hours he died.

Go back and read the first several responses immediately after it was posted. People were simply paying their condolences immediately after someone dies. There was nothing political being stated or ideology touted. Just people paying their respects to this former President and to his family at their loss.

For a time being, why can't people set aside their ideological differences and, yes, simply pay respect to a man who regardless of what anyone wants to think, DID accomplish alot of positive and great things during his life.

I agree with what Randy stated above (and maybe it is because I am older and was brought up differently also); but I do not allow my partisanship/biases to go after and attack (which is exactly what Micheal and others have done) immediately after someone dies. They turned the intent of this thread into a partisan, ideological discussion/argument.

I simply think that at this particular time it's wrong and very tacky.

As the article RBA posted above on Kerry... take the high ground.

You do some things simply out of respect...not ideological/partisan differences.

GAC
06-08-2004, 08:53 PM
Stem-cell research might one day lead to a cure for Alzheimers.

Are you trying to see how tacky you can get on this thread?

I want to say that this is even beneath you...but it's not.

Redsfaithful
06-08-2004, 09:09 PM
Are you trying to see how tacky you can get on this thread?

I want to say that this is even beneath you...but it's not.

Funny, Nancy Reagan is a big advocate for stem cell research.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3700015.stm

I guess she's tacky too.

RosieRed
06-08-2004, 09:31 PM
RBA started the thread to alert eveyone that Reagan's health had deteriorated, and then, within several hours he died.

Go back and read the first several responses immediately after it was posted. People were simply paying their condolences immediately after someone dies. There was nothing political being stated or ideology touted. Just people paying their respects to this former President and to his family at their loss.

For a time being, why can't people set aside their ideological differences and, yes, simply pay respect to a man who regardless of what anyone wants to think, DID accomplish alot of positive and great things during his life.

I agree with what Randy stated above (and maybe it is because I am older and was brought up differently also); but I do not allow my partisanship/biases to go after and attack (which is exactly what Micheal and others have done) immediately after someone dies. They turned the intent of this thread into a partisan, ideological discussion/argument.

I simply think that at this particular time it's wrong and very tacky.

As the article RBA posted above on Kerry... take the high ground.

You do some things simply out of respect...not ideological/partisan differences.

GAC, you still didn't answer my question.

I don't need to go back through this thread; I've read the whole thing. I am the one who posted in this thread that he died. Also, I haven't said anything about Reagan in this thread (oddly enough), except that he did die.

As an aside: All the comments about "being brought up differently" in this thread crack me up. I'd venture to say we were all brought up differently.

WVRed
06-08-2004, 10:34 PM
When exactly, then, would you say one can state opinions and thoughts on Reagan and/or his administration, without being disrespectful?

I dont really think you can put a time frame. If the threads had been posted about two to six months after Reagans death, you wouldnt see somebody defending it because he had been deceased a while.

Obviously I think it depends on the event or the person. If this had been Hitler, there would have been no sympathy from anybody on this board. On the other hand, if this was 9/11, and a comment was made five hours later to the extent that the people in the twin towers deserved to die, that person would have been ran out of town on a rail, regardless of freedom of speech or if they had a right to say it.

Michael and everybody else has a right to freedom of speech(which I dont view it as a "right", more like a "priviledge" compared to other countries), but they also must realize that others have a right to disagree in every facet(whether its Reagans administration or the timing of the post).

Think of John Rocker, he made comments that are homophobic and racist. Was he protected under freedom of speech? Absolutely. But when he made the comments, he immediately came under fire from others who had freedom of speech as well.

TeamDunn
06-08-2004, 10:51 PM
Go back and show me where anyone said that Reagan deserved to die.

You are reading WAY more into this thread than there is.

Also, on his last birthday this same topic came up. It apparently was not appropriate to talk about it then either.

No one here is happy the man is dead (at least I don't think anyone is, I know I am not).

He has not been in the public eye for 10 years. He *died* along time ago as far as that is concerned. I feel bad for his family. Some of you are acting as if this were a personal friend or relative of yours. And discussing it here at RZ is no different than any other discussion that goes on here. It is not like the Reagan family visit here or are members here. Also, I would imagine they have heard all these things before...over and over again. Give them some credit, they grew up in the public eye, they know what its like and can handle it. And for every person that has any criticism of his job there is another person to offer them complete support for his time in office.

He was a public figure and is fair game to have his performance performing his service to this country examined be it 6 months ago, now or 6 months from now.

Funny thing though, the people that want to honor his memory continue to post in this thread instead of the one RFA went to the trouble of setting up. :confused: Michael already said he would not post in that one. I have no intentions of posting there....so go for it!!! (Not saying you can't post here, please do not take it that way...just saying it is there, use it along with this one).




I dont really think you can put a time frame. If the threads had been posted about two to six months after Reagans death, you wouldnt see somebody defending it because he had been deceased a while.

Obviously I think it depends on the event or the person. If this had been Hitler, there would have been no sympathy from anybody on this board. On the other hand, if this was 9/11, and a comment was made five hours later to the extent that the people in the twin towers deserved to die, that person would have been ran out of town on a rail, regardless of freedom of speech or if they had a right to say it.

Michael and everybody else has a right to freedom of speech(which I dont view it as a "right", more like a "priviledge" compared to other countries), but they also must realize that others have a right to disagree in every facet(whether its Reagans administration or the timing of the post).

Think of John Rocker, he made comments that are homophobic and racist. Was he protected under freedom of speech? Absolutely. But when he made the comments, he immediately came under fire from others who had freedom of speech as well.

TeamDunn
06-08-2004, 11:00 PM
And one more thing. Reagan passing away due to a disease/age is nothing compared to people that were MURDERED on 9/11.

How about we not even use them in any examples in this thread because they are a FAR stretch and have nothing to do with Reagan's political decisions.

WVRed
06-08-2004, 11:04 PM
Go back and show me where anyone said that Reagan deserved to die.

You are reading WAY more into this thread than there is.

I wasnt likening the 9/11 post with Reagan, or saying that anybody said Reagan deserved to die. I was merely answering RosieReds question about timing.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.:)

TeamDunn
06-08-2004, 11:07 PM
I wasnt likening the 9/11 post with Reagan, or saying that anybody said Reagan deserved to die. I was merely answering RosieReds question about timing.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.:)

Gotcha! :thumbup:

Thanks for the clarification!

Now, I turn into a pumpkin shortly so I am heading to bed.

Hope to see all of you in the morning, I have no ill will towards any of you that are currently disagreeing with me. :GAC:

Michael Allred
06-09-2004, 12:08 AM
Exactly LGJ! :thumbup:

No one is attempting to "deify" Reagan or say he was a saint. A former President has died, and people simply want to pay their respects (or in some cases... disrespect ;) ).

Nobody is trying to "deify" Reagan? Have you even been watching the news?



Let me put it this way folks... the next time someone you know, or were close to (maybe a family member, friend, whatever) dies, then lets see you go to the funeral or the wake and start "highlighting" all their faults and weaknesses and see what it gets you.

Yet another comparison between a baseball forum and a funeral. I don't get it.



There is a time and place....but this isn't want of them IMO.

There is, and will be, plenty of time to discuss the Reagan "legacy".

For the 3rd...4th (I forget how many times now) I've asked this and nobody has answered.....just when exactly *should* people be "allowed" to discuss Reagan? Care to answer that?

WVRed
06-09-2004, 12:13 AM
For the 3rd...4th (I forget how many times now) I've asked this and nobody has answered.....just when exactly *should* people be "allowed" to discuss Reagan? Care to answer that?

I just answered that. Technically you are able right now, just be prepared for the backlash that will follow.

RosieRed
06-09-2004, 04:29 AM
I just answered that. Technically you are able right now, just be prepared for the backlash that will follow.

Why do I think there would be "backlash" anytime Reagan is/was criticized, even if it's a year from now? I kinda think now is as good a time as any to talk about any and all facets of his presidency.

Speaking of which, I came across this article earlier. For anyone interested in reading it, it has to do with Reagan's handling of the AIDS crisis. I wonder how many people actually know what went on his administration during that time? It isn't pretty.

(Warning: The following article could be perceived as being "negative" toward or "disrespectful" of former President Reagan. In fact, it completely supports Michael Allred's ever-so-controversial first post in this thread. So please read it at your own risk.)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/06/08/EDG777163F1.DTL

WVRed
06-09-2004, 08:09 AM
Why do I think there would be "backlash" anytime Reagan is/was criticized

I was referring to right now:).

GAC
06-09-2004, 08:30 AM
Funny, Nancy Reagan is a big advocate for stem cell research.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3700015.stm

I guess she's tacky too.

I know that Nancy is an advocate of stem cell research. You're not telling us anything new or shocking here.

Her husband was the conservative in the family... not Nancy so much. ;)

I just got the impression that Rojo was basically trying to show some sort of irony (or sarcasm) to the fact that Reagan, who opposed stem cell research for various diseases as Alzheimers, died of the disease.

And yes, I think it was tacky, and not appropriate for the intent of this thread.

And maybe that goes back to the simple fact that Reagan's conviction's, and millions of others too, concerning the sanctity of life (even of the unborn), saw it as immoral to harvest human beings simply for the purpose of medical experiments/research? Reagan had his faults; but I dont think he would have changed his stance to one of self-serving on this issue. Even if the end result is for something good, the end does not always justify the means. And that is simply the way alot of people feel in this country, me included, and I don't feel ashamed over that stance one bit.

IMO... it's bad enough, and immoral, that we are murdering our unborn...so now lets utilize them for medical research/experimentation?

Are there any limitations at all as to how far we take this? Do we start marketing the "positive side" of abortions now, and all the good we can make from them? Do we now start cloning humans soley for the purpose of harvesting their organs, etc., for medical research?

I sometimes wonder if so many people, who are huge animal rights advocates, and cringe at the thought of how animals are used (whether raising for food or medical experimentation), hold the same feelings of outrage towards stem cell research and abortion on human beings? They probably don't see any hypocrisy at all in that stance if they do, as they value animal life more precious and worthy of protection over a human life in this particular case.

GAC
06-09-2004, 09:04 AM
Nobody is trying to "deify" Reagan? Have you even been watching the news?

Gee Michael. When any of the other past Presidents, or even world leaders or people of great prominence, passed away, society (including the media) took the time to cover the event of the funeral and everything else that surrounded it. There has always been alot of pomp and ceremony surrounding these situations. It was very similar with the Kennedys, DeGaulle, Johnson, Nixon, Princess Di, and many other famous people of note.

They are not doing anything out of the unusual for Reagan. And yes, I have been watching it on most of the networks.

But don't worry Michael...it'll all die down soon. But for the week following any death of someone as notable (especially a former President), you are going to get this kind of coverage, which is pretty routine, and is simply society paying their last respects while reflecting on that individual's life and accomplishments.

I'm sorry, but Reagan was a very popular President. And there is nothing you can do to change that. ;)

And they'll do the same for the next Prez who dies, and anyone else of notability, who was seen by so many in this country/world as being a great influence on our society.

Now that may upset liberals as yourself; but I guess you'll just have to find some way to get over it. Because society is not gonna stop doing it. ;)



For the 3rd...4th (I forget how many times now) I've asked this and nobody has answered.....just when exactly *should* people be "allowed" to discuss Reagan? Care to answer that?

and for the 3rd...4th... and final time...I simply said that the intent of this thread was for people to basically pay their last respects to a former President that passed away. Not politicize it, nor use it for a partisan rant. There is always a time and place for it; but this thread was not started for that purpose, and IMO, I feel it is inappropriate.

The guy can't hurt you anymore Michael. HE'S DEAD! ;)

Start a new thread if you feel so strongly about it. Then take all the "digs" you want at this deceased President. I don't think the Gipper will mind. ;)

He frustrated the hell out of liberals when he was alive with his communication skills and quick whit. Now that he can't respond back, I guess it's only appropriate for you to want to respond. So fire away! :lol:

GAC
06-09-2004, 09:07 AM
Why do I think there would be "backlash" anytime Reagan is/was criticized, even if it's a year from now? I kinda think now is as good a time as any to talk about any and all facets of his presidency.

Speaking of which, I came across this article earlier. For anyone interested in reading it, it has to do with Reagan's handling of the AIDS crisis. I wonder how many people actually know what went on his administration during that time? It isn't pretty.

(Warning: The following article could be perceived as being "negative" toward or "disrespectful" of former President Reagan. In fact, it completely supports Michael Allred's ever-so-controversial first post in this thread. So please read it at your own risk.)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/06/08/EDG777163F1.DTL

And an article/editorial out of San Francisco wouldn't in any way hold any biases now would it? ;)

westofyou
06-09-2004, 10:42 AM
And an article/editorial out of San Francisco wouldn't in any way hold any biases now would it? ;)


I'm fairly certain likewise could be said about one from Bellefontaine.

But please continue to use that information filter you have there.

Redsfaithful
06-09-2004, 12:02 PM
I just got the impression that Rojo was basically trying to show some sort of irony (or sarcasm) to the fact that Reagan, who opposed stem cell research for various diseases as Alzheimers, died of the disease.

Stem cell research is less than a decade old. Reagan hasn't made a public statement in ten years. You're putting words in the guys mouth by saying he was against stem cell research. There are more than a few pro-life politicians in favor of stem cell research.

I'm not sure how much you really know about the subject, so here, maybe you'll be enlightened:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/007120.htm


Definition

A stem cell is a "generic" cell that can make exact copies of itself indefinitely. In addition, a stem cell has the ability to produce specialized cells for various tissues in the body -- such as heart muscle, brain tissue, and liver tissue. Scientists are able to maintain stem cells forever, developing them into specialized cells as needed.

There are two basic types:

Embryonic stem cells - these are obtained from either aborted fetuses or fertilized eggs that are left over from in vitro fertilization (IVF). They are useful for medical and research purposes because they can produce cells for almost every tissue in the body.

Adult stem cells - these are not as versatile for research purposes because they are specific to certain cell types, such as blood, intestines, skin, and muscle. The term "adult stem cell" may be misleading because both children and adults have them.
In August 2001, President George W. Bush approved limited federal funding for stem cell research. While stem cell research has the potential to provide major medical advances, including cures for many diseases, stem cell research is controversial.

Information


Potential uses for stem cells

There are many areas in medicine where stem cell research could have a significant impact. For example, there are a variety of diseases and injuries in which a patient's cells or tissues are destroyed and must be replaced by tissue or organ transplants. Stem cells may be able to generate brand new tissue in these cases, and even cure diseases for which currently there is no adequate therapy. Diseases that could see revolutionary advances include Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, diabetes, spinal cord injury, heart disease, stroke, arthritis, cancer, and burns.

Stem cells could also be used to gain a better understanding of how genetics work in the early stages of cell development. This can help scientists understand why some cells develop abnormally and lead to medical problems such as birth defects and cancer. By understanding the genetic basis for cell development, scientists may learn how to prevent some of these diseases.

Finally, stem cells may be useful in the testing and development of drugs. Because stem cells can be used to create unlimited amounts of specialized tissue, such as heart tissue, it may be possible to test how drugs react on these specialized tissues before trying the drugs on animals and human subjects. Drugs could be tested for effectiveness and side effects more rapidly.

Controversy about stem cell research

The use of embryonic stem cells is controversial. The controversy is based on the belief by opponents that a fertilized egg is fundamentally a human being with rights and interests that need to be protected. Those who oppose stem cell research do not want fetuses and fertilized eggs used for research purposes.

Supporters of stem cell research argue that the fertilized eggs are donated with consent from each couple and would be discarded anyway. Therefore, there is no potential for those fertilized eggs to become human beings. Fertilized eggs are not (at this time) being created specifically for stem cell research.

As with any moral and ethical issue, the controversy surrounding stem cell research will likely continue for quite some time. Supporters believe that an aggressive federal program is needed before the potential of stem cell research can be realized. At this time, federal funding is limited to stem cell lines that already exist. The funding does not support further destruction of fertilized eggs. This is based on the idea that the "life and death" decision on the existing stem cell lines has already been made. Thus, a compromise has been made that supports medical research and respects the fundamental moral issues associated with the potential for life.


Update Date: 11/17/2003

Rojo
06-09-2004, 12:25 PM
As RF posted, Reagan didn't have a position on Stem Cell research, my statement was to highlight that the real way we could honor him is to end some of the restrictions on research.

M2
06-09-2004, 12:34 PM
As RF posted, Reagan didn't have a position on Stem Cell research, my statement was to highlight that the real way we could honor him is to end some of the restrictions on research.

My grandmother died of Alzheimer's, horrible way to go. It's like losing somebody, but seeing their doppleganger in front of you. Nancy Reagan's quite reasonable pleas for increased stem cell research (in vitro labs produce stem cells by the score) have been met with the same deafness on the right that the Bradys encountered concerning readily available handguns. Kind of ironic that Reagan, the grandfather of the modern culture wars, created a party that refuses to learn from his example.

RosieRed
06-09-2004, 01:57 PM
And an article/editorial out of San Francisco wouldn't in any way hold any biases now would it? ;)

GAC, you can cry "bias" all you want, but it is a fact that Reagan and his administration did nothing about the AIDS crisis for years and years.

Maybe that doesn't bother you? All I know is it does not sit well with me.

Did you even read the article? I had said earlier in this thread that I hope no one is implying that anyone deserves to get AIDS -- and that is a viewpoint at least some in Reagan's administration held, that the people who contracted this disease got what they deserved.

From the article:


The president's advisers, Koop said, "took the stand, 'They are only getting what they justly deserve.' "


Reagan's communications director Pat Buchanan argued that AIDS is "nature's revenge on gay men."

As for your stance on stem cell research: Though I don't agree with it, I can understand someone not wanting aborted fetuses used for any medical research purposes. But what about all the embryos created at fertility clinics? A couple who can't conceive a baby goes in for in-virto fertilization. Embryos are created for said couple, only some of which are used. You would rather have the rest of the embryos thrown out as medical waste instead of using them (at the couple's consent) for stem cell research?

The potential for stem cell research is vast and promising. The potential number and types of diseases (listed in Redsfaithful's post) that could be cured as a result of stem cell research is astounding. Yet you would rather not see any of that happen? Instead, we'll just throw those "human beings" from the fertility clinic away? Sorry GAC, but that is a line of thinking I'll never understand.

RANDY IN INDY
06-09-2004, 02:01 PM
Lot of that going on in this thread.

M2
06-09-2004, 03:35 PM
But what about all the embryos created at fertility clinics? A couple who can't conceive a baby goes in for in-virto fertilization. Embryos are created for said couple, only some of which are used. You would rather have the rest of the embryos thrown out as medical waste instead of using them (at the couple's consent) for stem cell research?

Don't wait up for an answer. There isn't one. It's every bit as baffling as if the government suddenly banned organ donations.

What Bush did with his stem cell decision was throw a bone to right wing reactionary know-nothings to keep them sated. Craven politics and it's messing with people's lives, with their hopes of a cure for their afflictions. Stem cell was an abortion substitute, an issue they successfully muddled to make it look like anti-abortion action to their political base. The two only have a tangential relationship and the right and decent thing to do would have been to have lawmakers debate whether aborted fetal tissue could be used as well as in vitro.

Michael Allred
06-09-2004, 05:01 PM
Gee Michael. When any of the other past Presidents, or even world leaders or people of great prominence, passed away, society (including the media) took the time to cover the event of the funeral and everything else that surrounded it. There has always been alot of pomp and ceremony surrounding these situations. It was very similar with the Kennedys, DeGaulle, Johnson, Nixon, Princess Di, and many other famous people of note.

They are not doing anything out of the unusual for Reagan. And yes, I have been watching it on most of the networks.

But don't worry Michael...it'll all die down soon. But for the week following any death of someone as notable (especially a former President), you are going to get this kind of coverage, which is pretty routine, and is simply society paying their last respects while reflecting on that individual's life and accomplishments.


and yet I don't recall people clamoring for Nixon's head to be added to Mt. Rushmore or Johnson or....




I'm sorry, but Reagan was a very popular President. And there is nothing you can do to change that. ;)

You can get people to open their eyes to all facets of a person, not just the fake "sunny optimism" that has been crammed down our throats.



And they'll do the same for the next Prez who dies, and anyone else of notability, who was seen by so many in this country/world as being a great influence on our society.

I think we're watching different news coverage. You're watching FOX "news" mostly right?



and for the 3rd...4th... and final time...I simply said that the intent of this thread was for people to basically pay their last respects to a former President that passed away. Not politicize it, nor use it for a partisan rant. There is always a time and place for it; but this thread was not started for that purpose, and IMO, I feel it is inappropriate.

and here we go with that tired argument again. I wasn't the first person to bring up politics, just the first one to be critical and we've seen how Republicans act when you disagree with them. I'm surprised nobody has called me a traitor yet ;)





Start a new thread if you feel so strongly about it. Then take all the "digs" you want at this deceased President. I don't think the Gipper will mind. ;)


I believe this thread has already been well established for taking a critical look at Reagan, no new thread is necessary.



He frustrated the hell out of liberals when he was alive with his communication skills and quick whit. Now that he can't respond back, I guess it's only appropriate for you to want to respond. So fire away! :lol:

I've looooong been saying my piece about Reagan. Believe it or not, I actually have conversations outside of Redszone.

GAC
06-09-2004, 08:41 PM
And thus saith the left! :lol:

GAC
06-09-2004, 08:43 PM
I'm fairly certain likewise could be said about one from Bellefontaine.

But please continue to use that information filter you have there.

Gee. woy. Do you read the Bellefontaine Examiner? If you don't think there is a bias on the gay issue in San Francisco, then I really don't know what to say. ;)

GAC
06-09-2004, 08:44 PM
Stem cell research is less than a decade old. Reagan hasn't made a public statement in ten years. You're putting words in the guys mouth by saying he was against stem cell research. There are more than a few pro-life politicians in favor of stem cell research.

I'm not sure how much you really know about the subject, so here, maybe you'll be enlightened:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/007120.htm

Ah yes...a 22 yr old with access to Google is a dangerous thing! :roll:

This is not the first time (nor probably the last), that you've come on here with your elitist attitude wanting to "enlighten" others. ;)

westofyou
06-09-2004, 08:52 PM
Gee. woy. Do you read the Bellefontaine Examiner? If you don't think there is a bias on the gay issue in San Francisco, then I really don't know what to say. ;)

Actually I think bias exists everywhere, in everyone.

What I don't believe is pointing the finger and saying "Bias" whenever one's POV is questioned.

We're all angry pink apes with agendas.

Redsfaithful
06-09-2004, 09:00 PM
Ah yes...a 22 yr old with access to Google is a dangerous thing! :roll:

Less dangerous than an old man with a closed mind I'd wager. :roll:

GAC
06-09-2004, 09:14 PM
Less dangerous than an old man with a closed mind I'd wager. :roll:

There's that "elitist" attitude shining through again. ;)

Closed to what? Harvesting human embyros in order to do promising medical research depends on what you think those embryos are? If they have the moral status of persons, which many including myself do, then they can not be treated as a means to even the most humanitarian end.

Maybe we need to apologize to the Nazi regime, and it's hordes of scirentists who also prided themselves in advancing science via human experimentation and the devaluing of life.

Yes...valuing life is very closed mind. ;)

Ravenlord
06-09-2004, 09:19 PM
this gets my vote for the most humorous thread ever. :lol:

WVRed
06-09-2004, 09:51 PM
this gets my vote for the most humorous thread ever. :lol:

Or the one with the most randomed discussed topics. First a tribute, then a bashing, AIDS discussion, now stem cell research.

Id say pink polka dot ponies will be discussed next.


GAC, you can cry "bias" all you want, but it is a fact that Reagan and his administration did nothing about the AIDS crisis for years and years.

Im sure there are conservatives(not myself) who might say that claim is fiction, not fact.

As far as something being biased, if something that a liberal disagreed with came up on Fox News(which does happen a lot;)), it would immediately be labeled "biased" by the liberals.

On a side note, RFA mentioned Fred Phelps earlier in this thread, I saw a photo where supporters from that church were on Howard Stern. I always viewed Stern as the anti-Bush, or the liberal. Is he really in a hole for ratings?

RBA
06-09-2004, 09:58 PM
On a side note, RFA mentioned Fred Phelps earlier in this thread, I saw a photo where supporters from that church were on Howard Stern. I always viewed Stern as the anti-Bush, or the liberal. Is he really in a hole for ratings?


Nope, Stern's ratings are higher now than they have been in a few years.

Redsfaithful
06-09-2004, 11:25 PM
There's that "elitist" attitude shining through again. ;)

Closed to what? Harvesting human embyros in order to do promising medical research depends on what you think those embryos are? If they have the moral status of persons, which many including myself do, then they can not be treated as a means to even the most humanitarian end.

Maybe we need to apologize to the Nazi regime, and it's hordes of scirentists who also prided themselves in advancing science via human experimentation and the devaluing of life.

Yes...valuing life is very closed mind. ;)

Just poking fun at ya GAC.


I always viewed Stern as the anti-Bush, or the liberal.

From what I've read Stern voted for Bush. He's changed his mind because of the recent FCC happenings.

RosieRed
06-10-2004, 01:55 AM
Closed to what? Harvesting human embyros in order to do promising medical research depends on what you think those embryos are? If they have the moral status of persons, which many including myself do, then they can not be treated as a means to even the most humanitarian end.

Maybe we need to apologize to the Nazi regime, and it's hordes of scirentists who also prided themselves in advancing science via human experimentation and the devaluing of life.

First of all, they aren't "harvested" embryos. They are leftover embryos that get thrown away. How does that make you feel, to know that "persons" are getting thrown in the trash? Maybe invitro fertilization should be stopped altogether? And while we're at it, let's just do away with ALL medical research that is done on any human being. No more clinical tests for possible breast cancer drugs. No more experimental transplant surgeries. (Actually, no more transplant surgeries at all, under these terms. Or can we still have organ donors? Probably not "living" donors.) No more nothing. Let's just have scientists sit in a lab with a bunch of chemicals and already-discovered drugs and see if they can strike gold. But wait, how would we ever know if they did? Because we couldn't allow a human to try it out, no matter if it was a cure for cancer.

Wow, slippery slopes really are fun!

GAC, I'll give you this. Your evasiveness and (in my opinion) ability to turn a response into a borderline personal attack is off the charts. Of course, it's easier to just ignore the actual question.

RedsBaron
06-10-2004, 07:28 AM
Yep, the primary credit the Reaganites give themselves is that they changed the world through internal spending. Circuitous logic at best. In terms of actively doing stuff, there was a lot talk and little action. I give Reagan credit for dutifully standing his turn on Cold War watch just like every President back to Truman, but I think it's a tossup as to whether Reagan's posturing had as much effect on the Eastern Bloc as Cyndi Lauper's "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun."
In his book "Diplomacy," published in 1994, Henry Kissinger criticized Ronald Reagan on certain points, particularly his knowledge of history. However, while stating that considerable credit for the disintegration of communism was due to the presidencies that preceded Reagan's, as well as to that of George Bush, Kissinger stated, at page 764:"Nevertheless, it was Ronald Reagan's presidency which was marked the turning point."
Kissinger wrote that Reagan developed "a foreign policy of extraordinary consistency and relevance" (p. 765).
"Reagan rejected the 'guilt complex', which he identified with the Carter Administration, and proudly defended America's record as 'the greatest force for peace anywhere in the world today.' In his very first press conference, he labeled the Soviet Union an outlaw empire prepared 'to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat,' in order to achieve its goals. It would be the precursor of his 1983 description of the Soviet Union as the 'evil empire,' a direct moral challenge from which all his predecessors would have recolied." (p. 767)
Kissinger then discussed actions, not just words, which the Reagan administration implemented to further his goals, including the support of anticommunist counterinsurgencies, the support of Solidarity in Poland, and the "two strategic decisions which contributed most to ending the Cold War"-"NATO's deployment of American intermediate range missiles in Europe and the American commitment to the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI)." (pp. 773-775)
At 784, Kissinger writes: "Reagan had transformed what had been a marathon race into a sprint. His confrontational style linked to a risk-taking diplomacy would probably have worked at the beginning of the Cold War....In the 1980s, Soviet stagnation made a forward strategy appropriate again."
At 785, Kssinger concludes: "Reagan's second term coincided with the beginning of the disintegration of the communist system- a process hastened by his Administration's policies."

RedsBaron
06-10-2004, 07:41 AM
I've previously posted Margaret Thatcher's statement that "Ronald Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot." Ted Kennedy, not normally regarded to be a Reaganite conservative, recently said that Reagan "won the Cold War."
Obviously, Reagan didn't win the Cold War by himself. However, when people say that Lincoln saved the Union in the Civil War or that FDR won World War II, they don't mean that Lincoln personally repelled Pickett's charge up Cemetery Ridge or that FDR lead the troops on Omaha Beach; rather, their leadership was intrumental in achieving victory. The Union might have been saved with another president, given the North's material advantages; America and its allies may have still won World War II had Landon or Willkie been president instead of FDR---in my judgment, Lincoln was critical to the North winning the Civil War, and FDR at a mininum provided leadership which made victory more certain and more soon. Had the White House been occupied by one of Reagan's opponents during the 1980s, I don't believe America would have "lost" the Cold War, but I am convinced that the Cold War would not have come to a peaceful end during that time either. As Kissinger wrote, Reagan's administration was the "turning point."

RedsBaron
06-10-2004, 08:59 AM
Mikhail Gorbachev has understandably sometimes avoided discussing how the Cold War ended. I can recall him declaring before an American college audience that it was unimportant who won the Cold War (sorta like Tony Larussa making a speech to the effect that it was unimportant who won the 1990 World Series ;) ). Of course, Time magazine named Gorbachev its "Man of the decade" at the close of the 1980s, giving no credit to Reagan (sorta like naming Larussa the "Manager of the World Series" in 1990).
However, Gorbachev has also always given Reagan credit for the ultimate peaceful end of the Cold War, stating that if someone else had been president, the war may have turned out differently.
I've previously quoted from historian Michael Beschloss in this thread. Beschloss has written that Reagan's "first-term efforts to escalate the competition with the Soviet Union and his revival of American willpower may well have helped to usher in the reformistGorbachev over a [Grigory] Romanov, who might have tried to tough out Soviet problems by revving up the police state. Reagan's defense buildup and SDI, so ridiculed at the time, pressed Gorbachev, while his economy was collapsing, to make arms deals and improve relations with the West, which contributed to the unraveling of his empire."

GAC
06-10-2004, 09:01 AM
First of all, they aren't "harvested" embryos. They are leftover embryos that get thrown away. How does that make you feel, to know that "persons" are getting thrown in the trash?

I'm pro-life. So how do you think that makes me feel? ;)

So let me turn this around. Have you ever witnessed a late term partial birth abortion procedure? Do you know what happens to that infant's dismembered body parts? They too are either thrown out or incinerated.

So basically what you are saying, as you take possibly a "blind eye" to the abortion procedure, is that we need to make the best of this situation...use them "leftovers" (such a terrible label to put on a life IMO) for medical research. That will give it all justification, and make it all better.

And not all of them are "leftover" embryos (yes a majority are). And with stem cell research the biggest concern in the future is that it will become a supply and demand situation inwhich it opens or, or creates, a "market" for the production of human embryos solely for this purpose. And you cannot say this is a far-fetched idea. Science knows no limitations and feels there are no lines that cannot be crossed IMO.

"Hey expectant Mother! Are you strapped for cash! Are you weighing an abortion? We'll give you top dollar for your embryo! And it's all for the betterment of society."


And while we're at it, let's just do away with ALL medical research that is done on any human being. No more clinical tests for possible breast cancer drugs. No more experimental transplant surgeries. (Actually, no more transplant surgeries at all, under these terms. Or can we still have organ donors? Probably not "living" donors.) No more nothing. Let's just have scientists sit in a lab with a bunch of chemicals and already-discovered drugs and see if they can strike gold. But wait, how would we ever know if they did? Because we couldn't allow a human to try it out, no matter if it was a cure for cancer.

Now who is going to extremes? ;)

Did I mention anywhere where we should curb or eliminate research or testing? And for that matter transplant surgery (which I applaud). Please explain how that is similar to taking a human embryo, which again, many people feel is a human life, and denying it the right to live; but instead is subjecting it to testing and research?

I have no problem at all when someone is in either a serious or terminal condition, and they want to voluntarily submit to be a "guinea pig" in trying out new and experimental drugs and procedures. Especially on someone that may not have any other choice, and is in "lose-lose" scenario.

As long as they understand the possible risks, and the "pluses and minuses", I applaud the voluntary testing of new drugs (cancer, etc).

The difference is, IMO, is that they are being afforded that choice. It's a cognizant decision they are allowed to make, to either accept or refuse.

When we are talking about stem cell research (and nothing else)... millions of people see that embryo as a life. And that life is not being afforded that opportunity at making the choice.

It simply devalues or cheapens the meaning of life, and what it constitutes.

We're talking "apples and oranges" here as far as I'm concerned.

But you will have to be alot more specific when you refer to "human experimentation".

I applaud medical science for the advances they make.

I just simply believe their is a moral fine line that should not be crossed, and can send us down a very dangerous slope as a civilized society.



GAC, I'll give you this. Your evasiveness and (in my opinion) ability to turn a response into a borderline personal attack is off the charts. Of course, it's easier to just ignore the actual question.

You'll have to show me where I made a personal attack on you or anyone else.

And what question(s) have I evaded? Are you referring to the SFGate article on the Reagan administration you posted?

It's funny how Michael and others can scream bias and say people are under the influence of such news magnates of Fox and others (because of their conservative slant); but if I say that an article out of San Fran (which basically is the center of the homosexual lifestyle and activist agenda) may be biased or slanted, then I'm being evasive.

I've heard off-handed remarks/comments made on here at being rightwing or conservative, and that seems to be OK. But when one responds back, we're somehow in the wrong or being evasive? Go figure. ;)

When the AIDS "epidemic" hit the scene in the early 80's, the Reagan administration, I admit, did very little to address it. What I did not agree with was Michael's assertion that Reagan contributed to their deaths (as if he was responsible). That is absurd!

And then to also imply that therefore, this made Reagan a bad or terrible President.

Pick a President! Any President. And regardless of their administration, and whatever accomplishments they had, you will find a segment of the population at that time who wasn't too happy (or maybe even angry) due to a position, a piece of legislation, or a stance they took.

Whether it's minorities, the uninsured, the poor, the rich, corporations, lower class, middle class, whatever.

What I look at is what they did/accomplished overall while in office.

If homosexuals want to be outraqed because Reagan didn't aggressively go after the AIDS issue, then fine, thant doesn't bother me. And they have some justification.

But that doesn't mean he was a bad President OVERALL.

And that is what I am seeing being projected on here.

I didn't like Bill Clinton. I disagreed with many of his policies from a moral and philosophical viewpoint. But overall, he was not a bad President, and did a good job.

But this thread has, as some have already pointed out, become very laughable.

Liberals are not going to convince conservatives...and visa versa.

So if you want to argue, then go right on ahead. I'm a "battle hardened" veteran, and I know when to stop because it gets everyone nowhere. :lol:

RBA
06-10-2004, 09:41 AM
The west won the Cold War led by the United States and Presidents from Truman thru Bush I.

Redsfaithful
06-10-2004, 11:14 AM
So basically what you are saying, as you take possibly a "blind eye" to the abortion procedure, is that we need to make the best of this situation...use them "leftovers" (such a terrible label to put on a life IMO) for medical research.

It has nothing to do with abortion, as you'd know if you read what I posted earlier. When a couple decides to have a baby via in vitro fertilization more than one fertilized egg is created, to give the couple more chances. Right now the "extras" are simply tossed. Banning stem cell research isn't going to make those extra embryos become people GAC.

creek14
06-10-2004, 11:34 AM
I'm a proponent of stem cell research, but saying the "extra's" are just thrown out isn't really correct.

There are currently about a half million frozen embryos in the US alone. It's up to the "parents" to decide what to do with them, and many can't make that decision. Especially after having a child from the process that created those extra's. Some are being thrown out, some given to science for research, some are being "adopted" to other infertile women. But a lot just stay frozen.

So even if stem cell research was blessed by everyone in Washington, you'd still have to have the parents permission to use the embryos.

Rojo
06-10-2004, 12:56 PM
So even if stem cell research was blessed by everyone in Washington, you'd still have to have the parents permission to use the embryos.

But for now that power resides in Washington. Talk about "Big Government".

Rojo
06-10-2004, 01:00 PM
Beschloss has written that Reagan's "first-term efforts to escalate the competition with the Soviet Union and his revival of American willpower may well have helped to usher in the reformistGorbachev over a [Grigory] Romanov, who might have tried to tough out Soviet problems by revving up the police state.

Not pointing fingers, but Russia's pretty much a police state again.

M2
06-10-2004, 01:15 PM
RB, my point of contention comes on "willpower." There wasn't a Cold War President who didn't supply a large amount of anti-Soviet willpower. Reagan talked a great game, but there's a few reasons why tough talk and internal spending initiatives didn't add to much.

First, the Soviets had the power to obliterate all life on the planet six times over. SDI, which still isn't close to working, couldn't prevent that and the Russians needed no further arms buildup (though obviously their military efforts continued apace, particularly on the conventional side, where they had us overwhelmed).

Second, Reagan didn't really do much of anything. Invade Grenada here, sell some arms to both Iran and Iraq there, funnel money to the Contras in the backyard. We stepped foot in Lebanon briefly for no foreseeable objective other than to be there and split the second that car bomb hit. In terms of actual, in-your-face pressure Reagan didn't exactly put on the press.

Third, and Beschloss' Americentrism shines through here, there was a much bigger factor that led to Gorbachev's ascension -- the Soviet debacle in Afghanistan. It was every bit as bad for them, probably worse, than our foray into Vietnam. It created a split between the Communist party and the military (which turned out not to like sending good soldiers to die pointless deaths), it drained the USSR's already limited resources and it diverted the Politburo's attention from a larger threat. Specifically that threat was that your average Russian was getting a whole lot more information about life in the west and coming to realize how much better we had it than they did.

For that last part, Reagan's cash and flash economy worked wonders. If you were living in the Eastern Bloc excess probably looked pretty darn good to you. When Gorbachev came into power it was a remarkable confluence of events. Allegiance to the Party was at an all-time low. We forget that Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland and East Germany all tried to break from their bonds at varioius points and the determining factor in keeping them behind the Iron Curtain was the Soviet willingness to roll over dissenters with tanks. Gorbachev inherited a nation that was fragmenting itself and a military that might revolt if it was sent out to bolster another puppet nation.

Reagan's tough talk mostly made us feel good, though it did send the message that our moral opposition to what they were doing would outlast them and that had its value. Certainly you never like to be in a race and gasping for air only to see that you chief competitor looks fresh and ready to run all day. That probably affected the thinking of Russian leadership, which had to enjoy the '70s with Nixon's self-destruction and Carter's Wilsonian collapse (he saw the long-range picture quite well, but he couldn't sell it).

Important to remember that China, still run by Communists willing to crush dissension with their unfailingly loyal military, survived what looked like the worldwide collapse of Communism. We proved impotent when Tiannamen Square went down and it was the same commie-hating crowd running the show during the Bush administration as when Reagan was there. Had Afghanistan, the Information Age and a worldwide Capitalist boom not clocked the Soviets, we'd have likely seen them break out the tanks and secret police as well, and we'd have been nothing more than spectators while it happened. Just like we were with China.

Those are the thumbnail reasons why I think it's specious to assert that Reagan willed the end of the Cold War. The argument relies on believing that his will was palpable entity, which daily affected the leadership on the other side of the Iron Curtain. I give him credit for helping to create a sense of stability in this nation after what had been two fairly tumultuous decades. In retrospect, we needed the breather and Carter's mistake had been challenging a fatigued nation to keep reinventing itself.

But his foreign policy really never moved beyond rhetorical conflict. Oddly, our level of disentanglement and extreme internal focus might have helped simply because when the Eastern Bloc began to sprial we weren't in the way to stop it. Had we been massing forces on their borders or actively fomenting revolt in their nations, it might have pricked their resolve.

RosieRed
06-10-2004, 02:13 PM
So if you want to argue, then go right on ahead. I'm a "battle hardened" veteran, and I know when to stop because it gets everyone nowhere. :lol:

In all honesty, I am not trying to "argue," just trying to understand a viewpoint different from mine.

With that said, thanks for sharing your thoughts. :)

Johnny Footstool
06-10-2004, 02:29 PM
Add the Chernobl disaster to your list, M2. That had quite an impact. In addition to the economic, human, and environmental costs, Soviet technology, alleged to rival that of the West, was revealed to be horribly outdated.

M2
06-10-2004, 02:37 PM
Add the Chernobly disaster to your list, M2. That had quite an impact. In addition to the economic, human, and environmental costs, Soviet technology, alleged to rival that of the West, was revealed to be horribly outdated.

Excellent point. Having much of their leadership drop dead in a five-year span didn't help either. The oil price jump of the late 70s, early 80s also hit them hard. They needed affordable oil more than we did.

M2
06-10-2004, 03:46 PM
RB, one thing I ought to clarify, just so you understand where I'm coming from here, clearly there was an arms race going on and Reagan did spur our efforts. The Russians did respond and attempt to match our pace as well.

Yet, and this is the part that's crucial from where I sit, they didn't have to. No one can win a nuclear war on the scale the two nations would have fought. The earth would have become unlivable for us. It doesn't necessitate direct hits or anything like that if you can kill the planet.

So Reagan certainly practiced one-upmanship, causing the Russians to try to keep up at a time when pretty much everything else was going wrong for them. Yet they always had the option of letting us run the arms race by ourselves and it was their internal problems not directly of our making which caused their power base to erode. Without those other factors I'm fairly sure the Russians would have figured out to put their digits together and escape the fingertrap, leaving Reagan with an arms gambit that got us nowhere.

What I give Reagan far more credit for is keeping cool when Konstantin Chernenko was itching for a fight and for negotiating earnestly with Gorbachev. Fred Kaplan wrote an excellent piece in Slate yesterday on that latter point. Here's the link:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102081/

It really was a case of two leaders who bluffed their own advisors and recognized their most natural ally was the guy on the other end of the table.

KronoRed
06-10-2004, 06:14 PM
I'd just like to thank each and every one of you for reminding me why I never post in political threads

Carry on :D

RedsBaron
06-10-2004, 09:45 PM
M2, while I obviously regard Reagan as having been a much greater president than do you, Kaplan's article is not that far off of Kissinger's analysis. Reagan by every account I've read sincerely believed the Soviet Union to be an evil empire, but he also sincerely regarded nuclear weapons to be ultimately immoral and never accepted the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction. As Beschloss speculated, had Romanov become the Soviet leader instead of Gorbachev, the Cold War would have proceeded differently; as both Beschloss and Kaplan apparently believe, had Carter or Mondale been president rather than Reagan, the Cold War would not have ended when it did.

M2
06-11-2004, 01:14 AM
Carter had an interesting, and I'd argue ultimately correct, take on the Soviets. His view was that the U.S.S.R. was doomed to failure, that sooner or later it would collapse under its own weight. As such, his main concern was getting ready for a world in which we were the only superpower. That's why he cut loose some of the butchers we'd bolstered in the name of opposing Communism and worked so hard to bring the Israelis and Egyptians together.

Reagan pulled a reverse in his second term when he negotiated with Gorbachev. I'm certain Mondale would have done the same. What would have been harder for Mondale was selling it to Congress and the nation. Carter wasn't able to get SALT II ratified due to hawk opposition (finally pulling it from consideration when the Russians went into Afghanistan). Reagan had hawk credentials so he was able to rally the natural domestic opposition to such deals behind him -- much the same way Menachem Begin did with the Camp David Accords in Israel. The crucial difference between Reagan and the Democrats who'd have been there in his stead may very well have been that Reagan's core followers wouldn't have followed someone doing the same things from the other side of the political aisle.

And I agree that Reagan was sincere about breaking the Communist bloc and scaling down the nuclear threat. IMO it's what separated him from many of the neocons and John Birchers who seemed to relish the conflict more than they wanted to find a solution. As divisive as Reagan was on the domestic front he followed through on good intentions on the foreign policy front.

I don't think he was a bad President, more a mixed bag guy. Clinton fits the same bill. I'd toss Ike and LBJ into that mix as well. Almost by definition, you had to do something right to get re-elected.

IMO, the top tier guys are Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and FDR with Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman on their heels. Grant, Coolidge and Nixon are the only guys to get re-elected whom I'd list as bad presidents (possibly McKinley too because he ran a fairly corrupt administration).

What'll really be interesting is how presidents from our era get judged in the future. We're living through a particularly divisive period of American history. My guess is it will tar both sides equally and future generations will look back on the leaders we chose with a certain amount of disappointment. None of these guys plays well when they're not in front of their home crowds.

RedsBaron
06-11-2004, 08:34 AM
Carter had an interesting, and I'd argue ultimately correct, take on the Soviets. His view was that the U.S.S.R. was doomed to failure, that sooner or later it would collapse under its own weight. As such, his main concern was getting ready for a world in which we were the only superpower. That's why he cut loose some of the butchers we'd bolstered in the name of opposing Communism and worked so hard to bring the Israelis and Egyptians together.

Reagan pulled a reverse in his second term when he negotiated with Gorbachev. I'm certain Mondale would have done the same. What would have been harder for Mondale was selling it to Congress and the nation. Carter wasn't able to get SALT II ratified due to hawk opposition (finally pulling it from consideration when the Russians went into Afghanistan). Reagan had hawk credentials so he was able to rally the natural domestic opposition to such deals behind him -- much the same way Menachem Begin did with the Camp David Accords in Israel. The crucial difference between Reagan and the Democrats who'd have been there in his stead may very well have been that Reagan's core followers wouldn't have followed someone doing the same things from the other side of the political aisle.

And I agree that Reagan was sincere about breaking the Communist bloc and scaling down the nuclear threat. IMO it's what separated him from many of the neocons and John Birchers who seemed to relish the conflict more than they wanted to find a solution. As divisive as Reagan was on the domestic front he followed through on good intentions on the foreign policy front.

I don't think he was a bad President, more a mixed bag guy. Clinton fits the same bill. I'd toss Ike and LBJ into that mix as well. Almost by definition, you had to do something right to get re-elected.

IMO, the top tier guys are Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and FDR with Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman on their heels. Grant, Coolidge and Nixon are the only guys to get re-elected whom I'd list as bad presidents (possibly McKinley too because he ran a fairly corrupt administration).

What'll really be interesting is how presidents from our era get judged in the future. We're living through a particularly divisive period of American history. My guess is it will tar both sides equally and future generations will look back on the leaders we chose with a certain amount of disappointment. None of these guys plays well when they're not in front of their home crowds.
That I rank Reagan more highly than you should be no surprise.
There is a new book, published by The Wall Street Journal, entitled "Presidential Leadership:Rating the Best and Worst in the White House." I haven't seen a copy yet, but Northwestern University's James Lindgren, who analyzed the data obtained from polling 78 history scholars, has stated they tried to poll a balanced group of scholars, with equal numbers who leaned left and right politically.
Anyway, three presidents were ranked as "great" in the book: Washington, Lincoln and FDR (no surprises there-I would rank them as great too). Eight presidents were ranked as "near great," but I don't have the list. Reagan was included as a "near great" president, ranking 8th overall.
Four presidents were ranked as "failures": Andrew Johnson, Pierce, Harding, and, dead last, Buchanan.
Among recent presidents, only Reagan was ranked as "near great." LBJ at 17th and JFK at 18th were ranked "above average." George H.W. Bush (21st) and Clinton (24th) were ranked as "average." Ford (28th), Carter (30th) and Nixon (33rd) were ranked as "below average."
William Henry Harrison and Garfield were not ranked, serving too short a period of time. George W. Bush was also not ranked.

M2
06-11-2004, 08:47 AM
RB, just wanted to say it's been fun hashing this around with you. Nice to have an enjoyable political discussion with someone from the other side of the fence.

RedsBaron
06-11-2004, 08:47 AM
In the 6/11/04 issue of The Wall Street Journal there is an article by Lech Walesa, former head of Solidarity, winner of the 1983 Nobel Peace Prize, and president of Poland from 1990 to 1995. Walesa writes that the Polish people "owe him [Ronald Reagan] our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989."
Walesa writes that he has "often wondered why Ronald Reagan did this, taking the risks he did, in supporting us at Solidarity, as well as dissident movements in other countries behind the Iron Curtain, while pushing a defense buildup that pushed the Soviet economy over the brink." He concludes that Reagan did so because he was convinced that freedom was a value worth living and even dying for, calling Reagan "great." "In the Europe of the 1980s, Ronald Reagan presented a vision. For us in Central and Eastern Europe, that meant freedom from the Soviets. Mr. Reagan was no ostrich who hoped that problems might just go away. He thought problems had to be faced. This is exactly what he did."
Walesa concludes by writing that "Reagan must have realized what remarkable changes he brought to Poland, and indeed the rest of the world. And I hope he felt gratified. He should have."

RedsBaron
06-11-2004, 08:54 AM
RB, just wanted to say it's been fun hashing this around with you. Nice to have an enjoyable political discussion with someone from the other side of the fence.
Thanks. Same here. I've found the more recent posts on this thread to be civil discussions/disagreements, without the name calling or questioning of someone's motives that unfortunately has been a part of many political debates on RedsZone. I've posted before that I really enjoy debating political issues with one of my partners, who is a liberal Democrat who supported Clinton and dislikes Bush. While he and I disagree, we keep it civil and include a lot of laughter.

MWM
06-11-2004, 10:36 AM
Just a general question I've always wondered about: how much of a President's legacy is defined by the times he presided over versus actual accomplishments? For example, Bill Clinton's legacy will always be related to the economy of the 1990s (yes, in the long-term folks will forget about Monica). I've stated before that I think Clinton helped create an environment that allowed a 90s type of boom, but it was probably going to happen either way. But, was it even possible for a guy like Clinton to BE a great president through a perioid of peace and prosperity where we weren't faced with the types of challenges we've faced in other periods of time? Most of the challenges came in the form of overseas financial crises that will probably be lost in the history books as non-US problems. But I still wonder what Bill Clinton could have possibly done to be GREAT during his administration.

By contrast we have Geroge W Bush. His years as President have marked a time when we've needed a great leader and the potential for greatness is there for the taking, unlike hte Clinton years. I don't want to say that he's done everything wrong, but I would argue that he's failed and in a pretty big way at steering us through these times. The damage he's done by his foreign policy alone will take years to repair. I've heard many comment that they're glad we don't have Clinton or Gore in the White House now for the war on terror. I might agree on Gore, but I think Bill Clinton would have done very well during this time. Would he have taken on the task with GREATNESS, I don't know, but I think this nation's perception of Bill Clinton would be completely different if he would have been President over the last three years. In contrast, had Reagan come along in 1992 instead of 1980, how would he be viewed?

RedsBaron
06-11-2004, 10:47 AM
Just a general question I've always wondered about: how much of a President's legacy is defined by the times he presided over versus actual accomplishments? For example, Bill Clinton's legacy will always be related to the economy of the 1990s (yes, in the long-term folks will forget about Monica). I've stated before that I think Clinton helped create an environment that allowed a 90s type of boom, but it was probably going to happen either way. But, was it even possible for a guy like Clinton to BE a great president through a perioid of peace and prosperity where we weren't faced with the types of challenges we've faced in other periods of time? Most of the challenges came in the form of overseas financial crises that will probably be lost in the history books as non-US problems. But I still wonder what Bill Clinton could have possibly done to be GREAT during his administration.

By contrast we have Geroge W Bush. His years as President have marked a time when we've needed a great leader and the potential for greatness is there for the taking, unlike hte Clinton years. I don't want to say that he's done everything wrong, but I would argue that he's failed and in a pretty big way at steering us through these times. The damage he's done by his foreign policy alone will take years to repair. I've heard many comment that they're glad we don't have Clinton or Gore in the White House now for the war on terror. I might agree on Gore, but I think Bill Clinton would have done very well during this time. Would he have taken on the task with GREATNESS, I don't know, but I think this nation's perception of Bill Clinton would be completely different if he would have been President over the last three years. In contrast, had Reagan come along in 1992 instead of 1980, how would he be viewed?
In general I believe the times/challenges a president is faced with greatly affects how he is regarded by history. Had Reagan defeated Ford for the GOP nomination in 1976 and then defeated Carter for the presidency that fall, while I believe he would have been a better president than Carter, I'm also confident he would not have been nearly as successful as he was in the 1980s. Had Reagan been elected in 1976, it would have been by a very narrow margin, not the landslide he enjoyed in 1980; he would have faced a Congress totally controlled by the Democrats, rather than having a Republican controlled Senate and enough "Reagan Democrats" to allow much of his program to get through the House as was the case in the early 1980s; and he would have lacked any mandate. Most likely Reagan would have then been a one term president, perhaps to be followed by the Ted Kennedy administration in 1980. Reagan was fortunate to lose to Ford in 1976 IMO.
Regardless of how well he did, and regardless of his abilities, Clinton did not face the challenges of a Lincoln or a Franklin Roosevelt or a Truman or even of a Reagan. Had they failed, they wouldn't be regarded as great or near great presidents, but if they hadn't have come to office facing those challenges they would not be regarded as achieving greatness either.