Turn Off Ads?
Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 67891011 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 163

Thread: President Reaganís health said to have deteriorated

  1. #136
    Pagan/Asatru Ravenlord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Williamsburg, OH and the wilds.
    Posts
    8,993

    Re: President Reaganís health said to have deteriorated

    this gets my vote for the most humorous thread ever.
    the store for all your blade, costuming (in any regard), leather (also in any regard), and steel craft needs.www.facebook.com/tdhshop


    yes, this really is how we make our living.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #137
    Kentuckian At Heart WVRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Mid Ohio Valley
    Posts
    8,456

    Re: President Reaganís health said to have deteriorated

    Quote Originally Posted by Ravenlord
    this gets my vote for the most humorous thread ever.
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by savafan View Post
    I've read books about sparkling vampires who walk around in the daylight that were written better than a John Fay article.

  4. #138
    CELEBRATION TIME RBA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    San Marcos, CA
    Posts
    14,034

    Re: President Reaganís health said to have deteriorated

    Quote Originally Posted by WVRed
    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.

  5. #139
    Member Redsfaithful's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Bexley, OH
    Posts
    7,591

    Re: President Reaganís health said to have deteriorated

    Quote Originally Posted by GAC
    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.
    Because the plain people are able to speak and understand, and even, in many cases, to read and write, it is assumed that they have ideas in their heads, and an appetite for more. This assumption is a folly.
    --H.L. Mencken

  6. #140
    MarsArmyGirl RosieRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    2,783

    Re: President Reagan’s health said to have deteriorated

    Quote Originally Posted by GAC
    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.

  7. #141
    Big Red Machine RedsBaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Out Wayne
    Posts
    23,411

    Re: President Reaganís health said to have deteriorated

    Quote Originally Posted by M2
    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."
    "Hey...Dad. Wanna Have A Catch?" Kevin Costner in "Field Of Dreams."

  8. #142
    Big Red Machine RedsBaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Out Wayne
    Posts
    23,411

    Re: President Reaganís health said to have deteriorated

    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."
    "Hey...Dad. Wanna Have A Catch?" Kevin Costner in "Field Of Dreams."

  9. #143
    Big Red Machine RedsBaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Out Wayne
    Posts
    23,411

    Re: President Reaganís health said to have deteriorated

    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."
    "Hey...Dad. Wanna Have A Catch?" Kevin Costner in "Field Of Dreams."

  10. #144
    Member GAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Bellefontaine, Ohio
    Posts
    26,974

    Re: President Reaganís health said to have deteriorated

    Quote Originally Posted by RosieRed
    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.
    Last edited by GAC; 06-10-2004 at 10:10 AM.
    "In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)

  11. #145
    CELEBRATION TIME RBA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    San Marcos, CA
    Posts
    14,034

    Re: President Reaganís health said to have deteriorated

    The west won the Cold War led by the United States and Presidents from Truman thru Bush I.

  12. #146
    Member Redsfaithful's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Bexley, OH
    Posts
    7,591

    Re: President Reaganís health said to have deteriorated

    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.
    Because the plain people are able to speak and understand, and even, in many cases, to read and write, it is assumed that they have ideas in their heads, and an appetite for more. This assumption is a folly.
    --H.L. Mencken

  13. #147
    Dunnilicious creek14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Beavercreek
    Posts
    11,774

    Re: President Reaganís health said to have deteriorated

    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.
    Will trade this space for a #1 starter.

  14. #148
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Chinamerica
    Posts
    10,253

    Re: President Reaganís health said to have deteriorated

    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".
    The widow is gathering nettles for her children's dinner; a perfumed seigneur, delicately lounging in the Oeil de Boeuf, hath an alchemy whereby he will extract the third nettle and call it rent. ~ Carlyle

  15. #149
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Chinamerica
    Posts
    10,253

    Re: President Reaganís health said to have deteriorated

    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.
    The widow is gathering nettles for her children's dinner; a perfumed seigneur, delicately lounging in the Oeil de Boeuf, hath an alchemy whereby he will extract the third nettle and call it rent. ~ Carlyle

  16. #150
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    32,108

    Re: President Reaganís health said to have deteriorated

    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.
    The Cincinnati Reds: We Still Exist
    The Cincinnati Reds: Unburdened by Expectations
    The Cincinnati Reds: We've Got Free Wi-Fi


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | cumberlandreds | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | RedsfaninMT | redsfan1995 | The Operator