President Reagan’s health said to have deteriorated

[Michael Allred]

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]

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]

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]

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

[MWM]

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

[Michael Allred]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[RollyInRaleigh]

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]

[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]

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]

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.

[RollyInRaleigh]

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.

Wow!