| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/11/2004 10:44:59 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by sonnyh:
I also agree with General E.
Reagan was one of the worst presients in modern time.
Each President has to have a State funeral but the trappings are up to them. Each year from the start of their Presidency (and continued until they die) they have to make plans for their funeral and amend them each year. Ronald and Nancy choreographed each step of this funeral and as far as I'm concerned it was very over done including walking up the east wing (with all those steps) so he could be facing the setting sun. He will also be buried in California in the evening at sunset.
As far as his political record;
1) He stopped a lot of funding for the arts
2) He wanted private citizens and corporations to pick up the slack
3) He cut back social security
4) Iran Contra
5) He cut back on consrvation and made a statement that said "If you have seen one tree how many more do you need to see."
6) When AIDS was running rampant he refused to allot any money
7) He was the first President to be innaugerated on the east side of the Capitol because it held more people (always the actor)
While he was a likeable personality he certainly was never a good president.
I felt sorry for him in the last years of his life because no one deserves to go through that ordeal. I am also touched by the love between Nancy and Ron, but to say he was a great president is ludicrous. |
wow nothing is more ludicrous then what you just said. bitterness never solved any problems.
|
|
|
|
06/11/2004 10:45:49 AM · #27 |
but dissatisfaction did.
Originally posted by achiral:
wow nothing is more ludicrous then what you just said. bitterness never solved any problems. |
|
|
|
|
06/11/2004 10:47:08 AM · #28 |
look out: the revisionists are out in force this week, rewriting history to make it look rosier than it really was.
remember when nixon died? all the coverage only focused on his positive qualities. they made him sound like an angel ascending into heaven.
same thing's going on this week.
|
|
|
|
06/11/2004 10:58:01 AM · #29 |
the point is when clinton dies we shouldn't be having discussions about how he got a blowjob and half of congress censured him. i really don't understand you guys' attitudes that around the time of someone's death you should bring up all the bad things about that person. saying only good things about a dead person is pretty typical of what happens when a person dies. i could name a ton of good things about reagan as well as a ton of bad things but why have that discussion NOW when people are mourning. seems pretty childish. and as for the revisionist history, i think what we are seeing are people's personal spin on events that happened almost 20 years ago. you haters had 16 years to try and bash reagan yet in all the threads on this site about politics i scarecely remember his name coming up.
as far as the best president of the century goes, this thread shows that picking someone for that category is riddiculous because of how partisan everyone is here.
|
|
|
|
06/11/2004 11:01:08 AM · #30 |
two different issues:
1) mourning - i agree fully with what you say.
2) labeling someone 'best whatever of the last whatever' and in the process forgetting the negative things they did - this has nothing to do with mourning and everything to do with re-writing history. |
|
|
|
06/11/2004 11:10:44 AM · #31 |
1) your assumption that everyone has forgotten about negative things he did is premature
2)how is partisan politics equal to re-writing history? you'll see very few media sources out there bringing up the negative aspects of reagan besides activist newspapers like the la times. everyone has a personal responsibility to find out the truth for themselves
|
|
|
|
06/11/2004 11:28:41 AM · #32 |
|
|
|
06/11/2004 11:31:37 AM · #33 |
Personally, I'm mourning for the hundreds of thousands of people (common peasants) brutally murdered and tortured in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala by right wing death squads funded and trained by the US under Reagan's reign. These weren't just men, but women and children too. Terrorism at it's worst. And they were the young and old.
I'm also mourning for the countless numbers who died similar deaths and imprisonment in racist South Africa, also supported by Reagan.
If the LA Times is reporting negative aspects of Reagan's presidency, it may be that they are serving the people of their communities within reach of their circulation.
Reagan lived 93 long years. |
|
|
|
06/11/2004 11:31:56 AM · #34 |
| Too young to remember much of what he did do or didn't do, but nobody is perfect. I am sure that no one here could do the job of being president and make everybody happy. No one should ever assume that some one else durring the time of Reagan, or any other president for that matter, would have done a better job. For all we know the runners against past presidents could have done a lot worse than the presidents we did have. It is a tough job to run a country. |
|
|
|
06/11/2004 02:37:59 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Personally, I'm mourning for the hundreds of thousands of people (common peasants) brutally murdered and tortured in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala by right wing death squads funded and trained by the US under Reagan's reign. These weren't just men, but women and children too. Terrorism at it's worst. And they were the young and old.
I'm also mourning for the countless numbers who died similar deaths and imprisonment in racist South Africa, also supported by Reagan.
If the LA Times is reporting negative aspects of Reagan's presidency, it may be that they are serving the people of their communities within reach of their circulation.
Reagan lived 93 long years. |
Do you mourn for the millions killed by Ceausescu, Milosevic, Hussein, Duvalier, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, to name but a few? Or do you reserve mourning only for those whose deaths you feel justified in blaming on Republican American Presidents?
By the way, the deaths of more Blacks in Africa came at the hands of other Blacks than at the hands of whites ( do Hutu and Tutsi ring a bell? ). The Rwandan massacre alone took the lives of over 800,000 people. They too, were young and old, men and women and children, brutally tortured, raped, and murdered. Are you going to try to somehow blame a Republican American President for that genocide?
Ron |
|
|
|
06/11/2004 02:43:51 PM · #36 |
I would just like to add my condolences on the death of Ronald Reagan. I found him to be a breath of fresh air. Whilst I do not pretend to understand the effect he had on American policies I only have fond memories of him. May he rest in peace.
Mike
Message edited by author 2004-06-11 14:44:11.
|
|
|
|
06/11/2004 03:42:50 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by sonnyh:
I also agree with General E.
Reagan was one of the worst presients in modern time.
|
whatever.
Message edited by author 2004-06-13 23:56:46. |
|
|
|
06/11/2004 04:44:04 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Do you mourn for the millions killed by Ceausescu, Milosevic, Hussein, Duvalier, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, to name but a few? Or do you reserve mourning only for those whose deaths you feel justified in blaming on Republican American Presidents?
By the way, the deaths of more Blacks in Africa came at the hands of other Blacks than at the hands of whites ( do Hutu and Tutsi ring a bell? ). The Rwandan massacre alone took the lives of over 800,000 people. They too, were young and old, men and women and children, brutally tortured, raped, and murdered. Are you going to try to somehow blame a Republican American President for that genocide?
Ron |
Those other folks were not murdered by [b]my[/m] government in my name, nor (mostly) with my tax dollars. I mourn for them as I do all the unnecessary and cruel deaths committed for the sake of money and power.
I'll blame any President you want (and the UN and the world in general) for Rwanda -- I guess they didn't have enough oil or chromium to be worth Western intervention. |
|
|
|
06/11/2004 06:54:17 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by sonnyh:
1) He stopped a lot of funding for the arts
2) He wanted private citizens and corporations to pick up the slack
3) He cut back social security
4) Iran Contra
5) He cut back on consrvation and made a statement that said "If you have seen one tree how many more do you need to see."
6) When AIDS was running rampant he refused to allot any money
7) He was the first President to be innaugerated on the east side of the Capitol because it held more people (always the actor)
|
1) Is it the government's responsibility to fund the arts? More funding, more taxes.
2) Why shouldn't private citizens and corporations to pick up the slack? It's called giving back to the community.
3) Nobody cuts back on Social Security because they get off on it. Your compassionate heart can always volunteer to pay the extra taxes to make up for budget shortfalls.
4) Although he took the blame, it was never proven he knowingly participated.
5) The cutbacks were probably budgetary. After all money doesn't grow on trees you know.
6) He spent six Billion dollars on AIDS research during his administration.
7) Is sucks being popular.
|
|
|
|
06/11/2004 10:58:11 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Personally, I'm mourning for the hundreds of thousands of people (common peasants) brutally murdered and tortured in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala by right wing death squads funded and trained by the US under Reagan's reign. These weren't just men, but women and children too. Terrorism at it's worst. And they were the young and old.
I'm also mourning for the countless numbers who died similar deaths and imprisonment in racist South Africa, also supported by Reagan.
|
Do you mourn for the millions killed by Ceausescu, Milosevic, Hussein, Duvalier, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, to name but a few? Or do you reserve mourning only for those whose deaths you feel justified in blaming on Republican American Presidents?...Are you going to try to somehow blame a Republican American President for that genocide?
Ron |
***Of course I mourn for all those killed and tortured brutally by those horrible dictators! And since you brought his name up, it was Ronald Reagan who fully supported Sadaam Hussein militarily, financially, and with intelligence about Iran during the long Iran/Iraq war of the 80's. He not only sold them military equipment and conventional weaponry but also weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological agents and needed materials and science to develop nuclear weapons. All this while fully aware of the atrocities that Hussein was committing. As a matter of fact, Reagan sent Rumsfeld to meet with Hussein on two occassions: '83 and '84. They were the best of friends.*** |
|
|
|
06/11/2004 11:00:06 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Personally, I'm mourning for the hundreds of thousands of people (common peasants) brutally murdered and tortured in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala by right wing death squads funded and trained by the US under Reagan's reign. These weren't just men, but women and children too. Terrorism at it's worst. And they were the young and old.
I'm also mourning for the countless numbers who died similar deaths and imprisonment in racist South Africa, also supported by Reagan.
|
Do you mourn for the millions killed by Ceausescu, Milosevic, Hussein, Duvalier, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, to name but a few? Or do you reserve mourning only for those whose deaths you feel justified in blaming on Republican American Presidents?...Are you going to try to somehow blame a Republican American President for that genocide?
Ron |
***Of course I mourn for all those killed and tortured brutally by those horrible dictators! And since you brought his name up, it was Ronald Reagan who fully supported Sadaam Hussein militarily, financially, and with intelligence about Iran during the long Iran/Iraq war of the 80's. He not only sold them military equipment and conventional weaponry but also weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological agents and needed materials and science to develop nuclear weapons. All this while fully aware of the atrocities that Hussein was committing. As a matter of fact, Reagan sent Rumsfeld to meet with Hussein on two occassions: '83 and '84. They were the best of friends.*** |
now THAT is some good revisionist history
|
|
|
|
06/11/2004 11:03:16 PM · #42 |
| In the end, it is the winner who writes history, reguardless of the truth. |
|
|
|
06/12/2004 02:35:07 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
***Of course I mourn for all those killed and tortured brutally by those horrible dictators! And since you brought his name up, it was Ronald Reagan who fully supported Sadaam Hussein militarily, financially, and with intelligence about Iran during the long Iran/Iraq war of the 80's. He not only sold them military equipment and conventional weaponry but also weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological agents and needed materials and science to develop nuclear weapons. All this while fully aware of the atrocities that Hussein was committing. As a matter of fact, Reagan sent Rumsfeld to meet with Hussein on two occassions: '83 and '84. They were the best of friends.*** |
...and FDR and Churchill collaborated with Stalin, what's your point? |
|
|
|
06/12/2004 12:37:40 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by thelsel:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
***Of course I mourn for all those killed and tortured brutally by those horrible dictators! And since you brought his name up, it was Ronald Reagan who fully supported Sadaam Hussein militarily, financially, and with intelligence about Iran during the long Iran/Iraq war of the 80's. He not only sold them military equipment and conventional weaponry but also weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological agents and needed materials and science to develop nuclear weapons. All this while fully aware of the atrocities that Hussein was committing. As a matter of fact, Reagan sent Rumsfeld to meet with Hussein on two occassions: '83 and '84. They were the best of friends.*** |
...and FDR and Churchill collaborated with Stalin, what's your point? |
His point was a simple rebuttal of RonB, who offered Saddam as an example of a murderer NOT abetted by a republican president. |
|
|
|
06/13/2004 03:25:15 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
His point was a simple rebuttal of RonB, who offered Saddam as an example of a murderer NOT abetted by a republican president. |
Ok, we can fill up twenty pages with Republican/Democrat tit for tat score keeping crap. But the bottom line is that Presidents (no matter what party) don't sit around dreaming up evil schemes. They do what they think is right at the time and only time will tell if they made the right decisions. |
|
|
|
06/13/2004 10:40:52 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by thelsel:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
His point was a simple rebuttal of RonB, who offered Saddam as an example of a murderer NOT abetted by a republican president. |
Ok, we can fill up twenty pages with Republican/Democrat tit for tat score keeping crap. But the bottom line is that Presidents (no matter what party) don't sit around dreaming up evil schemes. They do what they think is right at the time and only time will tell if they made the right decisions. |
Agreed.
Yet, this is what makes evil men so evil - they almost always believe that what they are doing is GOOD. That is what makes them so darned dangerous - they are attractive.
And so, our forefathers warned us to be vigilant. |
|
|
|
06/13/2004 10:42:54 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by thelsel:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
His point was a simple rebuttal of RonB, who offered Saddam as an example of a murderer NOT abetted by a republican president. |
Ok, we can fill up twenty pages with Republican/Democrat tit for tat score keeping crap. But the bottom line is that Presidents (no matter what party) don't sit around dreaming up evil schemes. They do what they think is right at the time and only time will tell if they made the right decisions. |
Point is that Ronald Reagan has a lot of blood on his hands...Hundreds of thousands brutally killed and tortured in Central America by right wing deaths squads that he and his regime actively supported; a million dead in the Persian Gulf region from arming both sides of the Iran/Iraq war; support of Osama bin Laden who killed thousands of Americans; and support for the apartheid regime in South Africa where hundreds of thousands were killed as well. Under his regime Osama bin Laden was taught that you can bring down a superpower and now that's been turned against the US. Under Reagan's regime, Sadaam Hussein was armed with weapons of mass destruction and we are now fighting a war in Iraq because of that. Far from being the greatest president of this century, the man is responsible for the death and misery of a lot of people all over the world, and the repercussions of his policies are still with us today.
Message edited by author 2004-06-13 10:44:30. |
|
|
|
06/13/2004 04:29:20 PM · #48 |
| And now, since Bill Clinton "gave" (sic) nuclear secrets to China, what do you think the world's future will be like? |
|
|
|
06/13/2004 06:22:05 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
And now, since Bill Clinton "gave" (sic) nuclear secrets to China, what do you think the world's future will be like? |
More nuclear weapon or related secrets were leaked during the 8 years of Clinton than in the entire rest of history of nuclear arms in the United States. While I don't think he ever actually OKed or knowingly turned a blind eye, I'm convinced that actions he did or didn't take led directly to them.
And then his "oh well" attitude didn't help our being viewed as a week country or a paper dragon as Osama preferred to call us.
You may hate G. Bush, but I'm glad to have a president like him or Reagan in the white house that makes other people/countries think twice about f-ing with us.
The countries that hate us, hate us for reasons I don't plan on supporting change over. On top of the fact that I won't loose a whole lot of sleep over countries like France not liking us. They didn't have a spine when it came to their own country, I don't expect them to have one when someone else needs their help.
and to go even further off-topic, there is absolutely nothing unilateral about the Iraq war!
edited for spelling :)
Message edited by author 2004-06-13 18:23:40. |
|
|
|
06/13/2004 08:12:09 PM · #50 |
I wonder how some of these discussions would evolve if we were all face to face in a pub, downing a few pints of Guinness. Would we be singing or loosing a few teeth?
Either way, when we were tired enough.....we could have another pint.
|
|
