0
   

Ronald Reagan Has Died at 93

 
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2004 09:00 am
The media is schizophrenic. One commentator compared this to a nation coming together unprecedented since 9/ll. As much as I am respectful of anyone's family having to go through a funeral we all have to suffer such losses and it's unlikely we will have it exploited by journalists with agendas. If this could truly bring the country together, I don't see it happening under the current stewardship.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2004 12:33 pm
roverroad wrote:
I really wish people would hurry up and get over him. It's embarrassing to me that our country is lingering on this for almost a week. Now tomorrow is supposed to be a national day of mourning. I can't take much more of this...


Now that we know how embarrassed you are, we'll be sure to speed the thing up. Wouldn't want to annoy you and Buffy after all.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2004 12:35 pm
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
roverroad wrote:
I really wish people would hurry up and get over him. It's embarrassing to me that our country is lingering on this for almost a week. Now tomorrow is supposed to be a national day of mourning. I can't take much more of this...


Now that we know how embarrassed you are, we'll be sure to speed the thing up. Wouldn't want to annoy you and Buffy after all.


How typically considerate of you, you self sacrificing guy you.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2004 12:48 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
roverroad wrote:
I really wish people would hurry up and get over him. It's embarrassing to me that our country is lingering on this for almost a week. Now tomorrow is supposed to be a national day of mourning. I can't take much more of this...


Now that we know how embarrassed you are, we'll be sure to speed the thing up. Wouldn't want to annoy you and Buffy after all.


How typically considerate of you, you self sacrificing guy you.


Would this be an example of Irony or Pot/Kettle?
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2004 12:50 pm
Sometimes the courtesy and decorum around here overwhelms me...sniff... Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2004 01:02 pm
Yes, I have a tear in my eye but actually, I think that's allergies.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2004 02:54 pm
Tim Russert last night on Larry King:

Quote:
RUSSERT: One other political point: The Republicans achieved control of the United States Congress for the first time in 70 years, of both houses, under Ronald Reagan.


Look, I'm fine with the Peggy Noonan footworshipping. I'm fine with all the "Reagan destroyed the Soviet Union singlehandedly" nonsense. I'm fine with all of these types of things because they're opinions. Some are silly opinions, and there should be some balance to them, but they are still opinions.

What I'm not fine with is all the factual errors that creep into the coverage by supposedly "unbiased" reporters.

The House and Senate did not both come under Republican rule during Reagan's time.

The Berlin Wall did not come down when Reagan was in office.

Reagan is not the president who left office with the highest approval rating in modern times.

Reagan was not "the most popular president ever."

Reagan did not preside over the longest economic expansion in history.

Reagan did not shrink the size of government.

Reagan did preside over what was at the time the "biggest tax cut in history" but it was followed up with the "biggest tax increase in history."

Reagan was not "beloved by all." He was loved by some, liked by some, and hated by some with good reason.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2004 03:04 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
roverroad wrote:
I really wish people would hurry up and get over him. It's embarrassing to me that our country is lingering on this for almost a week. Now tomorrow is supposed to be a national day of mourning. I can't take much more of this...


Now that we know how embarrassed you are, we'll be sure to speed the thing up. Wouldn't want to annoy you and Buffy after all.


How typically considerate of you, you self sacrificing guy you.


Would this be an example of Irony or Pot/Kettle?


try sarcasm...don't speak up if you can't keep up.....
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2004 09:58 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
How typically considerate of you, you self sacrificing guy you.


Anything for my friends on The Left.
0 Replies
 
buffytheslayer
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2004 12:36 pm
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
roverroad wrote:
I really wish people would hurry up and get over him. It's embarrassing to me that our country is lingering on this for almost a week. Now tomorrow is supposed to be a national day of mourning. I can't take much more of this...


Now that we know how embarrassed you are, we'll be sure to speed the thing up. Wouldn't want to annoy you and Buffy after all.

That's clever of you to take my post out of context and ignore key points. I have not been annoyed at all with the weeklong period of mourning and already stated that while I otherwise tried to avoid the TV because of wall to wall 24 hr coverage - excessive and unnecessary in my opinion - I most certainly watched the service at the Rotunda, the service at the National Cathedral, and I also watched the private service in Simi Valley later on Friday. I found all services to be respectful and oftentimes moving, and will repeat that I believe Reagan deserved the state funeral.

But the man does not wear a halo, he was not God, he was human. With flaws and failures and imperfections. My concern with the exaggeration of his place in our society - Mt Rushmore, money, coins, etc - is more a statement about our society's inability to live in moderation and reality than about the man himself. Nancy is not asking for - or agrees with - any of these things. The media was excessive because that's what media is now, they no longer know restraint.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2004 05:35 pm
Interesting take:

Quote:
Many have argued--in recent days and in recent years--that George W. Bush is Reagan's ideological heir. But Reagan's closest ideological heir is not the current president of the United States; he is the current governor of California.


Daily Express: Heir Pollution

Lemme know if you cant access this - dunno if its just for subscribers or free. If you cant, I'll copy/paste it here.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2004 06:42 pm
No way on Arnold being Reagan's ideological heir. Don't even need to look at the link. Anyone who was a close Reagan watcher would know.

Arnold may be an actor--no ideology there.

Reagan was more like Rumsfeld and Bush.

He was REALLY against gays coming out of the closet--so to speak--and into the mainstream. Arnold is far too liberal on many issues to be called a Reaganite--though he was fond of Reagan.

Of course, they were both married to women decidedly to their left.

(I will click on to the link now, though.)
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2004 06:52 pm
I didn't think the article even gave a close swipe at ideology--but mores of Californians and the self-made aspect.

It is erroneous that Reagan kept his beliefs to himself. God was all over him, and his policies. In the light of Reagan's death, it seems the left is re-acquainted with Reagan's Christianity--and see that Bush has only done the same thing Reagan did with his beliefs. They are reminded of Reagan's incredible popularity--and obviously see the desperate need to separate Reagan from his beliefs--in an effort to make Bush's similar behavior and rhetoric seem unlike Reagan's.

Good or bad, popular or not, Bush is the closest person to Reagan ideologically, whether Reagan, Jr likes it or not. One only needs to google Reagan's speeches to prove it.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2004 06:59 pm
No dog in that fight - I didnt/dont like either Razz
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2004 07:00 pm
damn sofia, now I going to have to google search speech writers for Reagan and Bush and find the connections.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2004 07:13 pm
Bush and Co. aren't subtle in trying to emulating Reagan but he was a good practitioner of soft power even with his own staff and the liberal legislature. Would be Bush knew how to do it but he doesn't.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2004 07:26 pm
I've often wondered if Bush had spoken less confrontationally to the UN--if he may have had a different result.

If he had stayed on the Resolution Saddam had not met--and not pursued the unprovable WMDs...

He did try--but his rhetoric was so harsh.

Of course, he saw the 'evil empire' rhetoric had worked so well for Reagan...

One thing -- I think it DOES matter how you say a thing, though it probably shouldn't.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2004 08:02 pm
Powell was on Russert again today apologizing for the faulty intelligence including the most recent revelations. I can't imagine Bush not losing sleep over what providence has to offer in the not-to-distant future with Iraq. I read that he likes to be in control and with Iraq, control is an abstraction.
0 Replies
 
buffytheslayer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2004 09:42 pm
I don't agree Reagan's speeches are anything like Bush IIs. From a delivery perspective, they're entirely different. The delivery, the cadence. Bush II speeches give the impression they are written on 1st grader tablets with a solid line a dotted line a solid line where you practice your cursive, etc. Bush II speeches are written in short choppy 8-10 mostly small word sentences. And that's just from a mechanical perspective.

From an ideology perspective, Reagan was not a unilateralist. He believed in engaging both his allies and his enemies. Reagan's speeches were also more direct when they needed to be. Most of Bush II speeches are so nebulous and vague in nature, he could really be talking about anything. Just change the subject and leave all the adjectives the same.

As far as I'm concerned, last week's plethura of all things Reagan reminded the real Republicans - not to be confused with the neocons - what a diverging path this admin has taken from the core RNC beliefs. Oh, and what an empty suit puppethead Bush II is.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 02:56 am
Although Reagan did not reach many of his goals he will still remain as one of the most important Presidents since Harry Truman. Ford and Carter didn't repair the damage done to the Presidency inflicted on us by Nixon. Reagan did. Americans had lost confidence in their leaders and Reagan, whether one agrees with all his policies or not (and I don't), restored much of that confidence. Supply side economics (or "voodoo economics" which was coined by Bush I) is, at best, a creaky machine that can break down with the slightest mistake in maintenance making it a very dubious principal.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/07/2022 at 03:20:05