View Full Version : Ronald Reagan 1911-2004
President Reagan dies at 93. i never voted for him, but i think he brought a little luster back to the presidency. first president to serve two full terms since IKE.
it was sad to see how long it took for him to go. R.I.P.
pscates2.0
2004-06-05, 16:45
Yes, what a horrible disease and an long, particularly emotionally-draining (for the family and friends) way to go. I'm sure, in many ways, they felt like he died long ago.
:(
Like him or not (and I do), he made his mark and was a man of vision and strong core beliefs, often saying and doing what many before - and since - can't or won't. I can't help but admire that in a person, president or otherwise.
RIP, Mr. President.
It's for the best, really. I cannot imagine what it was like for him or his family to suffer through that disease for so long... and he was such a likeable guy as well. Had to make it doubly hard to see his dapper persona fade away like that...
... also very ironic that he died on the anniversary of D-Day, being a man that was squarely in that generation. End of an era I guess. RIP, Ronny.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Naderfan
2004-06-05, 17:38
I don't think that's fair. I personally didn't agree with his politics, but from what I know, he seemed like a decent guy personally. Besides, there are very few people in life whose death should be cheered and those are people like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. I feel for his family, who had to watch him deteriorate like that. RIP Mr. President.
Yeah, I don't agree with many of his decisions as a president, but I certainly don't think it's such a wonderful thing that he died. Perhaps a slight blessing to his family who had to endure watching him deteriorate over the course of many years, but I have to agree with Naderfan. There aren't a whole lot of people who you want to die, and whose deaths should be celebrated. Reagan certainly isn't one of them.
Maybe if Bush died sometime while in the presidency I'd be happy to have him out of office (and Cheney in office? *shudder*), but as an old man it's not something to celebrate.
Please.
:no:
RR was a hypocrite of epic proportions. He pioneered the idea that style was more important than substance and issues should be ignored because he made you feel good.
Yes, his ideas and policies did win the Cold War and that shouldn't be minimized at all.
But that does not excuse his disgusting hypocrisy with respect to domestic issues. Or how much he did to destroy the Federal Government and empower the Executive in complete contradiction to his stated and unstated goals.
Like I said, good riddance to bad rubbish.
Naderfan
2004-06-05, 18:30
My point wasn't to excuse anything. I think there were some serious problems in his administration and the way he handled certain situations. However, he wasn't the embodiment of evil. He had a family and friends who cared deeply for him. He's still a person. None of us are free from hypocrisy. All I'm saying is that when a person dies, regardless of how you may feel of them, there should be a little respect. Usually you say something like good riddance when a person leaves office, not when they die.
thegelding
2004-06-05, 18:41
well, not to get into a fight but i am glad it happened now...i heard just the other day that his health (physical not mental) was going bad...my first thought was, "god, i hope he doesn't die just before the election and get sympathy voters out for bush..."
not a nice first thought...but reagan really died some time ago...what good is a body when the mind is gone??
lets guess how many times bush uses reagan's name in the next couple of months
g
pscates2.0
2004-06-05, 18:58
Man, a bigger, tackier group of cynical, coldhearted and disrespectful graceless sons of bitches, I've never seen.
:err:
I don't mean that in a bad way, you understand. I'm just sayin'...
:p :D
I guess my cynicism comes from a deep belief that not every life is sacred and it doesn't need to be celebrated. A man died. Big deal. Thousands of men, women, and children die every day and we don't take any time to reflect about their lives or their contributions. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, quite the opposite. Death is the natural end of life.
And the idea that this man's life needs to be recognized and celebrated above all others disgusts me. He was neither a man of principal nor compassion. And unlike Nixon, his destruction of the American way of life and governing did not result in a backlash, but rather enshrinement.
Be prepared for the complete rewriting of history over the course of the next few days. Once again, style completely overwhelms substance. His life was a disgrace to America and the sooner his memory is forgotten the sooner we can being healing the wounds that he opened.
pscates2.0
2004-06-05, 19:43
Lighten up before you prove my post even further. ;)
We get it...you don't dig the fella.
There are some angry people on this board.
pscates2.0
2004-06-06, 00:37
No shit. :eek:
Oh well, to be expected I guess. As much as the man was revered on the Right, he was reviled on the other side and is pretty much - next to Rush - the poster child for "Everything Wrong In The World, And Then Some".
:D
Didn't really expect such harsh statements. Well, actually I guess I kinda did. I'm never disappointed...
:(
Yes Reagan made some bad decisions in his life.
He who is without sin, cast the first stone.
My opinion of the man was much changed by his private letters that were published, they carried an eloquence and intellect that he lacked in public.
Barto
He who is without sin, cast the first stone.
Reminds me of a joke with Jesus saying the same thing to a gathered throng and then this rock hits him fair and square on the side of the head. Without looking, he rolls his eyes and groans "You can be a real pain sometimes Mum! " ;)
My opinion of the man was much changed by his private letters that were published, they carried an eloquence and intellect that he lacked in public.
Barto
What was your source for these letters Barto? Was it a published book - or a newspaper/magazine article? I think they would be an interesting read. (I've just got back into reading and lately I have been immersing myself in a few autobiographical texts and I'm enjoying them. The Regan memoirs with these published letters could be a suitable "next read"!)
The letters were published in "Reagan: A Life In Letters", many of the letters were also published by newspapers and magazines.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/074321966X/002-0245891-8270421?v=glance
Thanks Barto.
And may Reagan's soul rest in peace.
DMBand0026
2004-06-06, 02:21
I never knew the man politically, as I was to young to know about politics and the like when he was president. But from what I know of the man, he was incredible. He will be sorely missed in the world, but I guess it's for the best considering his health in recent years.
To echo the sentiments of many here:
RIP Mr. President
safe to say his life is incredibly interesting.....
i mean he was best friends with ERROL FLYNN!
pscates2.0
2004-06-06, 09:55
This is kinda funny (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121884,00.html). Well, not "haha" funny... ;)
All these public figures, praising and saying nice things. I mean, for crying out loud, even John Kerry, Tom Daschle and Ted Kennedy don't take the opportunity to say anything mean or be a dick ( :eek: ), but scroll down - making sure to read all the other comments from everyone else - and read Danny Glover's.
:err:
I've heard the phrase "sticks out like a sore thumb", but damn!
:D
I guess they had to do that for "balance". One asshole comment to offset the 20 generous ones? They might want to call HOM today and get a statement too, to help out.
:lol:
Actually, thegelding asked above how many times Bush is going to try and win points by mentioning Reagan's name. I can't help but think of the opposite scenario too: once this period of respect dies down and the man is in his grave and a little buffer time has passed, how long will it be before the OTHER side mentions his name too, but using it for a different purpose ("The legacy left by Ronald Reagan is one of [insert gloom and doom, hyperdramatic horseshit and senior/minority-scaring rhetoric here]...". Anyone thinking, in an election year, that Kerry and other prominent Democrats won't also invoke Reagan's name and legacy to make points of their own is naive, at best. Or delusional.
:)
I give it...hmmm, three weeks. Maybe sooner?
LudwigVan
2004-06-06, 11:04
This is kinda funny. Well, not "haha" funny... ;)
It's kinda funny that URL doesn't work. Better fix it, Paul. :)
pscates2.0
2004-06-06, 11:07
:D Thank you, Ludwig. I forgot to paste the URL into those [url=] tags. Oops. It's fixed now!
And here I thought I was going to stay out of this thread, but I get called out by name. So here I am. ;)
This is kinda funny (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121884,00.html). Well, not "haha" funny... ;)
All these public figures, praising and saying nice things. I mean, for crying out loud, even John Kerry, Tom Daschle and Ted Kennedy don't take the opportunity to say anything mean or be a dick ( :eek: ), but scroll down - making sure to read all the other comments from everyone else - and read Danny Glover's.
:err:
I've heard the phrase "sticks out like a sore thumb", but damn!
:D
Those weren't the issues that I would have talked about. It's unfortunate that Danny Glover thought it best to use this opportunity to push an anti-war agenda.
:grumble:
Then again, I'm sure the liberal elite Hollywood scum will ensure that he gets plenty of work now.
:lol:
I guess they had to do that for "balance". One asshole comment to offset the 20 generous ones? They might want to call HOM today and get a statement too, to help out.
:lol:
Just keeping us fair and balanced.
;)
Actually, thegelding asked above how many times Bush is going to try and win points by mentioning Reagan's name. I can't help but think of the opposite scenario too: once this period of respect dies down and the man is in his grave and a little buffer time has passed, how long will it be before the OTHER side mentions his name too, but using it for a different purpose ("The legacy left by Ronald Reagan is one of [insert gloom and doom, hyperdramatic horseshit and senior/minority-scaring rhetoric here]...". Anyone thinking, in an election year, that Kerry and other prominent Democrats won't also invoke Reagan's name and legacy to make points of their own is naive, at best. Or delusional.
:)
I give it...hmmm, three weeks. Maybe sooner?
It's really unlikely that the Democrats will do anything to demonize RR. RR is and was deeply loved by a lot of Americans, especially those that vote. To be precise I'm talking about "Reagan Democrats". White, blue collar, hard working, and heads of family. Economically they were tied to the Democrats, but Reagan's charm, optimism, and cries of American Work EthicÈ brought them firmly into the GOP's voter rolls. These people are now the 55 year old unemployed workers in the industrial Mid-West who've seen their jobs shipped to Mexico or China. Going after Reagan would be political suicide for Kerry or the Democrats.
In the same vein, Reagan is a Saint to Republicans. If there were a concerted effort to shed light on his real record, you could expect massive GOP turn out.
No, the best way for Democrats to deal with RR's death is to make some hollow statement about what a great leader he was and how he won the cold war. Then move on.
pscates2.0
2004-06-06, 12:02
It's really unlikely that the Democrats will do anything to demonize RR..
:lol: :no:
Oh no, of COURSE not. How silly...they would never do that at all. The previous 20-plus years of insults, character assassination, mockery, derision, venom, ridicule, name-calling, etc. has all just been figments of our collective imagination? I'm sure all that stops immediately, and all is forgiven.
You're completely off your rocker.
:)
RR is and was deeply loved by a lot of Americans, especially those that vote. To be precise I'm talking about "Reagan Democrats".
Uh, I hate to bother you...but look around. Those ain't the kind of Democrats currently representing the party, acting as its figureheads, setting the agenda and tone, etc.
No, the best way for Democrats to deal with RR's death is to make some hollow statement about what a great leader he was and how he won the cold war. Then move on.
I agree 100%. They're fucked, either way: they either have to sit on their hands and bite their tongues and "play nice" OR turn loose and show everyone what vicious, petty turds they can be.
For their own good-standing, appearances and PR, they should opt for the former, for the exact reasons you state: not every rank-and-file, everyday Democrat is an ultra-left, venomous wingnut (I'd wager most aren't) and they'd run the risk of making a mess of their own backyard. Which they probably don't need to be doing right now.
:)
You're completely off your rocker.
:)
Couldn't agree more.
:D
Lee Ho Fook
2004-06-06, 19:52
I'm a little disappointed that people believe that you shouldn't be honest when speaking about someone simply because they've passed on. I don't think anyone here is simply trying to be mean or crude, just honest about a touchy subject.
I think this is a moment when the old saying "if you can't find anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" should be observed, if not for respect of the fallen, for respect of the mourners.
/me doesn'tsayanything
Along those lines above, I just finished reading an autobiography about a prominent radio journalist (best known in Melbourne) who found himself in "hot water" last year after he commented about the marital status of a well known sports identity - which until that point in time had not been publicised - on the day of said sports star's funeral.
The radio journalists's credo was: "All that history owes the dead is the truth" and after uncovering details about this situation - which many other journalists had known about, but kept quiet - he decided to go public with it. Obviously it affected a lot of people, not the least the family of the deceased... and he copped heaps for coming forward with it. But, at least he was honest and not bowing to some "unwritten credo" or "peer pressure" to suppress the information.
I'm not saying anything here or there with respect to RR, as I do not know enough about the significant issues during his presidency. However, it is a fair wager that there will be positive and negative recollections of his years in office. I think that they should come out - not in a vindictive or sycophantic way, but they should be aired nonetheless.
caveat: Of course honesty or interpretation of a public event can make the truth difficult to define exactly. To see what I mean, try this experiment:
Lift your palm in front of your face and describe in detail what you see.
Now have somebody sitting in front of you describe what they see.
You may have fingerprints, palm lines, crevices where the knuckle joints are, soft fleshy mounds - whilst your friend may list wisps of hair, fingernails, cuticles, knuckles.
They both describe the exact same hand - only the perspective is different.
Food for thought at least.
Naderfan
2004-06-06, 22:18
I agree that it is necessary to speak the truth, I just think you can wait a week or so after the death of someone. It's not like people haven't already been discussing Reagan and his flaws and whatnot before. I think in general though, people feel that you shouldn't bring up the bad in a person immediately after receiving word of their death. And that should be the case whether the person is famous or not. Just my opinion.
Mac+, the question was whether it served any purpose for Derryn Hinch to sling mud at David Hookes after his death. It was not necessary to PUBLICISE the affair, it served no purpose other than give Hinch publicity and further hurt Hookes' family. It was the wrong thing to do at the wrong time.
That's not to say that Reagan's sins should all be forgiven, indeed there may be a public interest in revisiting some of the unwise decisions the man made. Unlike some people here I DON'T believe that when someone dies we should pretend they were an entirely good person. However, I believe Reagan had some genuine humanity in him that should be missed.
Barto
Barto - wouldn't entirely agree with the phrase slinging mud... the guy was estranged from his wife - big deal :shrugs: As for Hinch's timing - well, that was poor form... but at least he made a journalstic call to present the truth. I have no doubt that it served his ratings well (and I'm not impressed by his timing in this respect), but I also think that it is hypocritcical of those with knowledge of facts (his radio colleagues for starters) within the media to suppress them because they don't want to sully the reputation of a friend. To this day there are some papers which have not made mention of the fact - choosing to pretend it did not exsit. I would say the topic was fair game, but it was presented at the wrong time. As Naderfan pointed out - waiting a week or so to divulge all truths would, perhaps, have been more ideal.
As for remebering Reagan, I agree with you. We should not feign deity status upon him, purely because he was a past president. (OK - that's painting it pretty thick... I just mean to get across that all of us have good and bad traits - nobody is perfect.)
Despite his errors (and success) whilst in government, I too believe (with my limited knowledge of the man) that he was a man of conscience, with good qualities as well, which also deserve to be remembered.
Lee Ho Fook
2004-06-07, 19:22
That's not to say that Reagan's sins should all be forgiven, indeed there may be a public interest in revisiting some of the unwise decisions the man made. Unlike some people here I DON'T believe that when someone dies we should pretend they were an entirely good person.
I think it's important to be honest in a forum such as this. People have come here to share their thoughts and read the thoughts of other people. It's one thing to go truly public with information, or to seek out people that aren't looking for the information, but it's another to contribute in a place where people are proactively exchanging ideas on the subject at hand.
windowsblowsass
2004-06-11, 00:11
"i will not make age an issue of this campaign, i am not going to exploit for political purposes my oppenets youth and inexperience"
president ronald reagan
rest in peace ron
Former Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney just finished a very thoughtful and touching eulogy for Reagan. I was very impressed by it, frankly. Bush the first is speaking now, which explains why I'm here and not in front of the television.
"i will not make age an issue of this campaign, i am not going to exploit for political purposes my oppenets youth and inexperience"
president ronald reagan
rest in peace ron
Quagmire, you weren't alive when Reagan was POTUS.
Ok, how about this. You write a two page essay on why Reagan was a good POTUS. Post it here so we can see why you like him. Sound ok to you Quagmire?
"i will not make age an issue of this campaign, i am not going to exploit for political purposes my oppenets youth and inexperience"
president ronald reagan
rest in peace ron
shut up, you can't even quote someone properly. stupid f*ck.
it's nice to see everyone who showed up. 'a' list for sure.
i haven't seen margaret thatcher, is she there? she is still alive, yes?
president bush isn't doing so bad, some funny anecdotes, but he needs to pick up his pace a bit.
Thatcher is still alive, but has a hard time speaking because of the strokes which she has suffered. The speech she gave was taped over a year ago, evidently, but I thought it was very good. She's a strong woman... as is Nancy. Can't imagine the hard times that woman has endured over the last decade....
A-list for sure, but who decided to put Clinton in front? Mistake. Practically looked asleep during the eulogies. I think it should simply be seniority. Ford, Carter and Bush the first behind the Reagans, then Clinton, Bush the second and their right hand men (Chenney, Powell, etc.) in the rear.
Thatcher is still alive, but has a hard time speaking because of the strokes which she has suffered. The speach she gave was taped over a year ago, evidently, but I thought it was very good.
A-list for sure, but who decided to put Clinton in front? Mistake. Practically looked asleep during the eulogies. I think it should simply be seniority. Ford, Carter and Bush the first behind the Reagans, then Clinton, Bush the second and their right hand men (Chenney, Powell, etc.) in the rear.
i think there is a protocol to state funerals. makes for strange bedfellows eh? it's nice to politics set aside if only by protocol.
p.s. i still think patti davis is a babe, but the whole reagan family looks haggard, this must have really been an ordeal. and they still have to go back to california for burial.
thanks for the thatcher update. those two, (Thatcher & Reagan) were the beginning of this intense blissful relationship the u.s. and u.k. now enjoy.
Reagan.......
A lot of people on the right may want to paint a picture of Reagan walking on water--and he didn't. But he did take some steps with the tax structure that were major moves in a modern understanding of diminishing returns when you consider policy in progressive tax structures. He also built up the military in a coup de grace of communism. Yes, the deficits---but if he had gotten what he wanted (over Tip O'Neil's dead body) things would have been a bit different.
He did this in the midst of all the hate speech that the effete snobs of the Alphabet networks could throw at him. Not a leg to stand on in the press except for the newsletter media; and he still pulled a great deal of what he wanted through---despite Tip O'Neil and the pillow-over-the-face approach of the alphabet networks. Had Reagan had the internet, he would have been unstoppable.
I dunno. In reality, maybe the most telling thing about Reagan was seeing Thatcher, Gorbachev, and Walesa pay their respects---I'm pretty cynical about the cult of personality, but those three alone seem pretty fu*king real.
Quagmire, you weren't alive when Reagan was POTUS.
Ok, how about this. You write a two page essay on why Reagan was a good POTUS. Post it here so we can see why you like him. Sound ok to you Quagmire?
HOM - I know you know this now, but just for everyone else's sake (not the least, poor old wba): wba is not quaggie. He may post like "the poster formally known as quagmire" but it ain't him. Let's cut the kid some slack. :\
HOM - I know you know this now, but just for everyone else's sake (not the least, poor old wba): wba is not quaggie. He may post like "the poster formally known as quagmire" but it ain't him. Let's cut the kid some slack. :\
I know. When I posted that I had not heard from Luca or LoCash yet for a definitive answer. I didn't edit, because I don't feel the need to pretend that I didn't make an uninformed post.
dmz, surprisingly good post. I don't agree with a lot of it, but it was a nice read and a great change of pace from your .com AO posts. :)
dmz, surprisingly good post. I don't agree with a lot of it, but it was a nice read and a great change of pace from your .com AO posts. :)
blame it on the Benadryl ;)
Wow political arguments here are much nicer than the evil ai.com. ;) RIP Pres Reagan. My grandfather began showed symptoms of Alzheimer's the last couple years of his life and at the end there was a sense of relief. I'm sure Reagan's family felt the same. It's hard to see someone deteriorate like that.
So what was up with that minister doing the Julia Childs voice for Margaret Thatcher? Did that make anyone else cringe? :wow:
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.