OT: Discussion of Reagan's legacy

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:18 pm

I didn't dance on any graves or take relish in his demise. If this thread were purely about condolences, you wouldn't have had these claims about his accomplishments. So it was already a thread about his legacy by the time I posted. I just pointed out the other side of the picture.

Talk about partisanship, it's okay to say how great it was, but if you say he wasn't so great, then it's being insensitive and not showing respect. Just like it's unpatriotic to criticize a president or disagree with him when the country is at war?

That's what dissent has become in this country. You can't say anything about despicable actions by politicians because the time isn't right for it, either because of some sense of decorum or because the country is at war. Meanwhile, saying positive things about those same actions, which is a political expression, is completely within bounds of good taste.

Rather than debate about Reagan's supposed accomplishments or Clinton's or anyone else's, I'll simply register my disagreement with what's been said here.

Blublub · Post by **Blublub** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:27 pm

For the love of God, can you guys take this crap somewhere else, like to the Rush Limbaugh forums?

There's plenty of other places to pay tribute to Ronnie. In fact, come to DC - looks like he'll be lying in state here pretty much all week. Hey, at least we're certain to get some days off work, thousands on the taxpayers' dime.

In fact, I'm fairly sure you can spend the rest of your life in perpetual tribute. I'm half surprised yahoos in Congress haven't proposed leveling the Lincoln Memorial to make way for the "Eternal Resting Place of The Great Communicator." Apparently they're going to reintroduce that move to take Roosevelt off the nickel, seriously.

I'm sorry, but to accuse people who are mildly critical of "spitting on graves" and try to silence any criticism of his term is, well, strangely appropriate I guess. I agree with what someone said about the crap of it being "a more civil time." That's BS, it was every bit as nasty as it is now. Watergate pretty much put an end to civility, I think.

DS was once one of the last safe havens from ideological sniping - let's get back to kicking each others' butts in NCAA online, before this turns into another SR. Please.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:29 pm

Parker wrote:Sorry, but I find it more useful to look to the future rather than argue about who ended a conflict 15 years ago.

If Kerry can do only what Clinton did, which was to prevent a superpower from becoming the world's no 1. target in a matter of 4 years, then we should all be happy. Before, only terrorist groups hated us (which is going to happen when you are a powerful nation), now terrorist groups hate us even more with the added bonus of our allies not really giving a damn what happens to us.

Invading Iraq has hardly made the US safer, it has had the opposite effect by alienating much of the world. But if you can't see the value in not being isolated from any allies, then I guess there is no point arguing with you.

True, North Korea likely wouldn't be entirely like the cold war with the Soviets. However, you can't ignore the similarities. While a smaller country, North Korea has a formidable army. The economy is collapsing like the Soviet Union was about to. Most importantly, the conflict likely would involve little fighting but the constant threat of a nuclear attack. I really don't want to have Bush in charge when there are nukes involved.

This may come as a shock to some, but I agree with Parker wholeheartedly here.

Take care,
PK

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:32 pm

>>>DS was once one of the last safe havens from ideological sniping - let's get back to kicking each others' butts in NCAA online, before this turns into another SR. Please.<<<

Blub:

And these lines from you were Mother Goose nursery rhymes?

"Sorry if I'm not exactly all teary-eyed, having had to deal most of my adult life with idiotic Reagan policies or his legacy."

"I'd argue the body was cold already back in 1985."

Blub, you're being a hypocrite. You launched the first salvo of ideological sniping in this post, but now you're calling for a return to talk about NCAA? You're entitled to your opinion, but the way in which you presented it was sniping, plain and simple. I'm a sniper at times, too, but at least I admit it.

Spare me the phony idealism, please.

And take it to the Rush Limbaugh forum? I think you'll find that most posters in here are anti-Bush and anti-Republican, including me. But I'm also not so much of an ideologue to where I can't be objective about people's accomplishments regardless of their position in the political aisle.

Take care,
PK

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:36 pm

Parker wrote: I really don't want to have Bush in charge when there are nukes involved.

I wouldnt want Bush or Kerry in charge if nukes are involved .
The thought of either of these bozos with a finger on the button is very frightening.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:51 pm

About the New Deal, it may not have pulled the country out of the Depression but it may have prevented it from falling into other Depressions. Programs like unemployment insurance and deposit insurance smooth out the troughs of the business cycle and prevent deeper descents and the kind of panic which triggered the Great Depression.

Clinton wasn't responsible for the tech boom which drove the '90s boom. He did recognize the importance of high tech fairly early on, visiting Silicon Valley early and often and aligning himself with leaders in the industry.

What might be shocking to PK's Libertarian sensibilities is that the tech boom was ignited by the Internet, which came about because of a govt. program.

Beyond that, at least Clinton turned around hundreds of billions in deficits into surpluses. And if he didn't face down Newt and made Gingerich flinch, we might be in greater fiscal mess than we are now, and the boom, particularly in the mid and late '90s, may have been greatly dampened, if it happened at all.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:11 pm

bdoughty wrote:
As for his involvement in the Cold War, only time will tell as to what really caused the down fall of the Soviet Union and the Cold War. It is very much being in the right place at the right time. Both men, Reagon and Gorbachov created the atmonsphere that would end the Cold War but let's not go overboard as some conservatives will say and claim the Reagon was the sole reason.

Reagen was a different breed of conservative. He was a conservative republican.

Yea I am sure anyone with the last name of Reagon, Reagen are thrilled to be included in your post and know the were in the right place at the tight time.

I know people hate spelling lessons but he was your President for 8 years, "no matter if you were a democrat, republican or other party".

REAGAN...

oh and it is also Gorbachev

Spell this BD,

F U.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:12 pm

In fact, I'm fairly sure you can spend the rest of your life in perpetual tribute. I'm half surprised yahoos in Congress haven't proposed leveling the Lincoln Memorial to make way for the "Eternal Resting Place of The Great Communicator." Apparently they're going to reintroduce that move to take Roosevelt off the nickel, seriously.

DS was once one of the last safe havens from ideological sniping - let's get back to kicking each others' butts in NCAA online, before this turns into another SR. Please.

Ahh I see the sniping ends after you got a few final shots in.

I doubt that Cincy kid created this thread with the intention of it turning into political thread. Just a simple RIP to a president who passed away. I guess I am simple minded seeing it that way and keeping it as such. I think there is a time and a place for everything and right after a mans death is not the time to start the negative attacks, but that is just how I was raised. Which is probably why I avoided these political posts at OS. Oddly enough a little birdie PM'ed me that political and religious discussions have been banned at OS. Gee I wonder why.

I do agree in moving back on to sports discussion and will do just that.

Spell this BD,

F U.

Yep that's me.... A hardass on spelling.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:27 pm

pk500 wrote:>>>DS was once one of the last safe havens from ideological sniping - let's get back to kicking each others' butts in NCAA online, before this turns into another SR. Please.<<<

Blub:

And these lines from you were Mother Goose nursery rhymes?

"Sorry if I'm not exactly all teary-eyed, having had to deal most of my adult life with idiotic Reagan policies or his legacy."

"I'd argue the body was cold already back in 1985."

Blub, you're being a hypocrite. You launched the first salvo of ideological sniping in this post, but now you're calling for a return to talk about NCAA? You're entitled to your opinion, but the way in which you presented it was sniping, plain and simple. I'm a sniper at times, too, but at least I admit it.

Spare me the phony idealism, please.

And take it to the Rush Limbaugh forum? I think you'll find that most posters in here are anti-Bush and anti-Republican, including me. But I'm also not so much of an ideologue to where I can't be objective about people's accomplishments regardless of their position in the political aisle.

Take care,
PK

Tomorrow I'm going to try calling someone a "bozo" and see if they take it as being "mildly critical."

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 5:32 pm

>>>Beyond that, at least Clinton turned around hundreds of billions in deficits into surpluses.<<<

Beyond what? What more to the Clinton economic turnaround was there besides the tech boom and the overheated rise of the stock market? To be fair, NAFTA, I guess.

Take care,
PK

blueduke · Post by **blueduke** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 5:44 pm

Lets not forget how swell the Contras were. They raped, tortured and killed civilians, probably tens of thousands of them. In other words, they unleashed terrorism on a defenseless population. But nobody in this country seems to consider Contras terrorists -- maybe because their victims were

Where in the hell were you during this time????? The Contras fought against the communist funded Sandanistas. Once free elections were implemented every single sandnista official was voted out of power. You sure you aren't reciting from the Hollywood left's babblings? And to say the USSR would have imploded anyway is the dumbest thing I ever heard.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 6:12 pm

blueduke wrote:
Lets not forget how swell the Contras were. They raped, tortured and killed civilians, probably tens of thousands of them. In other words, they unleashed terrorism on a defenseless population. But nobody in this country seems to consider Contras terrorists -- maybe because their victims were
Where in the hell were you during this time????? The Contras fought against the communist funded Sandanistas. Once free elections were implemented every single sandnista official was voted out of power. You sure you aren't reciting from the Hollywood left's babblings? And to say the USSR would have imploded anyway is the dumbest thing I ever heard.

Hey Ollie North, try reading up a little on Central American history before you regurgitate the kind of crap you read on townhall.com. The Sandinistas were certainly not sunshine and lollypops, but they were light years ahead of the Somoza regime that preceded them and the criminal Contras that were comprised of elements of that regime. The Contras were actually smuggling drugs into the US (with Ollie's knowledge) during that conflict.

But I agree, when a president passes, show some respect. I disagreed a lot with Reagan's approach, but there is no question he made the US feel confident in itself again at a time when the nation seemed very directionless. I think he helped us recover from the post-Watergate era where the nation felt very distrustful of the government and especially the White House.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 6:28 pm

This is why I enjoy political threads.
Everyone spins everything.
No one ever wins.
Every one gets angry.

Poltics suck my arse.

Go Indy Car Series 2005, Driver 3 and NCAA 2005 my next 3 games.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 6:52 pm

>>>And to say the USSR would have imploded anyway is the dumbest thing I ever heard.<<<

No, not really, Blue. No communist economy has been prosperous for a long time without the assistance of a father state (i.e., the Soviet Union giving aid to Cuba and the Eastern Bloc nations) or the injection of foreign capitalist elements (i.e., current China and to a lesser extent, Vietnam). The economies of North Korea and Cuba, two communist countries which won't or can't accept much aid from Western powers, are an absolute shambles.

The USSR was heading toward an end economically, Reagan or no Reagan. It had spent itself into submission economically due to the arms race.

But I give Reagan credit for walking a brilliant tightrope with the Eastern Bloc of being a hardliner yet still using diplomacy rather than bombs to achieve the aim of helping to topple the U.S.' biggest enemy at the time.

Reagan always put America first, but he also understood the global implications of his foreign policy. Bush does not understand ANY of the worldwide implications of his foreign policy and also doesn't appear to care.

That's the big difference between the two men, and it's why even though I disagree many of both men's policies, I have a lot more respect for Reagan than Bush.

Take care,
PK

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 7:10 pm

George Will has a good article in Newsweek about Reagan.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5146340/site/newsweek/

On the subject of North Korea, I think the biggest difference is that NK's leader is a paranoid madman, which Gorbey was not. There is also the fact that NK can't nuke the U.S., and it has only limited capabilities that it can use against its neighbors. This was not the case with the U.S.S.R. NK also is not waging a worldwide idealogical war; right now, its leaders' one desire is to be able to stay in power (which is why they are trying to blackmail the U.S. into aid deals, to stave off revolution).

blueduke · Post by **blueduke** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 8:02 pm

.

Hey Ollie North, try reading up a little on Central American history before you regurgitate the kind of crap you read on townhall.com.

Perhaps you should my leftist friend. The Sandanistas were socialists through and through. They were the torturers and rapists. Revisionism doesn't become you. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/ep ... obalvarro/

[We didn't like the] systems which the Sandinista government implanted in Nicaragua, such as the control of private property, the political persecution of all those who didn't identify with the Sandinista regime, who didn't say "I'm a Sandinista." All this forced many Nicaraguans to fight against the Sandinistas, because, first of all, we weren't prepared to give up what was ours, our property. The Sandinistas came and confiscated our properties. All those who didn't agree with the Sandinista policies were subjected to confiscations and imprisonment, and their lives were threatened. Many were murdered just for disagreeing with the Sandinista Front. This sort of thing turned many Nicaraguan peasants against the Sandinistas and made them decide to fight [against them] militarily.----Oscar Manuel Sobalvarro

The Sandinistas were certainly not sunshine and lollypops,

No sh!t

At the beginning of their government, the Sandinista Front promoted a literacy campaign, and this program included first and foremost the education of adults in the rural areas. And they sent student brigades to the mountains. These brigades included foreigners who were appointed coordinators of the groups. One of these coordinators came to our house, and this person turned out to be a Soviet, and in his speech he said that God didn't exist, that God was Fidel Castro, and that it was necessary to serve Fidel Castro; that the government of Nicaragua was at the disposal of Fidel Castro, and that it was necessary to serve the government, and all this kind of thing -- which we the Nicaraguans weren't used to, because we've been very Catholic, especially my family. And I would say the Nicaraguans in general are very Catholic. And for someone to suddenly turn up and tell us that God doesn't exist really started putting a lot of doubts in our minds

Yeah those "criminals" wanted free elections and got them and the citizens voted a dictator out of power. Thanks for playing though

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 9:26 pm

Leftist? WTF is this 1966?

The Somozas were the worst 20th Century leaders of Latin America after Fidel Castro. Both were brutal, brutal dictators, supported by the US. The Sandinistas originally fought to overthrow that. Then they themselves became oppressive as well. But many of the Contras weren't fighting for freedom, they were old Somoza loyalists looking to get back into power.

Anyway, I just watched the 60 Minutes retrospective on Reagan, and it really hightlighted how charismatic he was. He was kind of like a conservative version of JFK in that regard.

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 9:32 pm

XXXIV wrote:This is why I enjoy political threads.
Everyone spins everything.
No one ever wins.
Every one gets angry.
Poltics suck my arse.

Pretty much sums up how I feel about political threads. They become too emotional and subjective and typically end up getting very personal and ugly...

Carry on without me....

Post by **Jared** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:22 am

Blublub wrote:I'd argue the body was cold already back in 1985.

No denying his popularity, though. And given dubyah's problems in the polls, my theory is that Cheney went out there and pulled the plug on the old guy for maximum electoral impact.

Class? Give me a break, like you guys wouldn't be doing the same when Clinton goes. Ooo, better yet, Hilary. For the love of God, the guy has been a vegetable for years, it's not like this comes as a huge shock. You've already named a building in every goddamned county in the country...that was classy...

Blub,

Some people will probably agree with your political views on him...but it was harsh to go after him right after he died. When Nixon died people focused a lot on the good things that he did as president, even though he was more well known for the ignominious way he left office. It's just a matter of respect for the man that died. The fact that you went straigth for the jugular is what's pissed people off. I can understand your feelings, but there are MUCH better ways to express them.

bdoughty wrote:The "bozo you refer to" also left office with the highest approval ratings of any departing president since FDR.

Actually, it's 2nd highest. Clinton went out at 66%, Reagan at 63% (according to Gallup).

http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files ... age001.gif

bdoughty wrote:Great just what any thread regarding a man death needs. A post by WCO. One that simply ignores the fact that the man dies less then 24 hours ago and goes on rant off about all the evil things Reagan did. Hell you hijacked the Pat Tillman thread and you just had to do it here.

Actually, I think he should be able to post things like this. WCO has a right to disagree with what others say in the post about Reagan. True, he did lots of good things for the country, but in the opinions of some/many he did some bad things as well.

I think that it's fine if people express their opinions about Reagan, and would be great if they did it respectfully. However, there's been a lack of respect on both sides in this thread. Blub started it off poorly. Blueduke didn't make things better.

blueduke wrote:Yap some more my little liberal friend. On second thought, don't. You're doing nothing more than regurgitating leftist nonsense from the mouths of morons such as Steisand, Penn, Carville, and others whom you've read or heard.

And then on it goes.....

I think it's VERY important to discuss opinions on Reagan. Just because he died doesn't mean that every single comment about him should be 100% positive and gloss over negative points in his administration. However, people need to show respect here. Not just respect for Reagan, but also respect for each other in the tone used and the way we address each other. It's difficult, especially with Reagan since he was in some senses a polarizing figure. But if we show respect for the truth and each others viewpoints, we might be able to see some new things and go past ideology here. People that didn't like Reagan maybe acknowledge that he opened up to Gorbachev and helped create nuclear detente. People that think Reagan can do no wrong can think about the effect that Iran-Contra had on our nation.

But the only way we're gonna be able to do this is by respecting each other's opinions. So I'm not locking this thread, as long as people can discuss points truthfully, honestly, and with respect for both Reagan and each other.

ProvoAnC · Post by **ProvoAnC** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 3:28 am

I look at this thing from the point of the Secret Service...you protect the office of the President, no matter who the pres is. I can't stand Gore, but I have a pic of him and I shaking hands when he was VP. When ppl come over and see it, of course they start in "oh you have a pic with Gore, you shoulda punched him instead of shaking hands." Followed by my reply of, "where's your pic with the VP...any VP?" Shaking hands with the VP of the US was definitley a high point in my life. I can't stand Clinton, but I am extremely proud of the work he did in N. Ireland to bring peace there. Presidents aren't perfect, they're people, just like all of us. They f*** up too...of course we'd like it if they didn't, but they do. I think we're missing the original point of this thread...to pay our respects to the passing of an American President, regardless of who it was.

I don't see the huge problem of recognising a man's accoplishments, Republican or Democrat. Just goes back to my example: If the Repub. came up with a plan for world peace, ending hunger, no crime, no unemployment, and ever tax-payer getting 1 milion dollars all without costing us a dime, the Dems wouldn't go along with it just cause the Rep. came up with it...and vice versa.

Elected officials should care about us, not their goddamn party...WTF over?

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 3:58 am

I like McDonalds better than Burger King.

F@CK YOU SCOOP!!!

I also like Coke better than Pepsi.

F@CK YOU AGAIN SCOOP!!!

Last year ESPN Football was a better game than Madden 2004.

NOW YOU'VE DONE IT SCOOP, F@CK YOU AND YOUR WHOLE FAMILY!!!

I have nothing to contribute to this thread so I thought I'd bring up some other stupid sh#t.

Now let's get back to things that really matter and check out these 4 new movies of ESPN Football 2k5.

http://www.espnvideogames.com/news/movieArchive.php

Parker · Post by **Parker** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 9:46 am

Let me just say I am not the biggest Kerry supporter. Not because I don't think he is a fine leader, but because some of my positions are to the left of his, which is why I often vote Green or for some other 3rd party. But not this year. Even though I don't agree with Kerry on gun control or gay marriage, I realize that Bush is one of the worst presidents in history. Of course there is little chance that Bush is going to lose any Northeast state (even New Hampshire looks good in polls), but I want to show my support and it's like rooting for a hometown team anyway.

As far as Kerry and nukes, even if you find Bush more trustworthy on foreign affairs (I think that is a joke, Kerry has decades of foreign relations experience while Bush in his short time has made mistake after mistake) and ignore the fact that Kerry has already used weapons during wartime to defend his nation with honor, I can tell you one thing. If Kerry makes the wrong decision with nukes, he will make it on his own, not after consulting with a bunch of advisers a la Bush and ignoring his own instincts. Bush may do what he says, but only after bowing down to Rove Rumsfield or Cheney to get his orders.

RiverRat · Post by **RiverRat** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 10:52 am

Late to the thread I see, but here's my two cents ...

I voted for Reagan twice and it was the last time I ever voted for a Republican for president. I was a big fan in 1984 but the Iran-Contra mess really kind of soured me on him.

Nonetheless, I think any objective person who understood the '60s and '70s would conclude that the optimism that Reagan brought the country was very badly needed, and the way he handled the Soviets in his term was near masterful. Although I don't give him complete credit for ending the Cold War (I think Lech Walesa and Pope John Paul II also deserve a big share of that prize), he clearly turned the country from a "peaceful co-existance" mode to a "let's end this crap" mentality. And for that, we should all be greatful. Domestic policies come and go and for the most part, the nation survives regardless. But the Cold War was no laughing matter, and Reagan's handling of it was masterful and that's what history will remember him for. For that effort alone, we should be greatful.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 11:41 am

ProvoAnC wrote:I look at this thing from the point of the Secret Service...you protect the office of the President, no matter who the pres is. I can't stand Gore, but I have a pic of him and I shaking hands when he was VP. When ppl come over and see it, of course they start in "oh you have a pic with Gore, you shoulda punched him instead of shaking hands." Followed by my reply of, "where's your pic with the VP...any VP?" Shaking hands with the VP of the US was definitley a high point in my life. I can't stand Clinton, but I am extremely proud of the work he did in N. Ireland to bring peace there. Presidents aren't perfect, they're people, just like all of us. They f*** up too...of course we'd like it if they didn't, but they do. I think we're missing the original point of this thread...to pay our respects to the passing of an American President, regardless of who it was.

I don't see the huge problem of recognising a man's accoplishments, Republican or Democrat. Just goes back to my example: If the Repub. came up with a plan for world peace, ending hunger, no crime, no unemployment, and ever tax-payer getting 1 milion dollars all without costing us a dime, the Dems wouldn't go along with it just cause the Rep. came up with it...and vice versa.

Elected officials should care about us, not their goddamn party...WTF over?

Good post, Provo. I don't care for our current president's policies very much, but if I had a chance to meet him and shake his hand I would do so in a heartbeat.

I think nearly every person who has occupied the White House in the 20th Century has had good intentions about fulfilling their obligations and being the best leader he could be. Reagan certainly loved the US and he always tried to do what he thought would empower the country and move it forward. I couldn't vote in 1980 and 84, but I know at the time I certainly would have voted for him.