|
|
Post by Onion on Jun 7, 2004 19:19:14 GMT -5
Reagan was a fraud, wrapped in a nightly sound-bite. Absolutely nothing came out of his mouth that was not a rehearsed lie, disingenuous political claptrap or blather. The guy signed 7 tax increases, killed thousands of peasants in Central America, inserted and coddled various dictators, traded with terrorists, and presided over the most corrupt presidential administration in history. He was also a divorced alcoholic, who was accused of rape, and estranged from at least one of his children. The guy could not make a decision without direction from his wife, chief of staff, or ultra-con ideologue pals regarding every aspect of his presidency. Oh, he also joked about about starting a nuclear war on the radio, forgot the names of his cabinet members and, Mourned dead SS Stormtroopers as 'victims'. The guy is the reason I am a card carrying liberal-democrat to this day. I spent 8 years watching Reagan's insane lies and deranged, senile babbling on the news each night, developed a lifelong antipathy to the twisted Newspeak of the Republican Party. THAT's Reagans legacy to me. Oh, and the attached JPG is all yours.... Cheers TJ  |
|
|
|
Post by babysis on Jun 7, 2004 21:07:15 GMT -5
The man died after a LONG battle with a grave illness. Is this really necessary?   |
|
|
|
Post by babysis on Jun 7, 2004 21:47:16 GMT -5
Is it necessary to insult another person? One has already been insulted in this thread... now two? Will it keep going? |
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Jun 8, 2004 6:59:36 GMT -5
Though I agree this could have been handled with some tact, its good to know that people do have the freedom to crticize their leaders, current and past, and even 'against the grain'.
I liked Regan when I was a child, I wasn't old enough to vote until Bush/Gore, though I never knew much of his politics. I remember 'star wars' and thought that was a cool name for something, and loved to listen to him speak - he had so much energy. This really threw my democratic-ish (more working-man than liberal)parents for a little loop.
Now I know a bit more about him, not enough to really criticize or condemn. Either way, a man is dead, may he rest in peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by babysis on Jun 8, 2004 7:29:58 GMT -5
Though I agree this could have been handled with some tact, its good to know that people do have the freedom to crticize their leaders, current and past, and even 'against the grain'. I liked Regan when I was a child, I wasn't old enough to vote until Bush/Gore, though I never knew much of his politics. I remember 'star wars' and thought that was a cool name for something, and loved to listen to him speak - he had so much energy. This really threw my democratic-ish (more working-man than liberal)parents for a little loop. Now I know a bit more about him, not enough to really criticize or condemn. Either way, a man is dead, may he rest in peace. I agree, it's good that we have the freedom to say what we want about a former president (or current president for that matter) but we also have the right to refrain from speaking when it is tasteful to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Jun 8, 2004 8:46:34 GMT -5
I agree, it's good that we have the freedom to say what we want about a former president (or current president for that matter) but we also have the right to refrain from speaking when it is tasteful to do so. Some people aren't as tasteful. Others just see so many basically worshiping this man and are taken back and respond as such. To each their own. |
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Jun 8, 2004 9:40:55 GMT -5
some people have the decency to follow the old adage -- if you can't say something nice -- don't say anything at all. the other is -- let us not speak ill of the dead.
or from the Christian style "party line" -- judge not, lest yea be judged.
|
|
|
|
Post by Onion on Jun 13, 2004 9:14:56 GMT -5
some people have the decency to follow the old adage -- if you can't say something nice -- don't say anything at all. the other is -- let us not speak ill of the dead. or from the Christian style "party line" -- judge not, lest yea be judged. Tell that to Gene. He never has anything nice to say. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha |
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jun 15, 2004 7:39:37 GMT -5
Though I agree this could have been handled with some tact, its good to know that people do have the freedom to crticize their leaders, current and past, and even 'against the grain'. I liked Regan when I was a child, I wasn't old enough to vote until Bush/Gore, though I never knew much of his politics. I remember 'star wars' and thought that was a cool name for something, and loved to listen to him speak - he had so much energy. This really threw my democratic-ish (more working-man than liberal)parents for a little loop. Now I know a bit more about him, not enough to really criticize or condemn. Either way, a man is dead, may he rest in peace. President Reagan was a great president. The press didn't like him because he showed the nation that they didn't need liberals to take care of them and that with hard work they could doit for themselves. This wasn't a new idea but the nation was in a state of depression because of Vietnam and the way the liberals in D.C. lost that war.
Reagan made the nation feel good about itself again and there was great prosperity during his two terms that carried over to Clinton because of Reagans policies.
Bush '41 tried to dismantle Reagan's policies but was not completely successful.
When Reagan met the Soviet leader in Iceland, Gorbachev agreed to Reagan's concessions on the condition that the USA abandon "star wars", or better identified, the SDI program which the Soviets knew America could develop, and they couldn't compete against.
That was part of what brought about the demise of communism, regardless of how the liberal Democrats are trying to rewrite history.
I'll miss Ronald Reagan. He was a great presdient and I'm glad I was old enough to experience his greatness and wit.
Did you ever notice how the liberal press always portrays Republicans as being fools, nitwits, immature, and just plain stupid? This ought to tell you something.
I remember it as starting with Gerald Ford. He was "accident prone" and couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time.
Then came reagan. He was "too old" and "senile" He didn't know what time of day it was.
Then Bush '41. He was a "liar" and didn't know which way was up.
Dan Quale. He was too young and always portrayed as being "dumb" because he misspelled "potato".
Now, this present Bush. He is being portrayed as being a liar and "stupid" too.
Compare them to the Democrats that were in between.
Jimmy Carter. High taxes, hign inflation, the Iran disgrace. Home interest rates were about 20% on a home loan.
Bill Clinton. Terrorists attacks that went unanswered. Terrorists were treated like bank robbers instead of what they actually were, a threat to our way of life. The wall between the FBI and the CIA that led to 9/11 because those agencies couldn't share information. Some believe that wall; was designed to protect Bill from the law.
Hillary's involvement if the fradulent loan scam in Arkansas that cheated people. The Rose Law Firm records that were not able to be found until after they weren't needed any longer, which were in the White House all along.
Monica.
Those are the legacies of the Democrats that held the White House in between the Republicans.
Kerry has to constantly remind people that he served in Vietnam. His spokespeople are constantly saying Kerry wants tha nation to get to know him, as if we don't know him by his voting record.
He's on every side of every issue.
I guess some of the people want to hear words rather than see deeds.
Kerry will be a disaster for this country if he's elected.
By the way, never forget that it was Clinton that was CONVICTED of lying under oath in a court of law. Martha Stweart should demand equal treatment.
As I said, I'm glad to have been here for Reagan's presidency. He deserves much recognition for the ages to come, regardless of what those who hate him say.
[/color] |
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Jun 15, 2004 8:48:57 GMT -5
One thing (from reading a bit) that I like about Regan (in retrospec) is that he ran a small government and did what he could to limit excess. I've read that he was the closest to a Libertarian so far.
|
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jun 15, 2004 9:19:13 GMT -5
One thing (from reading a bit) that I like about Regan (in retrospec) is that he ran a small government and did what he could to limit excess. I've read that he was the closest to a Libertarian so far. The government wasn't small by any stretch of the imagination. Reagan wasn't "King" so he was limited by the Congress. His strong suit was in his ability to override Congress and come straight to the american people so they would contact their representatives in Congress to make changes.
The liberals hated him and so did some in his own party.
There is much truth and learning about Reagan at www.rushlimbaugh.com as he has a large tribute to Reagan. There are video clips and many audio speeches from reagan that you can learn the facts from, if you are really interested.
[/color] |
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Jun 15, 2004 9:42:50 GMT -5
From a friend's journal:
"Ronald Reagan was the last major party politician to earn my respect. For all his faults - mainly instances in which he talked the libertarian talk about limited government, but failed to walk the walk (e.g. the drug war, tax increases, draft registration) - I will be forever thankful to Ronald Reagan for one monumentally important action that he undertook. He told Mikhail Gorbachev to his face in no uncertain terms that the Soviet Union could not and would not ever win the Cold War. It can be argued, and I believe it to be true, that the Soviet Union would have eventually collapsed due to the flaws inherent in socialism. So, perhaps all those great defense expenditures were ultimately unnecessary. The answer to that question will remain forever unknown, as it's impossible to second-guess history without a time machine or sliding device. But at least it can be said that we're alive today, the Berlin Wall has been torn down, and the Soviet Union is no longer in existence.
Reagan was willing to stand up to the Soviet Union and call it the Evil Empire that it truly was, quite unlike those who came before or after him. He never backed down from this morally correct position, even though doing so caused him to be criticized by many in his own country. He helped bring about the final withering away of the Soviet state. Now, if we could just go ahead and proceed with the withering away of our own state... "
|
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jun 15, 2004 9:56:04 GMT -5
From a friend's journal: "Ronald Reagan was the last major party politician to earn my respect. For all his faults - mainly instances in which he talked the libertarian talk about limited government, but failed to walk the walk (e.g. the drug war, tax increases, draft registration) - I will be forever thankful to Ronald Reagan for one monumentally important action that he undertook. He told Mikhail Gorbachev to his face in no uncertain terms that the Soviet Union could not and would not ever win the Cold War. It can be argued, and I believe it to be true, that the Soviet Union would have eventually collapsed due to the flaws inherent in socialism. So, perhaps all those great defense expenditures were ultimately unnecessary. The answer to that question will remain forever unknown, as it's impossible to second-guess history without a time machine or sliding device. But at least it can be said that we're alive today, the Berlin Wall has been torn down, and the Soviet Union is no longer in existence. Reagan was willing to stand up to the Soviet Union and call it the Evil Empire that it truly was, quite unlike those who came before or after him. He never backed down from this morally correct position, even though doing so caused him to be criticized by many in his own country. He helped bring about the final withering away of the Soviet state. Now, if we could just go ahead and proceed with the withering away of our own state... " Reagan had a larger role than you seem willing to credit him for. I also believe the Soviet Union would fall on it's own, but how long would it have taken with the appeasement attitude of the Democratic Congress without Reagan? It might still be in existance today if not for Reagan. It's true, he put things in motion that speeded up the collapse, but let's not forget that it was Reagan that did bring about the end of communism and ask the question, would it have happened already without Reagan?
By the way, those weren't "libertarian ideas" that Reagan had, they were Republican ideas from old.
[/color] |
|
|
|
Post by Onion on Jun 15, 2004 10:31:04 GMT -5
[/color]
[/quote]
Yup! Cause it's true!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
|
|
|
|
Post by AV1611 on Jun 20, 2004 10:16:05 GMT -5
Hello to the people of the LBMB!!! I thought you guys would like to see something very interesting. Onion, your posts look toooo familar. Either you are plagrizing or you just go to message boards to push your system of beliefs on people. Or should i say your political party's agenda? Notice Onion's first post... and then please go here and check out a person named Metaknownledge's post... they are exactly the same... amazing... www.baptist.org/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=1080&start=0This Onion I believe also caused some other major headaches on our message board. |
|
