Reagan May Have Died, Cannot Recall At This Time

Pat Buchanan:

At D.C. Reagan airport the other day, an individual later discovered to be a public school teacher was arrested trying to board a flight while in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a setsquare, a slide rule, and a calculator.At a morning press conference, Attorney general John Ashcroft said he believes the man is a member of the notorious Al-Gebra movement. He is being charged by the FBI with carrying weapons of math instruction."Al-gebra is a fearsome cult," Ashcroft said. "They seek radical, precision solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in a search of absolute value. They use secret code names like "x"and"y" and refer to themselves as "unknowns", but we have determined they belong to a common denominator of the axis of medieval with coordinates in every country. "As the Greek philanderer Isosceles used to say, there are 3 sides to every triangle," Ashcroft declared.When asked to comment on the arrest, President Bush said, "If God had wanted us to have better weapons of math instruction, He would have given us more fingers and toes."Attorney General Ashcroft said, "As our Great Leader would say, read my ellipse. Here is one principle he is certain of: though they continue to multiply, their days are numbered as the hypotenuse tightens around their necks."

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

No, but if you self-censor or otherwise obfuscate your real views, you're putting forth pleasant fictions instead of truth.

---

If I were putting forth fictions then I'd be lying. I haven't lied. I haven't praised Ronald Reagan in any way. Perhaps you take the biblical view that man and wife are one flesh. If that's the case, then I suppose I have praised the man by way of praising his wife. I suppose I'll just have to live with that and try to sleep at night in spite of it.

quote:

---

But if your point wasn't to condemn our position, then what is your point? Why didn't you just let it go in the first place?

---

I only intended to explain my position, not condemn anyone else's beyond the title and timing of this thread. Perhaps I was misleading in so doing but that wasn't my intent. I accept Dan's explanation that he meant no offense regarding Alzheimer's and I recognize your right, his right and everyone else's right to say whatever you wish.I didn't let it go because I kept being challenged on it. This custom may seem quaint to you, but I respect it and will abide by it. If I've offended you or anyone else I sincerely apologize.

Chiroptera observes:

quote:

---

...newspapers and television didn't observe any period of mourning before they began to offer a completely fabricated history of his administration.

---

With a little lattitude allowed to your use of the word 'completely', I agree, and I'm getting sick of it. As I see it (and I believe I mentioned this earlier) it is also disrespectful to offer fulsome praise during the mourning period, and that is precisely what the news media seem to be doing.

berberry,I think that your initial mis-interpretation of Dan's title is understandable, and your objections would have been justified had it been correct.I think that it would have been appropriate to have a dispassionate discussion about Reagan's legacy, both pro and con. Unfortunately, before that matter could have been resolved between you and Dan, too many people entered into the fray with belligerant attitudes. Me, too, of course, but I have always found it amazing how people who have such passionate feelings about their views could be surprised that others with the opposite views can be equally passionate. In regards to a certain early post, I don't believe even in the South people would ignore "fightin' words".At any rate, although I'm not sure whether I agree with you, I certainly respect the view that a certain interval should have passed before either side began to gush their feelings about Reagan. I think a dispassionate discussion would have been appropriate, but perhaps in view of the feelings the late former president evokes on both sides that wouldn't have been possible.

rotflmao!!!

That's fine.I choose not to. I'm sorry if I interpreted your stance in the wrong way, which it looks like I did.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-09-2004 08:37 PM

Scraf quotes, "You really expect Yankees to act according to a code of honor or to show courtesy or compassion?"and answers, "Not any more that I expect southern rednecks to act according to a code of honor or show courtesy or compassion."As Jaggar says, "No Expectations ..."This message has been edited by Abshalom, 06-10-2004 03:24 PMThis message has been edited by Abshalom, 06-10-2004 03:26 PM

I found Dan's title obvious, though I admit if it had been... or I thought it had been... what you believed it to mean, I guess it would be tacky.But offensive? That's a little much given the nature of RR and his family.And I think you missed the point of the challenges being made to your post.For all those saying how we have to remain silent out of respect for the grieving family of those that have died, where does that line of respect end?Do we ALL have to be silent for a week when Saddam Hussein dies? Even if just out of respect for his family? If not, why not?Does or Doesn't his murder of many citizens (his own and others) make him less worthy of respect? Well Reagan helped him do it, encouraged him to do it, in order to control Iran and radical Islamic insurgents in the region. It seems that as much as you'd be for criticizing Hussein you should be for criticizing Reagan.Some may debate RR's full role with respect to Hussein, but that is besides the point, if it is a person's opinion that he had a full role, why shouldn't that person be able to criticize the man once he dies... or celebrate his death as I suspect many will when Hussein dies, with NO RESPECT for the family.Shall we all mourn the passing of those who have beaten gays to death, if not just remaining silent out of respect for their families?Hmmmmm. Well how about those who vocally blamed gays for their own deaths, just because they were gay, without a care for their grieving families? Doesn't it seem just a bit hypocritical if such a person or his family asked for such consideration when they granted none?Well that is RR and his family. They did not show mercy or consideration for the victims of AIDs. At first RR blamed gays and blocked funding in research, dooming many people (straight and gay) to an early death.And once he became "concerned", he was more concerned that the US be considered the discoverer of the cause of AIDs, and actively hindered French research, which doomed many more to an early death.Ironically, many died under the same conditions that RR would come to suffer... dementia and pneumonia. For all those looking for a just God or Gods, perhaps that was a billboard. If he had not blocked research in to care for gays and then AIDs patients, perhaps they would have had more info to keep him alive longer (at least the pneumonia part).And you have claimed some sort of affinity with the suffering of that family because you have alzheimers in your family. First, have you known no one with HIV?Second, don't you find RR's family less appealing (at least Nancy) when she only began backing stem cell research (ie turned traitor) when RR became ill. Gee maybe if in the 80's he had gotten HIV, or more fitting their son, perhaps we would have had them praising AIDs research and gays instead of bashing gays and dooming the HIV infected to a torturous death.I don't think RR or his family deserve any respectful silence, because they not only supported the deaths of countless numbers of people from war and disease, but they (and especially RR) gave no respect to thos dead or their families.I think when Hussein dies I'll start a nice thread so that everyone can say how we have to be silent out of respect for him, and see how many feel that is justified.And I'd just love to hear what all you respectful people have to say about Reagans support of Saddam Hussein, since we just had to lose over 700 of our own and kill 9000+ Iraqis, to remove him. What a monster and all those mass graves. How many were under Reagan? Whoops. Guess that wasn't "communicated" to the US properly at the time.This message has been edited by holmes, 06-11-2004 07:51 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

holmes,Glad to see you back. I've missed you.Yes, I see that virtualy everyone understood the title of this thread except for me. Thanks for once again bringing this up. It's so nice when people continue to point out my mistakes, not being satisfied with the fact that they've already been pointed out repeatedly. I have not kept myself immersed in the 1980s and therefore the Iran-Contra quote did not instantly come to mind. I believe I've already said (more than once but I'll repeat it for you since you don't seem to have read much of this thread) that I accept Dan's explanation and that, after being reminded, I do in fact remember the quote.Had the title been a reference to Alzheimer's, I think it would have gone beyond merely being tacky. It would have been the height of insensitivity, as far as I'm concerned. There is so much to criticize Reagan about that I would consider it beneath contempt to hone in on something he couldn't help.My respect is for Nancy more than anyone else, as I believe I've already stated. I said that when Reagan was in office, I thought of her as probably the most shallow, self-centered woman in Washington. I still think that that description fit her AT THAT TIME. The Alzheimer's experience changed her. I disagree that she "turned traitor". I think she came to realize that she (or more to the point, her husband) had been wrong. You don't think it's possible for a selfish woman to change? She's out there fighting one of the good fights and I support what she's doing 1000%. Why must I question her motives?I have already said, over and over and over again, that whenever I have respect for the deceased OR his/her family, I will observe the period of mourning. It's that simple. If you think that means that I'm a shallow, weak-willed person then I suppose I'll just have to find a way to live with that.AIDS is not the only health problem facing America, and it's not the only health problem I have to be concerned about. I remember how Reagan ignored AIDS. I remember protesting his inaction (AIDS protests are the ONLY protests I've ever participated in). Come tomorrow I will be more than happy to tell you what I really think of the man and his AIDS policies (or lack of same).I admire Nancy for being able to turn her grief - and let's face it, she didn't suddenly start grieving last weekend, she's been at it for years now - into a platform from which to speak in favor of stem cell research. I don't believe she's doing it only for selfish reasons, but even I did I would still say that she deserves respect for doing it.And now as I understand it she's come to blows with George Bush over this issue and has refused to attend this year's Republican convention unless she is granted a forum to speak in favor of stem cell research. I may be reluctant to tell you entirely what I think of Reagan on this specific day, but I will gladly tell you that I can't stand Bush. Nancy's spat with him only enhances her image in my eyes.As it happens, I don't think my condemnation of Reagan is much needed. My sentiments for the most part have already been expressed by others, including you. I argued against 90% of Reagan's policies during the time he was in office and during the first years of his retirement. It's all been a long time ago and my memory isn't fresh to the point that I could maintain a debate for long without having to spend time digging into old information to be sure I was right in making this or that point. You folks are doing a fine job, and come tomorrow the only thing I am likely to do is express agreement with some of what has already been said. I don't feel like arguing these points with Reagan's supporters all over again. The issues have changed, and I'd rather spend my time arguing against Bush and his policies.

Amen, Berberry. And I doubt many of those who have been so critical of Reagan over the last few days would understand the depth of your position since they were so wet behind the ears (as well as in the pants) during his terms in office (which is apparent from the shallowness of their critiques.)It's interesting to see how opinions change and anger mellows as people mature. I remember being a rash, young rebel once. It sure is lonely being an opinionated, old cynic though.Peace. Ab.

Sorry, what I was mainly trying to get at was not that you were wrong for having felt his title was referring to alzheimers. I was just noting that I found it obvious. If it felt like I was pressing that point, then like I said, I'm sorry.My main point is that I felt such a reference would not really have been offensive, given his own history of not caring and allowing derogatory remarks to be made (if not making them himself) about others that have died.I do not find your defense of Nancy very reasonable. Okay, I will not fight her now that she's joined the right side of the stem cell debate, but I am certainly not going to pretend that the realization of her initial error was because of her selfishness.When powerful people switch sides on drug abuse, and sexual orientation, and etc etc only after it suddenly hits them personally, where they punished those who asked for equal consideration before, I have very little care for their suffering. Yeah maybe she really has changed for the better. But I'd never know for sure and given her continuing lack of compassion on other issues, I doubt it.If anything I have more respect for Laura Bush who apparently has the strength of her convictions such that she also suffered from having alzheimers in her family and is not going to bend. I'll fight her, but at least I'll respect her.Nancy, I'll just ignore. If she can help, great. Otherwise she can buzz off.Not that you are wrong for the position you have taken, and not that I don't understand it, but I do feel your position is a bit mercenary. If this experience had made her a staunch opponent of stem cell research and instead a firm advocate of Xian faith healers, would you really be as caring for her feelings?As it is you never answered the underlying question I was putting to you, and which others have as well. How much respect are you required to have to remain quiet while those you dislike mourn?Do you really believe that people should be quiet when Saddam Hussein, or BinLaden, or people that kill gays die? What separate them from RR?I have very little respect for RR or his family, in fact almost as little as I have for Hussein (though BinLaden is worse), and definitely as little as I have for gay killers. (Not sure if you read Dan's link to the conference with Koop. Even he recognized that the environment RR created within the nation has led to the very types of persecutions of gays that we have seen.)Now maybe Dan and others have even less respect for RR than I do. I guess he must as I would not have bothered to open a thread on him.Okay fine, YOU have enough respect that you feel YOU would not criticize RR at this time. But you have already somewhat admitted that you were capable of criticizing someone at this time. If you would not be limited in such a case, why can't others have that little respect of RR that they have a right to criticize him in whatever tacky or offensive (to you) manner they feel is appropriate for him as you might feel is appropriate for others?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Okay, you please explain how his support of Saddam Hussein, including the gas attacks of Kurds and Iranians was beyond reproach? How about his hamstringing of AIDs efforts as the crisis was just unfolding?I assure you the only wetness in my pants during his terms in office was when he massacred education funding as my college costs skyrocketed... and when I graduated into the depression (or Recession) he created.Do you honestly believe no one should criticize Saddam Hussein when he dies? Even if just out of respect for his family? If someone has that little respect for RR, perhaps because they suffered or knew others that suffered or DIED under his policies, why can't they complain about him?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Where was all this lofty criticism before Mr. Reagan died? If there is a such a strong basis for hard-hitting critiques of Reagan policy this week, it seems like we should have seen a bit of it before. Don't use the lame excuse "well now that he died, he's in the public eye." That would just expose the shallowness of intent.Peace. Ab.

Uhmmmm... I believe if you sift through my posts, especially with regard to the Iraq War, you can find some of my criticisms of RR. I don't think any of the other subjects came up for me to address so I haven't.Since he died someone started a thread, which produced commentary on a variety of subjects connected to RR, and so I mentioned the others.I think it's a little odd to say that criticisms, like praises, will not surface when a person dies and so reenters the public eye. Death is an event which stirs public interest, both positive and negative because it causes us to remember someone we may not have thought of in some time.I guess I do agree that it is somewhat odd to go overboard in one way or the other, beyond what one would naturally feel, just because someone died.Then again, I totally believe it is hypocritical to treat someone nicer in death than you thought of them in life. I think it was George Carlin that said death is the perfect time to criticize someone openly, where you might not have earlier, because they aren't around to get their feelings hurt.Frankly if he and Nancy were nicer to the living when they were in power, I might be a bit more sentimental now that one of them has died.I just keep thinking of those mass graves we were supposed to hate Saddam for. You think the families of these people should keep their traps shut while Nancy mourns?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)