Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reagan May Have Died, Cannot Recall At This Time
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 109 (114534)
06-11-2004 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Silent H
06-11-2004 5:26 PM


I Just Find It Odd ...
I just find it odd that the lot of you argue incessantly over such life and death issues as singularities, Red Sea crossings, evolution of crayfish, and such ... but when someone dies, and only then, it becomes absolutely essential to discuss such mundane political issues like AIDS, stem cell research, and war.
Peace. Ab.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Silent H, posted 06-11-2004 5:26 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Silent H, posted 06-12-2004 6:52 AM Abshalom has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 92 of 109 (114647)
06-12-2004 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Abshalom
06-11-2004 6:46 PM


when someone dies, and only then, it becomes absolutely essential to discuss such mundane political issues like AIDS, stem cell research, and war.
#1... This is a forum on Evolution vs Creationism, thus the general ongoing topics will be uhmmmmm items regarding science and religion?
#2... You can't possibly be replying to me. Although I believe HIV may be a relatively new topic for me to discuss in as much detail as I have, I have been active in discussions on gay rights, abortion, pornography, propaganda, economic scandals, Israel-Palestinian issues, Islamic Fundamentalist issues, and beyond any question war War WAR!
It never took anyone dying for me to address these issues (at least no one particular person).
Nice attempt to dodge actual discussion though...

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Abshalom, posted 06-11-2004 6:46 PM Abshalom has not replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 109 (114823)
06-13-2004 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Dan Carroll
06-08-2004 12:18 AM


Re: This is disgusting!
I'm sorry, I'm still mourning the victims of "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers", and wondering why a disease that has now reached pandemic proportions wasn't worth researching, just because the highest number of victims at the time happened to be gay.
Uh, excuse me? What, exactly, is your definition of pandemic proportions? I know you aren't talking about the US - well maybe Michael Moore's warped vision of the US, or else your definition of 'pandemic' isn't the same as http://www.dictionary.com:
quote:
Epidemic over a wide geographic area and affecting a large proportion of the population
So is Influenza an epidemic? How about kidney disease? Alzheimers? Diabetes? Because unless you answer 'yes' to every one of those, AIDS is not an epidemic in this country.
We get that you hated Reagan for some reason (oh that's right, he's responsible for every person who ever died from AIDS). I hate Ben Affleck, get over it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Dan Carroll, posted 06-08-2004 12:18 AM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 109 (114825)
06-13-2004 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Dan Carroll
06-08-2004 12:30 PM


Re: It's Just Spurious
I mourned for Jack Kirby, but was still willing to acknowledge that his later work was crap.
Now you have really crossed the line. What's next, Stan Lee was a moron?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Dan Carroll, posted 06-08-2004 12:30 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Dan Carroll, posted 06-18-2004 10:22 AM custard has replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 109 (114827)
06-13-2004 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by derwood
06-08-2004 4:11 PM


Re: This is disgusting!
SLPx writes:
That is, he was lying his ass off.
As i find most conservative politicians do.
Yeah, that's what I really liked about Clinton: his honesty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by derwood, posted 06-08-2004 4:11 PM derwood has not replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 109 (114828)
06-13-2004 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by crashfrog
06-09-2004 4:59 AM


I don't care if I was called a Yankee, or a fire-breathing asshole, or a motherfucker.
Well I saw you get pretty upset at someone for using the word 'idiot.'
This message has been edited by custard, 06-13-2004 12:42 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by crashfrog, posted 06-09-2004 4:59 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by crashfrog, posted 06-13-2004 7:25 PM custard has not replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 109 (114829)
06-13-2004 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by crashfrog
06-09-2004 9:18 AM


No, but if you self-censor or otherwise obfuscate your real views, you're putting forth pleasant fictions instead of truth.
What a LOAD. I'm self-censoring myself right now in response to that statement - or else I'm putting out a pleasant fiction. Whatever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 06-09-2004 9:18 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Silent H, posted 06-13-2004 5:06 PM custard has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 98 of 109 (114862)
06-13-2004 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by custard
06-13-2004 11:06 AM


Maybe you can answer the questions some have put forward. Do you believe that people must stay silent regarding their true feelings towards someone that has died, even if just our of respect for the family of that person?
And if there are exceptions, what are they (the criteria), and why is it not possible that RR fulfills those criteria for some people?
This is not to argue whether those people may be right or not about the claims they make about the dead person in question, but if they truly believe those claims to be accurate, should they have the right?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by custard, posted 06-13-2004 11:06 AM custard has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 99 of 109 (114888)
06-13-2004 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by custard
06-13-2004 11:04 AM


Well I saw you get pretty upset at someone for using the word 'idiot.'
I have a significantly higher tolerance for what people can call me than for what people can call people I respect. I'm crazy like that, I guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by custard, posted 06-13-2004 11:04 AM custard has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 109 (115281)
06-15-2004 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Silent H
06-11-2004 3:51 PM


Sorry to be so late getting back to this, I've been away for a few days.
holmes, you're taking this way too seriously. As I told crashfrog several pages upthread, mourning customs can only be justified in emotional terms. They don't stand on logic.
But on that emotional score, I do respect this custom that most of you seem to classify somewhere between 'quaint' and 'sinister'. As long as I don't believe that your family member, friend, leader or hero is a murderer, rapist or other violent criminal, I will observe this custom at the time of your grief.
I've lost dear family members who some might describe as hateful people. They had enemies, but thankfully by custom almost no one spoke ill of them while the family was in town for the funeral. Even the most bitter former spouses seem to hold their tounge until after the funeral. It's just the way we do things here in the South. I'm not saying that our way is better than any other way, I'm just saying that it's our way.
There's no way to justify this except to say that, for me, it just feels like the right thing to do. I assume no superiority for doing it, and I will think no less of you if you choose to ignore it.
Of course, the mourning period is over now. I can damn Reagan to my heart's content, but for some reason I don't feel motivated to. It's been so many years that I'm just not very excited about the prospect of getting into an argument about Ronald Reagan's presidency. I'd rather talk about what's going on now. Besides, most of what I feel has already been expressed, particularly by schraf and chiroptera.
There's not much I would give Reagan credit for. I agree with you that he deserves some for the end of the cold war. The only other thing I can think of that will have a lasting impact is one aspect of his tax reform: the destruction of many of the old tax shelters, particularly one by which wealthy people and/or companies were able to park their money in unproductive, losing enterprises deliberately for tax purposes. The whole point was to lose money and thereby reap benefits from Uncle Sam. Reagan was right to push for reforms that ended most of those old tax shelters.
I don't remember supporting anything else about that tax reform package.
I am curious about your condemnation of Nancy, though. I believe some of the most sincere people of all are those whose opinions have been changed by personal circumstance. You might look at it this way: her mind was changed because she was presented with convincing evidence that she was wrong. In this light, she is rather like the fundamentalist Christain who goes to college and learns about evolution. He or she is forced to confront what they've always been taught in a way that many of us can never really understand. I admire them when they are able to recognize the fact that they were wrong, even if they don't immediately see how they've been wrong about other things as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Silent H, posted 06-11-2004 3:51 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Silent H, posted 06-15-2004 4:51 AM berberry has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 101 of 109 (115288)
06-15-2004 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by berberry
06-15-2004 4:11 AM


I can damn Reagan to my heart's content, but for some reason I don't feel motivated to. It's been so many years that I'm just not very excited about the prospect of getting into an argument about Ronald Reagan's presidency.
Actually this is how I felt as well. That is until the news coverage kept forcing him to the front of everything. And even then I didn't feel excited enough to start a thread or anything.
All I was really concerned with in posting anything was, after reading both Reagan threads, questioning why someone (like dan) could not feel RR rose to the level of "murderer, rapist or other violent criminal", and in another thread to knock some policy statements which were inaccurate (though supporting one that was).
I am curious about your condemnation of Nancy
When I think about it, most of my favorite people have ended up challenging their original beliefs (and getting blasted for that) after realizing they were wrong.
To me there is a difference between a person that seeks the truth and winds up discovering their own error and having the guts to stand up for the truth, and someone who has fought others in the past and only when it hurts them personally do they become interested in seeking what can convenience them instead.
The anti-abortionist that becomes pro-choice when a daughter gets pregnant (or a son's girlfriend), the hawk who becomes a dove AFTER a relative has been lost etc etc... these are not heroes. These are not people to be praised. They were the oppressors, and have merely learned the error of their ways. Not only should we not be praising them, they should not be hogging the spotlight on issues. A bit of humility please.
What's worse is when you see their "change" not affect other portions of their lives beyond the one most convenient to them.
I guess I am not an expert on Nancy Reagan. Maybe this has caused her to have a real paradigm shift on many issues, but I am unaware of her championing any other causes... some which out to "stem" directly from this cause. Has she now become a pro-choice advocate?
Has she renounced her original hard line drug war stance... including her original praising as a "model" kids should follow, a child who wouldn't take a hit even when threatened with being burned to death (and instead was just burned badly)? At the very least, let's hear that support for medical marijuana.
And what about euthanasia? What about the choice of those who would not want to see their loved ones suffer needlessly and want to end the pain?
I guess when I see her becoming a champion for other rights which did not affect her personally, then I'll start believing she had a paradigm shift. Otherwise it's same old same old. When its good for Nancy, its good for everyone. When she don't like it, screw 'em.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by berberry, posted 06-15-2004 4:11 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by berberry, posted 06-15-2004 5:27 AM Silent H has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 109 (115289)
06-15-2004 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Silent H
06-15-2004 4:51 AM


holmes writes:
quote:
I guess when I see her becoming a champion for other rights which did not affect her personally, then I'll start believing she had a paradigm shift.
I'd love to see a paradigm shift, too. I think I have seen more than one caprice, however. I for one believe that RR's own about-face on gun control (the Brady bill, as it happened) was all Nancy. His heart just didn't seem to be in that speech he gave on Brady's behalf, and for a long time I've figured that he must have been doing it at Nancy's behest.
I suppose I give her a bit of leeway in deference to her age. The old people I've known always seem to have a hard time reconsidering things they've always taken for granted. I'm sure she's no different. As for abortion, I don't know that she's said anything directly, but I do remember her responding to a question a few years ago by saying that she did recognize that the stem cell issue was politically connected to abortion. She didn't say anything about being against abortion. I don't know how significant that is, but I think it's possible that she doesn't want to speak out on abortion because she fears that doing so would cause many people who supported her husband to immediately dismiss her and not listen to anything else she has to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Silent H, posted 06-15-2004 4:51 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Silent H, posted 06-18-2004 6:28 AM berberry has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 103 of 109 (116346)
06-18-2004 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by berberry
06-15-2004 5:27 AM


Just so you know I am not ignoring you, I simply had nothing to say to yoru reply. I don't give her the leeway you do, but its fair if you want to. And I guess we are both better served with more examples from Nancy on whether she had a paradigm shift or not.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by berberry, posted 06-15-2004 5:27 AM berberry has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 109 (116396)
06-18-2004 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by custard
06-13-2004 10:55 AM


Re: It's Just Spurious
Uh, excuse me? What, exactly, is your definition of pandemic proportions? I know you aren't talking about the US
Because lord knows diseases respect international borders.
We get that you hated Reagan for some reason (oh that's right, he's responsible for every person who ever died from AIDS).
No, just for a six-year active block on research, during which many, many people contracted and spread a fatal disease that they had no idea they should even be looking out for.
I'm glad you can "get over it" though. That's big of you.
Now you have really crossed the line. What's next, Stan Lee was a moron?
And a thief!
This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 06-18-2004 09:25 AM

"Egos drone and pose alone, Like black balloons, all banged and blown
On a backwards river the infidels shiver in the stench of belief.
And tell my mama I'm a hundred years late; I'm over the rails and out of the race
The crippled psalms of an age that won't thaw are ringing in my ears"
-Beck

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by custard, posted 06-13-2004 10:55 AM custard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by custard, posted 06-18-2004 10:41 AM Dan Carroll has replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 109 (116401)
06-18-2004 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Dan Carroll
06-18-2004 10:22 AM


Re: It's Just Spurious
Dan: I want to hurt you for that Stan Lee comment. Badly. I'll send B2P over to your house in pink shorts to bring his holy thunder.
And to rest of you jackals, here is something I'm sure you will all appreciate:
http://whitehouse.org/kids/reagangame.asp
Talk about a legacy. Oy.
This message has been edited by custard, 06-18-2004 09:41 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Dan Carroll, posted 06-18-2004 10:22 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Dan Carroll, posted 06-18-2004 10:44 AM custard has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024