The heroification of Reagan

[Thomas Veil]

Oh boy.

I just caught a snatch of news on MS-NBC, and they were focusing on Ronald Reagan's health which, I gather, is deteriorating. Reading between the lines, it sounded like they were saying he's in the final stretch. However long that will take.

And it gives me pause. Because -- with all due respect to the guy and his family -- I know from past experience that the second he's dead, all the outlandish talk will begin again, immortalizing him as some kind of political God. Those who think of him as the Greatest President Ever (one of the grandest fantasies in history) will once again resume their calls for his face to be carved in Mount Rushmore, his likeness on the dollar bill, and some sort of national monument erected to him in Washington, D.C. It is to shudder.

For those of us on the liberal side, it's a farce. Imagine, members of the respected opposition, how you'd feel if you were to see Jimmy Carter's face on Mount Rushmore, or Bill Clinton staring back at you from the dollar bill.

I don't mean for this to be a "Was Reagan a great president or not" thread, because I doubt anyone is going to change anyone's mind on that point. Think of this more as a rant from someone who respects our greatest presidents, and is horrified at the idea that there is a sizeable group of people who want to put Reagan among them.

I don't know, maybe I'm worrying for nothing. But then again, the guy's not even dead yet, and they've already named an airport after him....

[zimv20]

for things like naming libraries (every president gets one anyway, right? even those who don't read?) and airports, i don't think it's a big deal.

but for money and mt. rushmore, i think time must pass and the decision be made by those who are looking through the prism of history. i suggest a minimum of 50 years after passing.

maybe it's just me, but i think mt. rushmore is "done." if there's a movement to add people, let's find a new mountain.

[IJ Reilly]

I'm not a numismatist anymore (was when I was a kid), but off hand I can only think of six presidents who've ever appeared on US money: Washington, Jefferson, Grant, Lincoln, FDR and JFK. The last three at least were commemorated less than 50 years after their deaths. In the case of FDR and JFK, a year or less afterwards.

[zimv20]

hamilton $10
jackson $20

(off the top of my head)

even in the case of FDR and JFK, i think a year is too soon. though it might make sense to create an exception for those assassinated in office.

[skunk]

though it might make sense to create an exception for those assassinated in office.
What if Junior is assassinated? :eek:

[Neserk]

I was 10 and 14 when Reagan was elected in Electoral College landslides. I predicted both wins :D I was very proud of myself.

[zimv20]

What if Junior is assassinated? :eek:
put him on the $10,000 bill. looks good on paper, but only the rich can afford it.

[yuc7zhd2]

Well, he's dead. Let the heroification begin.

[Sayhey]

Well, he's dead. Let the heroification begin.

For those of us who remember Iran/Contra, the ballooning of the deficit, the firing of the Air Controllers, the explosion of homelessness, the inaction on AIDS, the brinkmanship with the Soviets, the refusal at Reykjavik, and on and on, this man was no hero. He is dead and for his family and those who loved him it is a terrible time, but he was no hero.

zim, Hamilton was not a President. Good call on Jackson though. ;)

[IJ Reilly]

hamilton $10
jackson $20

I forgot about Jackson, but not Hamilton -- he was never president.

"Benjamin Franklin -- the only President of the United States, who was never President of the United States."

(Two points for identifying this quote.)

[Neserk]

Well, he's dead. Let the heroification begin.

Wow. That is sad.

[evil]

What if Junior is assassinated? :eek:

careful...dont want the S.S. (secret service) showing up at your door do you ?

[miloblithe]

"So, where are you going on vacation this year?"

"I'm going to Reagan, I'll be flying out of Reaganville into Reagan Reagan on a Reagan 757. Probably when I'm there I'll visit the Reagan, and if I have time, the Reagan Reagan, or the Reagan Reagan Reagan."

[skunk]

"So, where are you going on vacation this year?"

Anywhere but Reagan...

[skunk]

careful...dont want the S.S. (secret service) showing up at your door do you ?
It's OK, if it didn't come from Chalabi, so they won't believe it.

[bousozoku]

He was not a hero but he was not the worst. The only significant positive thing I can remember is that the administration helped to modernise the laws governing the auto industry. The sealed beam headlights were finally doomed after around 60 years. Bumpers and various other safety items were changed as well.

[skunk]

He was not a hero but he was not the worst. The only significant positive thing I can remember is that the administration helped to modernise the laws governing the auto industry.
Damned with very faint praise. Exegi monumentum aere perennis?

[dopefiend]

Exegi monumentum aere perennis?

I have reared a monument more lasting than brass?

[Thomas Veil]

Damn...I just came home, opened this thread and found that he'd died. The irony being that "family representatives" were denying earlier today that his health was declining as reported. :confused: :confused: :confused:

I feel both good and bad for his family...sorry for their pain, but glad that the hardship is, for them, over.

With regards to the news media...I think I'll just stay away from them for at least four or five days. I don't mean to be harsh, but I have a feeling that what I'd hear would make me gag.

[Sun Baked]

careful...dont want the S.S. (secret service) showing up at your door do you ?Considering it's a "crime" to even joke about it.

If he vanishes from the forums, we know where he is.

[skunk]

Considering it's a "crime" to even joke about it.

If he vanishes from the forums, we know where he is.
It's not a crime over here. :cool:

Anyway, I was only asking a question... :eek:


Sorry, gotta go: there's somebody at the door....

[Mike Teezie]

Oh boy.

I just caught a snatch of news on MS-NBC, and they were focusing on Ronald Reagan's health which, I gather, is deteriorating. Reading between the lines, it sounded like they were saying he's in the final stretch. However long that will take.

And it gives me pause. Because -- with all due respect to the guy and his family -- I know from past experience that the second he's dead, all the outlandish talk will begin again, immortalizing him as some kind of political God. Those who think of him as the Greatest President Ever (one of the grandest fantasies in history) will once again resume their calls for his face to be carved in Mount Rushmore, his likeness on the dollar bill, and some sort of national monument erected to him in Washington, D.C. It is to shudder.

For those of us on the liberal side, it's a farce. Imagine, members of the respected opposition, how you'd feel if you were to see Jimmy Carter's face on Mount Rushmore, or Bill Clinton staring back at you from the dollar bill.

I don't mean for this to be a "Was Reagan a great president or not" thread, because I doubt anyone is going to change anyone's mind on that point. Think of this more as a rant from someone who respects our greatest presidents, and is horrified at the idea that there is a sizeable group of people who want to put Reagan among them.

I don't know, maybe I'm worrying for nothing. But then again, the guy's not even dead yet, and they've already named an airport after him....

Nice post.

I am member of a high end-guitar forum where the average member is a 30-50 year old right winger. Talk of politics is strictly forbidden on the board, but someone started a Reagan RIP thread there, and there are three pages worth of "best president of all time" posts.

I had to step away from my beloved mac and take a deep breath, as I was about to reply with many of the same things mentioned here - which would have gotten me banned.

[zimv20]

zim, Hamilton was not a President.
if i repeat it enough, it will become true....

[Desertrat]

Most any "Best Prsident" argument has more smoke than fire...

But after the negativism of the Carter era, Reagan's obvious love of this nation and its people truly shone. He restored our faith in ourselves as no other president has ever done. Sure, others helped carry us through hard times, but the change in mood from his own persona made one helluva difference.

His policies ended the 15%+ inflation rates and the 12%-15% home loan interest rates of 1980. The ensuing boom, but for the white-collar recession of 1989-1991, was practically unparalleled.

His policies led to the end of the Cold War, and high time it was. The "brinksmanship" in Iceland was no brinksmanship; it was the first time we didn't roll over like little puppy dogs at the sight of the Toothless Tiger--which the USSR soon proved to be.

His "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" resounded throughout the world, and hundreds of millions of people are now free of the fear of Soviet domination.

Yeah, he had blind spots on environmental issues. His method of delegation which led to the Iran-Contra stuff was not at all good for him or for us. His abdication of control of domestic spending to O'Neill and Rostenkowski gave us horrible budget deficits.

On balance? The boy done good.

'Rat

[miloblithe]

I dunno. It seems to me that the "Reagan defeated Communism" argument requires a pretty severe lack of knowledge about Soviet history and willfull oversight of Gorbachev, who, if anyone deserves the credit (or blame) for the demise of the Soviet Union, it's him.

Reagan was a great spokesman. His "look, I knew Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson was a friend of mine. Bill Clinton is no Thomas Jefferson" line at the '92 convention was awesome. I laughed my ass off. He made people believe in the product he was selling.

[zimv20]

what i remember about reagan:

in 1986, i got a $2500 student loan. my mom was a single mom making about $17k/year. my sister was in high school.

in 1987, education funding got cut. it was the year my sister started college. suddenly, i was unable to qualify for any loan. mind you, this wasn't grants that were being denied, it was loans.

i was already supporting myself by working fulltime ($2500 just about covered tuition, fees and books; rent/food/clothes/etc i had to pay for myself).

i think it's criminal to deny students in such circumstances loans. education is bloody important, but to reagan it was a commodity that could be cut. so was alzheimers, btw. bloody served him right.

[dopefiend]

but to reagan it was a commodity that could be cut. so was alzheimers, btw. bloody served him right.

Because you were poor and he didn't hand you money, he deserved to get alzheimers...

Wow, thats just insane. :rolleyes:

edit: I really hope I read that wrong...

[zimv20]

Because you were poor and he didn't hand you money, he deserved to get alzheimers...

Wow, thats just insane. :rolleyes:
1) it was a loan, not a handout (you know, so i could learn and become a productive member of society)
2) he deserved to get alzheimers because he cut funding for it; that has nothing to do w/ the loan

did you put yourself through college, mr. reading comprehension?

[dopefiend]

did you put yourself through college, mr. reading comprehension?

1. I am.
* Community college my first 2 years, last 2 at a major university and Im paying cash. ;)

You are one sick person to think he deserved alzheimers. :mad:

[IJ Reilly]

The inflation of the '70s was caused principally by the doubling of oil prices in 1973-4 and again in 1979, not the policies of any of the three presidents in office during that decade. It was brought under control mainly by the tight monetary control policies of the Federal Reserve, not the policies of the presidents in office at that time. The deficits were almost entirely the responsibility of the Reagan administration which formulated those budgets, not of the Congress which adopted them.

Reagan's legacy is mixed, good with bad. I just hope all of our memories are not so stunted when it comes to the factual matters.

[zimv20]

am i remembering correctly that, in large part due to the 70s gas crunch, carter put in place a number or energy R&D efforts that would be paying off today had reagan not cancelled them?

[zimv20]

You are one sick person to think he deserved alzheimers. :mad:
whatever. can you at least enjoy the irony?

[Neserk]

whatever. can you at least enjoy the irony?

Enjoy? no. Recognize? Yes.

[skunk]

Enjoy? no. Recognize? Yes.
Ditto.

[Desertrat]

IJ, a couple of points: Inflation took off pretty severely with LBJ's guns'n'butter policy. Heck, the Texas Lege gave us state employees a 30% (!) pay raise in September of 1968. The usual "COLA" raises had traditionally been 3.4%.

Nixon tried price freezes, remember? Remember Ford's "WIN!" buttons? Carter's advisors such as Bert Lance certainly didn't help matters.

As far as the Fed, what administration nominated Paul Volcker?

As far as budgets, Carter inherited a proposed $400 billion budget from Ford, and left four years later with a 75% increase to $700 billion to Reagan. In eight years, Bush I entered office with a proposed $1.1 trillion budget, roughly a 60% increase. This was a notable slowdown in the rate of growth of government and government spending.

The tax take during the Reagan years continually increased, once his tax policies and Volcker's policies got the early stagflation behind us.

(Where's Volcker, now--when we really need him?)

:), 'Rat

[mactastic]

Ding Dong, Reagan's dead. At least Nancy gets to enjoy the rest of her life now. I always felt bad for her, although she had it better than many others who care for long-term Alzheimers patients.

[zimv20]

Enjoy? no. Recognize? Yes.
would you enjoy the irony of bush going before the ICC?

[Neserk]

would you enjoy the irony of bush going before the ICC?

ICC? Not sure what it is but probably :D

[zimv20]

ICC? Not sure what it is but probably :D
international criminal court. if you'll recall, an early bush move was to say the US didn't recognize it. a nice bit of foreshadowing, i'd say.

[Neserk]

international criminal court. if you'll recall, an early bush move was to say the US didn't recognize it. a nice bit of foreshadowing, i'd say.

Then I'd definately enjoy him being brought before it!

[IJ Reilly]

IJ, a couple of points: Inflation took off pretty severely with LBJ's guns'n'butter policy. Heck, the Texas Lege gave us state employees a 30% (!) pay raise in September of 1968. The usual "COLA" raises had traditionally been 3.4%.

Nixon tried price freezes, remember? Remember Ford's "WIN!" buttons? Carter's advisors such as Bert Lance certainly didn't help matters.

As far as the Fed, what administration nominated Paul Volcker?

As far as budgets, Carter inherited a proposed $400 billion budget from Ford, and left four years later with a 75% increase to $700 billion to Reagan. In eight years, Bush I entered office with a proposed $1.1 trillion budget, roughly a 60% increase. This was a notable slowdown in the rate of growth of government and government spending.

The tax take during the Reagan years continually increased, once his tax policies and Volcker's policies got the early stagflation behind us.

Your anecdotes notwithstanding, the rate of inflation was never higher than 4% during the Johnson years. It broke 6% for the first time since the early '50s in 1973, and remained at that level until the early '80s.

The national debt tripled during the Reagan administration. Interest rates started a rapid climb in 1977 and peaked in 1981.

You blame Carter for high interest rates, but credit Reagan for the tight monetary policies that brought inflation under control. This doesn't make any sense to me, probably because it's contrary to the facts and history.

[3rdpath]

he was certainly one of the biggest puppets we've ever had in office. sadly, dyed hair, pink cheeks and the ability to read cue cards with conviction can take you a long way in politics...

i always thought reagan was a real-life "chauncey gardiner"..( obscure movie reference).

thank goodness we just named the local airport after bob hope...i couldn't stomach flying out of a r.r. airport.

politics aside, i wish his family well.

[zimv20]

"chauncey gardiner"..( obscure movie reference).

that's one of my favorite movies. i like to watch.

[Sayhey]

This from is atrios (http://atrios.blogspot.com/) and about sums up my feelings.


The occasion of a man's death is not the time to pile on him, but nor is it the time to let the mythmakers get away with manufacturing reality.

Reagan was not the most popular president in modern history - that honor goes to Bill Clinton.

Reagan did pass what was, at the time, the largest tax cut in history. That was quickly followed up with what still holds the record for the largest tax increase in history.

The number of nondefense federal employees grew under Reagan, as they did under the first Bush. The number shrunk when Clinton was in office.

The economy under Reagan grew at an average rate of 3.5%, a healthy clip matched by the economy under Bill Clinton. The unemployment rate averaged 7.3%.

We all know what happened to deficits and the federal debt.

I have plenty of my own reasons for disliking the politics of the Reagan administration, but unless the only thing of importance to conservatives is the top marginal tax rate, judged by their own criteria there was not much to cheer about during that time.

[Sayhey]

So Clinton is better than Reagan because he was popular? A good Leader isn't always popular. A good leader does what needs to be done. That is why we elect leaders, and we don't rule by popular opinion. (well Clinton did rule by popluar opinion, and all he did was lead us into a recession and let attacks on U.S. interests go unanswered. Some leader....)

Stelliform, watch those kneejerk reactions. That isn't the point of the post by any means. Whether Clinton or Reagan was the better President is not what he (Atrios) or I were talking about. This is about not making stuff up about someone because they died. I'm have never been a fan of Reagan, that is true, and I think I have good reason for that opinion, however that is not the question. Remember him for the reality, both good and bad, not some "Washington chopping down the cherry tree" type mythology.

[Thomas Veil]

(well Clinton did rule by popluar opinion, and all he did was lead us into a recession and let attacks on U.S. interests go unanswered. Some leader....)
I don't think even you believe that. It was Wall Street, not Clinton, that created, then destroyed, the dot-com craze. And Clinton didn't let attacks "go unanswered". Four men were convicted the year following the World Trade Center bombing, for example. The mastermind, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, was sentenced to life a year later. And Clinton had terrorist training camps bombed a number of times. Perhaps you would have preferred that we had invaded Afghanistan back then, but remember that, pre-9/11, that probably would have made things worse in the middle east rather than better.

[Desertrat]

Sorry, IJ, but the Texas Lege DID give the payraise, and it WAS due to inflation. Prices of such war materiel as steel and aluminum and copper were rising rapidly, which was causing increases in the prices of civilian applications. And if you believed that "officially, 4%" for back then, you're believing the "officially, 3%" for right now.

I didn't blame Carter for the inflation that "climaxed" during his tenure. The seeds were sown by LBJ and cultivated by Nixon and Ford*. Carter's advisors' policies exacerbated, not caused the problems.

Again, Volcker's tight-money policies, brought about by raising the fed-funds rate, brought on the stag-flation recession of '81/'82 but ended the inflation.

Hey, the late '70s were boom times for me. I was hustling "collectibles", since people were spending their money like it was burning their pockets. Prices of everything were going through the roof. I sold a house, carrying the 11% note myself, and bought a 6%-loan house from some folks who hadn't gotten the word.

Reagan came in and I soon had to try to go back to honest living. :D But he was a refreshing change for folks on fixed incomes at that time. I voted my mother's billfold, not mine.

'Rat

*Example: In May of 1974, cement jumped from $4/bbl to $11/bbl in just three months. Electricity costs. This was back in my 1966-1975 period of engineering-project cost estimating, and I watched costs verily like unto the little hawk.

[medea]

i always thought reagan was a real-life "chauncey gardiner"..( obscure movie reference).

More accurately that is a novel reference and Peter Sellers played the role in the film version.

With Reagan's death it looks like the spotlight is already being put on alzheimer's.

[Frohickey]

I'm not a numismatist anymore (was when I was a kid), but off hand I can only think of six presidents who've ever appeared on US money: Washington, Jefferson, Grant, Lincoln, FDR and JFK. The last three at least were commemorated less than 50 years after their deaths. In the case of FDR and JFK, a year or less afterwards.

Washington,Jefferson,Madison,Jackson,Lincoln,Grant,Cleveland,McKinley,Wilson,Roosevelt,Eisenhower,Ke nnedy - 12 presidents are on the money. :D

Washington - $1 bill
Jefferson - $2 bill
Lincoln - $5 bill
Hamilton (not a President, but Founding Father) - $10
Jackson - $20 bill
Grant - $50 bill
Franklin (not a President, but Founding Father) - $100
McKinley - $500 bill
Cleveland - $1000 bill
Madison - $5000 bill
Chase (not a President, but Chief Justice-SCOTUS) - $10000 bill
Wilson - $100000 bill

Lincoln - penny
Jefferson - nickel
Roosevelt - dime
Washington - quarter
Kennedy - half-dollar
Eisenhower - dollar
Anthony (not a President, but a busybody that didn't like seeing men have a good time... drinking ;) ) - dollar
Sacajawea (http://www.rootsweb.com/~nwa/sacajawea.html) (not a President, but Lewis&Clark's interpreter's Toussaint Charbonneau main squeeze ;) ...mother of Jean Baptiste Carbonneau, explorer) - dollar

-----

I think a Reagan dollar coin would be great.

[Frohickey]

i think it's criminal to deny students in such circumstances loans. education is bloody important, but to reagan it was a commodity that could be cut. so was alzheimers, btw. bloody served him right.

Couldn't you get loans from the bank? I went to college too, on loans. From Citibank, from Bank of America, via credit card loans. Sure, they were high-interest, but they were willing to loan me the money that I wanted to keep going to school. Also, I worked fulltime too, in order to pay for these loans as well.

TANSTAAFL.

[Frohickey]

am i remembering correctly that, in large part due to the 70s gas crunch, carter put in place a number or energy R&D efforts that would be paying off today had reagan not cancelled them?

Couldn't Exxon, Mobil, Texaco, Edison, etc. do their own energy R&D efforts instead? That way, we wouldn't have corporate welfare handouts.

[blackfox]

Well, I am glad Reagan finally passed on, because his quality of life couldn't have been so great in the last few years...I will avoid any comment on his presidency, since I didn't live here until the last year he held office, and most general points have been brought up. I do think that Reagan did have a flair for one-liners, some of his comments in the '80 and '84 debates were priceless...I would love Kerry to use these two against GW:

"Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

"I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience"
here are a few other notables...

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."

"My name is Ronald Reagan. What's yours?" –introducing himself after delivering a prep school commencement address. The individual responded, "I'm your son, Mike," to which Reagan replied, "Oh, I didn't recognize you."

"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself."

"Well, I learned a lot....I went down to (Latin America) to find out from them and (learn) their views. You'd be surprised. They're all individual countries"

"They say hard work never hurt anybody, but I figure why take the chance."

[zimv20]

Couldn't you get loans from the bank?
didn't get that far. what happened was, one day before i was going to drop out (my senior year), my grandfather died and left me $4000. that's how i finished school.

please don't paint me as someone who thinks the gov't should give free money to everyone. but feel free to paint me as someone who thinks the gov't should help w/ education, especially with something as measly as a $2500 loan (all my loans were paid back w/in a year of my graduating, btw).

i fail to see what is so wrong with that. doesn't it pay huge dividends later in terms of productive members of society?

edit: i should clarify -- i found out 4 days into the start of classes that my loan was denied. i was going to drop out the next day, since i'd still get 90% of my tuition back. had i waited two days, it would have gone into the 2nd week, so that was 80% back. that's why i wasn't going to wait a few weeks to see if i could secure a personal loan (which i would have had to start paying back straightaway, instead of the graduation deferment one gets w/ a school loan), 'cuz i would have frittered away my refund.

and, no, my parents didn't have any money.

[IJ Reilly]

Sorry, IJ, but the Texas Lege DID give the payraise, and it WAS due to inflation. Prices of such war materiel as steel and aluminum and copper were rising rapidly, which was causing increases in the prices of civilian applications. And if you believed that "officially, 4%" for back then, you're believing the "officially, 3%" for right now.

I didn't blame Carter for the inflation that "climaxed" during his tenure. The seeds were sown by LBJ and cultivated by Nixon and Ford*. Carter's advisors' policies exacerbated, not caused the problems.

Again, Volcker's tight-money policies, brought about by raising the fed-funds rate, brought on the stag-flation recession of '81/'82 but ended the inflation.

Hey, the late '70s were boom times for me. I was hustling "collectibles", since people were spending their money like it was burning their pockets. Prices of everything were going through the roof. I sold a house, carrying the 11% note myself, and bought a 6%-loan house from some folks who hadn't gotten the word.

Reagan came in and I soon had to try to go back to honest living. :D But he was a refreshing change for folks on fixed incomes at that time. I voted my mother's billfold, not mine.

Okay, so I guess the inflation rate now must really be 30%. After all, gasoline has increased that much in price over the last year. (This is where we go with "for instance" proofs -- nowhere.)

I could post the chart that shows the error of your facts, but I expect you'd just shoot back another story about yourself...

[IJ Reilly]

Stelliform, watch those kneejerk reactions. That isn't the point of the post by any means. Whether Clinton or Reagan was the better President is not what he (Atrios) or I were talking about. This is about not making stuff up about someone because they died. I'm have never been a fan of Reagan, that is true, and I think I have good reason for that opinion, however that is not the question. Remember him for the reality, both good and bad, not some "Washington chopping down the cherry tree" type mythology.

I agree, and was going to post similar remarks, but you beat me to it. Ronald Reagan and I were hardly on the same page politically, but I do respect the fact that he was beloved by many Americans, and that he was an accomplished president. I don't agree with everything he did accomplish, but that's beside the point right at the moment. If we can't agree to give our presidents a respectful send-off no matter how felt about them in life and in office, then lord knows what we can agree on.

[Frohickey]

please don't paint me as someone who thinks the gov't should give free money to everyone. but feel free to paint me as someone who thinks the gov't should help w/ education, especially with something as measly as a $2500 loan (all my loans were paid back w/in a year of my graduating, btw).

i fail to see what is so wrong with that. doesn't it pay huge dividends later in terms of productive members of society?

and, no, my parents didn't have any money.

My parents didn't have any money either. In fact, I was helping with the rent, groceries and utilities even before I started college. As soon as I was working, in fact.

What I see wrong about it is that it is no in government interest to provide loans. Lets see. You have a captive shareholder (taxpayer) funding a program that has to give universal access to all applicants (students) without regard for the ability to repay.

Why not have a private industry offering student loans?
A for-profit private company offering student loans that can be taxed. :p

[Desertrat]

IJ, you have it wrong-end-to. The CPI is a "shopping basket" of items, right? At least, that's what we're told. Hokay. How come when necessities go up in price above some "happy" rate, that item gets pulled from the basket?

First it was housing; then cars; then auto fuel. Then you read that the boffins' assumptions include the notion that if the price of a name-brand canned food increases above the happy rate, they "assume" that Harriet Housewife will buy generic.

IOW, I really do think we're being lied to.

Like I said, I spent a good number of years tracking construction costs, as well as personal costs. Just because I'm no longer employed doesn't mean I don't track stuff. Hardware store items. Guns & ammo. Car parts and lubricants. Backhoe and dumptruck tires. Hydraulic cylinders and repair kits. I note that steel and lumber prices are up a bunch...

My stories? They're a mnemonic device, to help me remember when stuff happened. Since I don't have to be any particular place at any particular time, time itsownself is unimportant. I live by daylight and season. Mnemonic devices help.

'Rat

[skunk]

My stories? They're a mnemonic device, to help me remember when stuff happened. Since I don't have to be any particular place at any particular time, time itsownself is unimportant. I live by daylight and season. Mnemonic devices help.

'Rat
A bit like Homer, really. :)

(not Simpson...)

[Dale Sorel]

Most any "Best Prsident" argument has more smoke than fire...

But after the negativism of the Carter era, Reagan's obvious love of this nation and its people truly shone. He restored our faith in ourselves as no other president has ever done. Sure, others helped carry us through hard times, but the change in mood from his own persona made one helluva difference.

His policies ended the 15%+ inflation rates and the 12%-15% home loan interest rates of 1980. The ensuing boom, but for the white-collar recession of 1989-1991, was practically unparalleled.

His policies led to the end of the Cold War, and high time it was. The "brinksmanship" in Iceland was no brinksmanship; it was the first time we didn't roll over like little puppy dogs at the sight of the Toothless Tiger--which the USSR soon proved to be.

His "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" resounded throughout the world, and hundreds of millions of people are now free of the fear of Soviet domination.

Yeah, he had blind spots on environmental issues. His method of delegation which led to the Iran-Contra stuff was not at all good for him or for us. His abdication of control of domestic spending to O'Neill and Rostenkowski gave us horrible budget deficits.

On balance? The boy done good.

I didn't think any of the liberals here would be able to come up with a negative statement r.e. this post.

RIP President Reagan

[Sayhey]

A bit like Homer, really. :)

(not Simpson...)

As in "Reagan, tamer of horses"? ;)

[IJ Reilly]

IJ, you have it wrong-end-to. The CPI is a "shopping basket" of items, right? At least, that's what we're told. Hokay. How come when necessities go up in price above some "happy" rate, that item gets pulled from the basket?

I really don't think this is the place to debate the technicalities of the CPI. It's all we've got to use as a benchmark. What you or I paid for butter, bread and milk or how big a raise somebody got in Texas in any given year certainly isn't a replacement for the CPI. I hope you'll agree it's quite pointless to discuss this or anything else if the terms of the debate are going to be so vastly different.

[miloblithe]

I didn't think any of the liberals here would be able to come up with a negative statement r.e. this post.

RIP President Reagan

Here goes:

The Soviet Union ended the Cold War, not Reagan. It had surprisingly little to do with him.

[Sayhey]

OK, Dale, I wasn't going to do this, but because you put it so nicely let me say one thing. The summit in Iceland for the first time had on its agenda the very real possibility of the elimination of nuclear weapons. Reagan almost went for the deal that Gorbachov offered, but refused at the last moment because he wanted to maintain his delusion of a "Star Wars" program. As a result, what could have been Reagan's greatest legacy went for naught. Now, I don't blame Ronnie for all of this because Perle and others were there and they were aghast at the idea of a nuclear free world. Such advisors had a lot to do with the failure in Reykjavik, but Reagan almost did something that would have changed the world for the better. I will always hold that decision against his legacy.

I could go on for days about the reality of Reagan's policies in contrast to the myths, but this isn't the time.

[IJ Reilly]

The latest Republican talking points seem to be favorable comparisons of George Bush to Ronald Reagan. Some examples:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200406070002

[mactastic]

The latest Republican talking points seem to be favorable comparisons of George Bush to Ronald Reagan. Some examples:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200406070002

I can think of a few not-so-favorable comparisons between them too. The largest deficits run while growing the size of government come to mind....

Bet you won't see the GOP hyping those kinds of comparisons. :p

[vwcruisn]

i think it's criminal to deny students in such circumstances loans. education is bloody important, but to reagan it was a commodity that could be cut. so was alzheimers, btw. bloody served him right.


what comes around goes around.. your karma will always catch up with you... sooner or later

[Frohickey]

OK, Dale, I wasn't going to do this, but because you put it so nicely let me say one thing. The summit in Iceland for the first time had on its agenda the very real possibility of the elimination of nuclear weapons. Reagan almost went for the deal that Gorbachov offered, but refused at the last moment because he wanted to maintain his delusion of a "Star Wars" program. As a result, what could have been Reagan's greatest legacy went for naught. Now, I don't blame Ronnie for all of this because Perle and others were there and they were aghast at the idea of a nuclear free world. Such advisors had a lot to do with the failure in Reykjavik, but Reagan almost did something that would have changed the world for the better. I will always hold that decision against his legacy.

I could go on for days about the reality of Reagan's policies in contrast to the myths, but this isn't the time.

Gorbachev wanted the deal because, like any other leader of a country, he wanted his government to survive, to keep the status quo in his country and its place in the world. Reagan didn't want this. He wanted an end to the communist government of the Soviet Union.

When you have your adversary cornered, and beaten, and he is not willing to change his ways, you do not offer him a deal, you go for the kill. :eek: :D :D

[Frohickey]

.

[skunk]

.
Is that a quote from John Cage? :D

[trebblekicked]

Is that a quote from John Cage? :D

i think that's ayn rand.

[zimv20]

Is that a quote from John Cage? :D
i quietly considered that dot for 4'33"

[skunk]

i quietly considered that dot for 4'33"
And? Did you get the point? :D

[mactastic]

i quietly considered that dot for 4'33"

You can copyright silence you know.... and pay $0.99 for it at iTMS. :p

[skunk]

You can copyright silence you know.... and pay $0.99 for it at iTMS. :p
How would you tell when you had finished the download?

[zimv20]

And? Did you get the point? :D
ow. OW!

[Sayhey]

Gorbachev wanted the deal because, like any other leader of a country, he wanted his government to survive, to keep the status quo in his country and its place in the world. Reagan didn't want this. He wanted an end to the communist government of the Soviet Union.

When you have your adversary cornered, and beaten, and he is not willing to change his ways, you do not offer him a deal, you go for the kill. :eek: :D :D

The refusal at Reykjavik did nothing to hasten the demise of the Soviet Union. It did, however, miss a chance that is not again likely to happen in our lifetime to make the world safer from the use of nuclear weapons.

[blackfox]

When you have your adversary cornered, and beaten, and he is not willing to change his ways, you do not offer him a deal, you go for the kill. :eek: :D :D
You know, I was always taught it was poor form to kick a man when he was down...and rather cowardly too. There is alot of talk about "moral authority" of the US these days, and that was probably one in a long string of incidences where the US might have put self-satisfaction before a truly useful and noble cause that benefited everyone. Sometimes even when you win you lose...a hard lesson for the ol' USA...

[miloblithe]

Gorbachev wanted the deal because, like any other leader of a country, he wanted his government to survive, to keep the status quo in his country and its place in the world. Reagan didn't want this. He wanted an end to the communist government of the Soviet Union.

When you have your adversary cornered, and beaten, and he is not willing to change his ways, you do not offer him a deal, you go for the kill. :eek: :D :D

I could recommend some books on Soviet history for you if you'd like.

[Dale Sorel]

The Soviet Union ended the Cold War, not Reagan. It had surprisingly little to do with him.

OK, Dale, I wasn't going to do this, but because you put it so nicely let me say one thing. The summit in Iceland for the first time had on its agenda the... blah blah blah... I could go on for days about the reality of Reagan's policies in contrast to the myths, but this isn't the time.

Oh my, so many experts in world affairs and history. I guess maybe you all should set folks like President Bush I and Alexander Haig straight :rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

Oh my, so many experts in world affairs and history. I guess maybe you all should set folks like President Bush I and Alexander Haig straight :rolleyes:

We do have some very well informed people here. If you can't keep up, you should stick to the Community forum. I believe the "have you ever been drunk" thread is still going strong.

[zimv20]

dale - i've started a thread for you here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=74586). have at it.

[blackfox]

Oh my, so many experts in world affairs and history. I guess maybe you all should set folks like President Bush I and Alexander Haig straight :rolleyes:
I am a little confused Dale...first off, in the sentence quoted above do you mean:
a) GHW Bush and Haig
or
b) GW Bush, Haig and yourself?
(I assume the first, but you had a small typo in another post, so had to check...)
Regardless, I am not sure what you are referring to exactly with their name-dropping. That they are better judges of world affairs and history?Yes, they are both elder statesman, but Haig worked under Kissinger during Vietnam(NSC staffer) and was WH Chief of Staff for Nixon during Watergate, which kind of undercuts his credibility...the elder Bush, well I am afraid I do not know too much, except that he is preferable to his son. If you are trying to make a connection with Reagan, it has been said that GHW Bush and Reagan did not get along very well, perhaps in terms of policy...and Haig had to resign in '82 as Secretary of State because he tried to assume power in the wake of the failed assasination of Reagan...so clarify for me, would ya...cheers.

[miloblithe]

Oh my, so many experts in world affairs and history. I guess maybe you all should set folks like President Bush I and Alexander Haig straight :rolleyes:

Are you referring articles or books that they have written (hee hee, a Bush writing!) or to politically motivated statements that they have made?

There are politicians that have written legitimate analytical contributions to political science, but generally, they are not exactly considered neutral, objective sources.

[jefhatfield]

for things like naming libraries (every president gets one anyway, right? even those who don't read?) and airports, i don't think it's a big deal.

but for money and mt. rushmore, i think time must pass and the decision be made by those who are looking through the prism of history. i suggest a minimum of 50 years after passing.

maybe it's just me, but i think mt. rushmore is "done." if there's a movement to add people, let's find a new mountain.

i think we need a mountain for fdr, kennedy, reagan, and clinton for all those who idolized those presidents who still have lots of believers...certainly, it would get more support than a mountain for johnson, ford, carter, and either bush ;)

...and also, since there is a civil war mountain and a president's mountain, we can use a mac/apple inc mountain and put jobs, woz, kawasaki, and gates on it...well maybe not gates, but he would be the only one rich enough to fund something so grand and bill would insist he gets put on it ;)

[carbonmotion]

Ronnie Reagan, the man who shattered the soviet union -and our own economy. :o

[QCassidy352]

the man was a horrible president and not much of a human being. The fact that he's dead doesn't change that.

And now, I will again take leave of the political forum, lest I get drawn in again. ;)

[dopefiend]

and not much of a human being. The fact that he's dead doesn't change that.

What the hell are you talking about?

**** politics and most of yalls whining:

The guy was a nice guy! His wife, his friends, and even people he met once or twice said that the guy treated every person from poor to rich, equally with respect unless they badmouthed his wife.

Not much of a human being? bleh!

[Neserk]

He's dead. There is no point in criticizing is presidency now. Should have done that when he was in office.

[miloblithe]

http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/reagan.html

"All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk."
--Ronald Reagan (Republican candidate for president), quoted in the Burlington (Vermont) Free Press, February 15, 1980.* (In reality, the average nuclear reactor generates 30 tons of radioactive waste per year.)

"I have flown twice over Mount St. Helens.* I'm not a scientist and I don't know the figures, but I have a suspicion that one little mountain out there, in these last several months, has probably released more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind."
--Ronald Reagan, quoted in Time magazine, October 20, 1980.* (According to scientists, Mount St. Helens emitted about 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide per day at its peak activity, compared with 81,000 tons per day produced by cars.)

"Growing and decaying vegetation in this land are responsible for 93 percent of the oxides of nitrogen."
--Ronald Reagan, quoted in the Los Angeles Times, October 9, 1980.* (According to Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund, industrial sources are responsible for at least 65 percent and possibly as much as 90 percent of the oxides of nitrogen in the U.S.)

"Approximately 80 percent of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation.* So let's not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards for man-made sources."
--Ronald Reagan, quoted in Sierra, September 10, 1980

"I've said it before and I'll say it again.* The U.S. Geological Survey has told me that the proven potential for oil in Alaska alone is greater than the proven reserves in Saudi Arabia."
--Ronald Reagan, quoted in the Detroit Free Press, March 23, 1980.* (According to the USGS, the Saudi reserves of 165.5 billion barrels are 17 times the proven reserves--9.2 billion barrels--in Alaska.)

"Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?"
--Ronald Reagan, campaign speech, 1980

"Trains are not any more energy efficient than the average automobile, with both getting about 48 passenger miles to the gallon."
--Ronald Reagan, quoted in the Chicago Tribune, May 10, 1980.* (The U.S. Department of Transportation calculates that a 14-car train traveling at 80 miles per hour gets 400 passenger miles to the gallon.* A 1980 auto carrying an average of 2.2 people gets 42.6 passenger miles to the gallon.)

"It's silly talking about how many years we will have to spend in the jungles of Vietnam when we could pave the whole country and put parking stripes on it and still be home by Christmas."
--Ronald Reagan (candidate for Governor of California), interviewed in the Fresno Bee, October 10, 1965

"I have a feeling that we are doing better in the war [in Vietnam] than the people have been told."
--Ronald Reagan, in the Los Angeles Times, October 16, 1967

"...the moral equal of our Founding Fathers."
--President Reagan, describing the Nicaraguan contras, March 1, 1985

"Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal."
--Ronald Reagan, quoted in Time, May 17, 1976

"I know all the bad things that happened in that war.* I was in uniform four years myself."
--President Reagan, in an interview with foreign journalists, April 19, 1985.* ("In costume" is more like it.* Reagan spent World War II making Army training films at Hal Roach Studios in Hollywood.)

"They've done away with those committees.* That shows the success of what the Soviets were able to do in this country."
--Ronald Reagan, quoted in the Washington Times, September 30, 1987.* (Reagan longs for the days of Sen. Joseph McCarthy and the HCUA witch hunts.)

"We think there is a parallel between federal involvement in education and the decline in profit over recent years."
--President Reagan, quoted in USA Today, April 26, 1983

"What we have found in this country, and maybe we're more aware of it now, is one problem that we've had, even in the best of times, and that is the people who are sleeping on the grates, the homeless who are homeless, you might say, by choice."
--President Reagan, defending himself against charges of callousness on Good Morning America, January 31, 1984

"I favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it must be enforced at the point of a bayonet,* if necessary."
--Ronald Reagan, Los Angeles Times, October 20, 1965

"I would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
--Ronald Reagan, Los Angeles Times, June 17, 1966


"Today a newcomer to the state is automatically eligible for our many aid programs the moment he crosses the border."
--Ronald Reagan, in a speech announcing his candidacy for Governor, January 3, 1966.* (In fact, immigrants to California had to wait five years before becoming eligible for benefits.* Reagan acknowledged his error, but nine months later said exactly the same thing.)

"[Not] until now has there ever been a time in which so many of the prophecies are coming together.* There have been times in the past when people thought the end of the world was coming, and so forth, but never anything like this."
--President Reagan revealing a disturbing view about the "coming of Armageddon," December 6, 1983


"History shows that when the taxes of a nation approach about 20 percent of the people's income, there begins to be a lack of respect for government....* When it reaches 25 percent, there comes an increase in lawlessness."
--Ronald Reagan, in Time, April 14, 1980.* (History shows no such thing.* Income tax rates in Europe have traditionally been far higher than U.S. rates, while European crime rates have been much lower.)


"Because Vietnam was not a declared war, the veterans are not even eligible for the G. I. Bill of Rights with respect to education or anything."
--Ronald Reagan, in Newsweek, April 21, 1980.* (Wrong again.)

[Sayhey]

He's dead. There is no point in criticizing is presidency now. Should have done that when he was in office.

I spent many years working against and criticizing his policies. Should I forget how bad he was?

miloblithe, wonderful quotes. Ronnie never let the truth get in the way of a great line.

[dopefiend]

I just think the funny thing you people who are currently criticizing him after his death don't realize he has probably done more good in his life than you probably ever will...

Maybe its jealousy :rolleyes:

[zimv20]

i fondly recall the bursting balloon / "missed me" stunt. it showed how bad of an actor he was, but i respect the gall to actually try it.

[blackfox]

I just think the funny thing you people who are currently criticizing him after his death don't realize he has probably done more good in his life than you probably ever will...

Maybe its jealousy :rolleyes:
Oh, come on...hell based on some of Reagans' policies/decisions (or GW or Clinton or Nixon...), I am fairly convinced there are some within this forum that would have made much better Presidents than any of them...and done more good (except Skunk...he's ineligible) :D ...but we didn't have the inclination or opportunity to do so. Yes, Reagan probably did more good than most of us, by virtue of the power of the position of US President...but I'm pretty certain he did much more evil too...don't try and patronize any of us. Try to be "fair and balanced" as many of the rest of us have...you should know the phrase well, I assume...

Why the hard-on for Reagan?
Maybe it's blind adulation :rolleyes:

[dopefiend]

Why the hard-on for Reagan?
Maybe it's blind adulation :rolleyes:

Because most of this forum has no sympathy what so ever for a poor guy who has been gone for the last 10+ years due to alzheimer's.

So full of yourselves that you can't see this is just a normal grandfather that had a family and friends. Instead, you dwell on the past and can't get politics off your brains. :rolleyes:

[blackfox]

Because most of this forum has no sympathy what so ever for a poor guy who has been gone for the last 10+ years due to alzheimer's.

So full of yourselves that you can't see this is just a normal grandfather that had a family and friends. Instead, you dwell on the past and can't get politics off your brains. :rolleyes:
first of all, this is a political forum...second of all, what the hell are you talking about? I (and I assume most everyone else you lump in w/me) have been careful to make a distinction between Reagan the man and Reagan the politician...read my previous post(#53) or IJ's a couple down (#56 I think) and a number of others...of course we have sympathy for the man, but in his passing, we take pause to remember him, that era, and the things he did which most afffected us all...which were his acts as President. That has nothing to do with the man from '89 to Present...and to criticize his past policies does not mean we are necessarily pissing on his ashes...christ, make a distinction man...

[dopefiend]

first of all, this is a political forum...second of all, what the hell are you talking about?

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=874913&postcount=88


and not much of a human being.

[blackfox]

Dopefiend...so "most" of this forum consists of two posters, and three posts out of nearly 100...(those were posts #26, 28 [by Zim] and # 87 [which you already quoted])...
...reality...it can ruin the worst of arguments...
my advice is go into the bathroom, take a good look in the mirror...then take a long, hot shower, because I can smell the Irony from here...
have a good night.

[dopefiend]

Dopefiend...so "most" of this forum consists of two posters, and three posts out of nearly 100...(those were posts #26, 28 [by Zim] and # 87 [which you already quoted])...
...reality...it can ruin the worst of arguments...
my advice is go into the bathroom, take a good look in the mirror...then take a long, hot shower, because I can smell the Irony from here...
have a good night.

hehe, ok, I will admit, I should rephrase that a bit...Ah well.

Good night :cool:

[blackfox]

hehe, ok, I will admit, I should rephrase that a bit...Ah well.

Good night :cool:
no problems mate, you just caught me after my third? glass of wine...we shall have more pointless arguments later... :D
Till then...

[zimv20]

Because most of this forum has no sympathy what so ever for a poor guy who has been gone for the last 10+ years due to alzheimer's.

i took the stance that he deserved it, and people who normally agree w/ me didn't in this case. and that's fine, but it's by no means "most". and as i pointed out, his disease isn't entirely separate from his politics.

also -- from what i understand, once alzheimer's reaches a certain a point, it's actually not at all unpleasant for the victim. a continuous world of discovery.

[Chip NoVaMac]

The inflation of the '70s was caused principally by the doubling of oil prices in 1973-4 and again in 1979, not the policies of any of the three presidents in office during that decade. It was brought under control mainly by the tight monetary control policies of the Federal Reserve, not the policies of the presidents in office at that time. The deficits were almost entirely the responsibility of the Reagan administration which formulated those budgets, not of the Congress which adopted them.

Reagan's legacy is mixed, good with bad. I just hope all of our memories are not so stunted when it comes to the factual matters.

Unfortunately this reminds me that history is written by the victors. And the after the Reagan Revolution in the Republican Party, the Party is acting more like an occupation authority. The history will be theirs to write.

[wwworry]

higher taxes on working and poor people ....


The Great Taxer (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/opinion/08KRUG.html)

"Over the course of this week we'll be hearing a lot about Ronald Reagan, much of it false. A number of news sources have already proclaimed Mr. Reagan the most popular president of modern times. In fact, though Mr. Reagan was very popular in 1984 and 1985, he spent the latter part of his presidency under the shadow of the Iran-Contra scandal. Bill Clinton had a slightly higher average Gallup approval rating, and a much higher rating during his last two years in office.

We're also sure to hear that Mr. Reagan presided over an unmatched economic boom. Again, not true: the economy grew slightly faster under President Clinton, and, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the after-tax income of a typical family, adjusted for inflation, rose more than twice as much from 1992 to 2000 as it did from 1980 to 1988.

But Ronald Reagan does hold a special place in the annals of tax policy, and not just as the patron saint of tax cuts. To his credit, he was more pragmatic and responsible than that; he followed his huge 1981 tax cut with two large tax increases. In fact, no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people. This is not a criticism: the tale of those increases tells you a lot about what was right with President Reagan's leadership, and what's wrong with the leadership of George W. Bush.

The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton's 1993 tax increase.

The contrast with President Bush is obvious. President Reagan, confronted with evidence that his tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, changed course. President Bush, confronted with similar evidence, has pushed for even more tax cuts.

Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was also motivated by a sense of responsibility — or at least that's the way it seemed at the time. I'm referring to the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by Alan Greenspan. Its key provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.

For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent — but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.

..."

[Neserk]

i also -- from what i understand, once alzheimer's reaches a certain a point, it's actually not at all unpleasant for the victim. a continuous world of discovery.


My grandmother had dementia from a serious of small strokes. She and my grandfather (who was mostly blind and deaf but of sound mind) lived on an alzheimer's wing. My aunts said that most of the sadness around alzheimers is for the family. The people who were afflicted were usually quite happy and friendly and at the point of being needed to be taken care of quite unaware of their problems (with memory).

[Neserk]

I spent many years working against and criticizing his policies. Should I forget how bad he was?
.

Remember how bad his policies were. Forgive him.

[mactastic]

I just think the funny thing you people who are currently criticizing him after his death don't realize he has probably done more good in his life than you probably ever will...

Maybe its jealousy :rolleyes:

Sorry, but I'm not going to stand by while the right puts out lies saying he was the most popular president, and he singlehandedly ended the cold war and all that. If you think it's jealousy that causes me to want to set the record straight that's your problem. Can't help you much there. If the right wasn't involved in revisionist history regarding Reagan's accomplishments I could sit back and be sad for a family that has lost a huge part of it, and I could feel sympathy for Nancy now that her trial is over and she can go back to having a life again.

Don't put this on the left soley. If you want respect regarding Reagan's legacy you need to tell the right wingers to stick to the facts about Reagan. There was good AND bad in there.

[Thomas Veil]

Oh...my...god.

Was I right, or what? (http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/08/news/economy/reagan_hamilton/index.htm)

[Lyle]

Sorry, but I'm not going to stand by while the right puts out lies saying he was the most popular president...OK, I guess I'll take the bait. ;) Who do you believe was the most popular president? And what criteria did you use to come to that conclusion?

[mactastic]

OK, I guess I'll take the bait. ;) Who do you believe was the most popular president? And what criteria did you use to come to that conclusion?

Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/opinion/08KRUG.html?ex=1087272000&en=de05086d98570620&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE)

Over the course of this week we'll be hearing a lot about Ronald Reagan, much of it false. A number of news sources have already proclaimed Mr. Reagan the most popular president of modern times. In fact, though Mr. Reagan was very popular in 1984 and 1985, he spent the latter part of his presidency under the shadow of the Iran-Contra scandal. Bill Clinton had a slightly higher average Gallup approval rating, and a much higher rating during his last two years in office.

My emphasis. Hope that answers your questions.

[zimv20]

OK, I guess I'll take the bait. ;) Who do you believe was the most popular president? And what criteria did you use to come to that conclusion?


In fact, though Mr. Reagan was very popular in 1984 and 1985, he spent the latter part of his presidency under the shadow of the Iran-Contra scandal. Bill Clinton had a slightly higher average Gallup approval rating, and a much higher rating during his last two years in office.


edit: damn, just seconds too late

[Lyle]

Who do you believe was the most popular president? And what criteria did you use to come to that conclusion?Over the course of this week we'll be hearing a lot about Ronald Reagan, much of it false. A number of news sources have already proclaimed Mr. Reagan the most popular president of modern times. In fact, though Mr. Reagan was very popular in 1984 and 1985, he spent the latter part of his presidency under the shadow of the Iran-Contra scandal. Bill Clinton had a slightly higher average Gallup approval rating, and a much higher rating during his last two years in office.My emphasis. Hope that answers your questions.I was asking who you believe was the most popular president. Do you believe that Clinton was the most popular president? If so, I guess you answered the question.

According to this C-SPAN Survey of Presidential Leadership (http://www.americanpresidents.org/survey) (apparently conducted in 1999), C-SPAN viewers (http://www.americanpresidents.org/survey/viewer/overall.asp) ranked Reagan at number 6 while ranking Clinton at number 36. The related survey of historians (http://www.americanpresidents.org/survey/historians/overall.asp) put Reagan at number 11 and Clinton at number 21.

Edit: I guess this also raises the question of whether we're talking about popularity while in office, or popularity in a historical sense. For example, both of the surveys I cited place Lincoln at the top of the list, but I think it's safe to say that there were many times during his presidency when he wasn't all that popular (especially with some Southerners, I imagine).

[mactastic]

I was asking who you believe was the most popular president. Do you believe that Clinton was the most popular president? If so, I guess you answered the question.


I make no claim to who was the most popular. All I know is that it *isn't* Reagan.

[Neserk]

Edit: I guess this also raises the question of whether we're talking about popularity while in office, or popularity in a historical sense. For example, both of the surveys I cited place Lincoln at the top of the list, but I think it's safe to say that there were many times during his presidency when he wasn't all that popular (especially with some Southerners, I imagine).


Excellent questions.

[zimv20]

I guess this also raises the question of whether we're talking about popularity while in office, or popularity in a historical sense.
indeed. i think both should be considered. for the former, we'd have to rely on polls conducted during that time, which introduces errors due to lack of consistency across presidencies. i'm not even sure when such polls, such as the gallup, began. it might be meaningful only for the last 40 years or so.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I was asking who you believe was the most popular president. Do you believe that Clinton was the most popular president? If so, I guess you answered the question.

According to this C-SPAN Survey of Presidential Leadership (http://www.americanpresidents.org/survey) (apparently conducted in 1999), C-SPAN viewers (http://www.americanpresidents.org/survey/viewer/overall.asp) ranked Reagan at number 6 while ranking Clinton at number 36. The related survey of historians (http://www.americanpresidents.org/survey/historians/overall.asp) put Reagan at number 11 and Clinton at number 21.

Edit: I guess this also raises the question of whether we're talking about popularity while in office, or popularity in a historical sense. For example, both of the surveys I cited place Lincoln at the top of the list, but I think it's safe to say that there were many times during his presidency when he wasn't all that popular (especially with some Southerners, I imagine).

First the President that I most respect (don't care about popularity) would be Kennedy - since he had a conviction that lead to the decisions that he made. Otherwise we might just be able to enter the "nuke" hot zones today.

Surveys and polls always make me uneasy. They can be written, asked of certain groups to gain the answers you desire.

The issue is that with the Reagan Revolution, one has to be careful in looking at "polls". Beyond the nation becoming more conservative, we are also seeing an information overload. People IMO are more inclined to believe what ever sound-bite they hear, than do the research to form their own opinion.

After so many years of "disrespect" the Republican Party is taking every opportunity to "rewrite" history. And the lemmings are following. I look forward to 20 years from now when the populace swings back to the Democratic Party. Unless of course we end up up in a Police State, and the Bill of Rights is ruled by the Cheney Presidency as void.

[Chip NoVaMac]

indeed. i think both should be considered. for the former, we'd have to rely on polls conducted during that time, which introduces errors due to lack of consistency across presidencies. i'm not even sure when such polls, such as the gallup, began. it might be meaningful only for the last 40 years or so.

What is surprising is how some Republicans have forgotten about Reagan's call for less government. It was Reagan himself that made it "law" that one has to wait 25 years to place monument on the Mall for a dead President.

One would think that Republicans would have thought about that before naming an airport (over the community's objections), two building in DC, and an aircraft carrier before he was even dead.

I am a voter that tends to vote for the man, not the party. But the Republican Party's insistence on a number of topics makes even hard to consider the man any more.

[wwworry]

probably a bit skewed by all the Lewinsky stuff that was TV at the time. IF you had done that same study in '87 Reagan probably would have ranked quite poorly.

Ask in another 10 years.

I was asking who you believe was the most popular president. Do you believe that Clinton was the most popular president? If so, I guess you answered the question.

According to this C-SPAN Survey of Presidential Leadership (http://www.americanpresidents.org/survey) (apparently conducted in 1999), C-SPAN viewers (http://www.americanpresidents.org/survey/viewer/overall.asp) ranked Reagan at number 6 while ranking Clinton at number 36. The related survey of historians (http://www.americanpresidents.org/survey/historians/overall.asp) put Reagan at number 11 and Clinton at number 21.

Edit: I guess this also raises the question of whether we're talking about popularity while in office, or popularity in a historical sense. For example, both of the surveys I cited place Lincoln at the top of the list, but I think it's safe to say that there were many times during his presidency when he wasn't all that popular (especially with some Southerners, I imagine).

[Lyle]

probably a bit skewed by all the Lewinsky stuff that was TV at the time. If you had done that same study in '87 Reagan probably would have ranked quite poorly.I agree.

Ask in another 10 years.I'll take you up on that. ;)

[Frohickey]

First the President that I most respect (don't care about popularity) would be Kennedy - since he had a conviction that lead to the decisions that he made. Otherwise we might just be able to enter the "nuke" hot zones today.

If JFKennedy were alive today, or miraculously be returned to life and in his prime in 2004, he would not even be a candidate for the nomination for President of the Democratic Party. :eek:

[mactastic]

Ditto for Lincoln and the modern-day GOP eh? :D :eek: :eek:

[Neserk]

If JFKennedy were alive today, or miraculously be returned to life and in his prime in 2004, he would not even be a candidate for the nomination for President of the Democratic Party. :eek:

What makes you say that?

[Chip NoVaMac]

What makes you say that?

He has a point, though he wants to make it sound worse than it is. Forty years of politics and technological change has changed what people want politically.

The Democratic Party is not the same Party as it was forty years ago. Since the Reagan Revolution, and the swing to the right the nation has made - the Democratic Party is trying to remake itself. The Republican Party has made the word "liberal" to be dirty.

Nothing will change until the people get over the words "tax cut", unless it is followed by the words "spending cuts".

[Frohickey]

Nothing will change until the people get over the words "tax cut", unless it is followed by the words "spending cuts".

I support both. :D :D :D

[mactastic]

I support both. :D :D :D

So do I. I bet we disagree about who those tax cuts should benefit, and who the spending reductions should hurt though... :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Frohickey]

So do I. I bet we disagree about who those tax cuts should benefit, and who the spending reductions should hurt though... :eek: :eek: :eek:

Start cutting taxes until everyone ends up paying the same amount.
Start cutting spending until everyone ends up receiving the same benefit.

[zimv20]

Start cutting taxes until everyone ends up paying the same amount.
Start cutting spending until everyone ends up receiving the same benefit.
and make everyone wear t-shirts sized "medium," and put everyone in a chevy malibu. cheerios every morning, bologna sandwich every lunch, hamburgers for dinner.

everyone gets a dell pc and crowds into virginia beach in august.

i don't like your vision of america.

[mactastic]

Start cutting taxes until everyone ends up paying the same amount.
Start cutting spending until everyone ends up receiving the same benefit.

And pay everyone the same amount, and tell them that there are no winners and losers, and that the whole effing world is a tie game? Is that where you're headed with this logic? Equal everything for everyone?

Now who's advocating for wealth redistribution? :eek: :eek: :eek:

[numediaman]

I make no claim to who was the most popular. All I know is that it *isn't* Reagan.

Turns out you are right. In fact, Clinton was a more "popular" president than Reagan -- now won't that just piss off those on the right.

Directly from the Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/content/?ci=11887) site -- these are averages throughout a president's term:

[IJ Reilly]

Turns out you are right. In fact, Clinton was a more "popular" president than Reagan -- now won't that just piss off those on the right.

And so was LBJ, even with the war. Imagine that.

[Frohickey]

Turns out you are right. In fact, Clinton was a more "popular" president than Reagan -- now won't that just piss off those on the right.

Directly from the Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/content/?ci=11887) site -- these are averages throughout a president's term:

Only if you consider 'popular' to be the result of a Gallup poll.

Reagan was elected via a landslide, in electoral college votes and number of voters.
Clinton was elected, but he actually received less than 50% of the number of voters.

[numediaman]

Ah, those wonderful memories of the Reagan administration . . .

Transcript of a press conference by Larry Speakes, presidential spokesman, on October 15, 1982:

Q: Larry, does the President have any reaction to the announcement from the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, that AIDS is now an epidemic and have over 600 cases?
MR. SPEAKES: What's AIDS?
Q: Over a third of them have died. It's known as "gay plague." (Laughter.) No, it is. I mean it's a pretty serious thing that one in every three people that get this have died. And I wondered if the President is aware of it?
MR. SPEAKES: I don't have it. Do you? (Laughter.)
Q: No, I don't.
MR. SPEAKES: You didn't answer my question.
Q: Well, I just wondered, does the President ...
MR. SPEAKES: How do you know? (Laughter.)
Q: In other words, the White House looks on this as a great joke?
MR. SPEAKES: No, I don't know anything about it, Lester.
Q: Does the President, does anyone in the White House know about this epidemic, Larry?
MR. SPEAKES: I don't think so. I don't think there's been any ...
Q: Nobody knows?
MR. SPEAKES: There has been no personal experience here, Lester.
Q: No, I mean, I thought you were keeping ...
MR. SPEAKES: I checked thoroughly with Dr. Ruge this morning and he's had no - (laughter) - no patients suffering from AIDS or whatever it is.
Q: The President doesn't have gay plague, is that what you're saying or what?
MR. SPEAKES: No, I didn't say that.
Q: Didn't say that?
MR. SPEAKES: I thought I heard you on the State Department over there. Why didn't you stay there? (Laughter.)
Q: Because I love you Larry, that's why (Laughter.)
MR. SPEAKES: Oh I see. Just don't put it in those terms, Lester. (Laughter.)
Q: Oh, I retract that.
MR. SPEAKES: I hope so.
Q: It's too late.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_06_06_dish_archive.html#108683435717765818

[IJ Reilly]

Clinton was elected, but he actually received less than 50% of the number of voters.

And so did Reagan in 1980, in a similar three-way race. Both Reagan and Clinton won clear popular majorities in their reelection runs.

Edit: Reagan won a smashing 50.7% of the vote in 1980.

[mactastic]

Only if you consider 'popular' to be the result of a Gallup poll.

Reagan was elected via a landslide, in electoral college votes and number of voters.
Clinton was elected, but he actually received less than 50% of the number of voters.

You're right about the electoral landslide, but not about the popular vote. Just more evidence against the electoral college system....

Link (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_135.html)
If Reagan's 1980 victory was an avalanche, I'm Wilt Chamberlain. Ron got 50.7 percent of the popular vote, which is nothing compared to the landslide champs: LBJ in 1964 (61.0 percent), FDR in 1936 (60.8 percent), and Nixon in 1972 (60.7 percent).

Since only 53.9 percent of the voting-age population actually voted in 1980 (the lowest percentage since 1948), Ron got a scant 27.3 percent of the eligible vote, which is pretty terrible. Of the 40 elections held since 1824 (popular vote totals prior to that time are unavailable), Ron comes in 34th in percentage of eligible vote received, beating out only Carter, Nixon (in 1968), Truman, Coolidge, Wilson, and John Quincy Adams (who had an unbelievably crappy 8.2 percent in 1824--but more on this anon).

[IJ Reilly]

Trivia question:

In 1984, Ronald Reagan received 54,455,075 votes, the largest number of popular votes any presidential candidate has ever received in US history. Who is number two?

[Sayhey]

Trivia question:

In 1984, Ronald Reagan received 54,455,075 votes, the largest number of popular votes any presidential candidate has ever received in US history. Who is number two?

It's only a guess, but I think it is Gore in 2000.

edit: yep, looked it up. He got approx. 51 million votes.

[Backtothemac]

Well to me, the man was a hero. In many ways. The tax reform, standing up to the soviets and bankrupting them. Ending the cold war, etc.

He is a hero to me.

[Frohickey]

You're right about the electoral landslide, but not about the popular vote. Just more evidence against the electoral college system....

Link (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_135.html)

To become president, not only should you have enough votes, but you should have those votes in the right places as well.

1980 Election (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/U.S.-presidential-election,-1980)
1984 Election (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/U.S.-presidential-election,-1984)
1992 Election (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/U.S.-presidential-election,-1992)
1996 Election (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/U.S.-presidential-election,-1996)

Lets see... RWReagan gets more than 50% of the popular vote, and more than 90% of the EC votes in both elections.
Lets see...WJClinton gets less than 50% of the popular vote, and just about 69% of the EC votes (hmm... how appropriate of a number, eh?) :D

[mactastic]

To become president, not only should you have enough votes, but you should have those votes in the right places as well.

1980 Election (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/U.S.-presidential-election,-1980)
1984 Election (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/U.S.-presidential-election,-1984)
1992 Election (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/U.S.-presidential-election,-1992)
[/url=http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/U.S.-presidential-election,-1996]1996 Election[/url]

Lets see... RWReagan gets more than 50% of the popular vote, and more than 90% of the EC votes in both elections.
Lets see...WJClinton gets less than 50% of the popular vote, and just about 69% of the EC votes (hmm... how appropriate of a number, eh?) :D

It would be nice if the person with the most votes was the winner eh? :eek:

[Frohickey]

Trivia question:

In 1984, Ronald Reagan received 54,455,075 votes, the largest number of popular votes any presidential candidate has ever received in US history. Who is number two?

Thats statistic is a pointless one. I bet in the future, in 2040, the winning candidate for the US presidency would have more votes than both Ronald Reagan and AlGore combined.

I bet that George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had less people voting for them than any of the presidents of the 20th century.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Well to me, the man was a hero. In many ways. The tax reform, standing up to the soviets and bankrupting them. Ending the cold war, etc.

He is a hero to me.

As all good heros he was flawed...

Tax cuts gave way to tax increases. Standing up to the Soviets and nearly bankrupting the US in the process. It will be for future historians to determine who really ended the cold war, and created the monsters we have today.

[Frohickey]

It would be nice if the person with the most votes was the winner eh? :eek:

If you said EC votes, then I would agree with you.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Thats statistic is a pointless one. I bet in the future, in 2040, the winning candidate for the US presidency would have more votes than both Ronald Reagan and AlGore combined.

I bet that George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had less people voting for them than any of the presidents of the 20th century.

And after the 2000 election, it is harder to get people to see the value of voting. I know, it is flawed logic, but I have heard from more than one person, "Why bother? I knew my vote doesn't count".

[IJ Reilly]

Thats statistic is a pointless one.

No it isn't. It proves that Gore was the second most popular president in US history.

[Frohickey]

And pay everyone the same amount, and tell them that there are no winners and losers, and that the whole effing world is a tie game? Is that where you're headed with this logic? Equal everything for everyone?

Now who's advocating for wealth redistribution? :eek: :eek: :eek:

Government is for the people... why should it be more for one class of people and less for another?

As to paying everyone the same amount, I assume you are talking about people working in private companies. Some people work harder and smarter than others, why should they not get paid more than others?

[Frohickey]

And after the 2000 election, it is harder to get people to see the value of voting. I know, it is flawed logic, but I have heard from more than one person, "Why bother? I knew my vote doesn't count".

Actually, everyone's vote counts. But if you are in a state that is already overwhelmingly voting one way, another vote going the same way is not much use.

Also, if you were to have moved to a battleground state, then your vote would be worth a lot more than if you had stayed at your non-battleground state.

[mactastic]

Government is for the people... why should it be more for one class of people and less for another?

You say that... But then why should one persons vote count more than another? If government is for the people and all that.

As to paying everyone the same amount, I assume you are talking about people working in private companies. Some people work harder and smarter than others, why should they not get paid more than others?

OK then, all governement employees make the same amount. Sound good to you? I mean if paying the same amount in taxes is fair.... Also if we're talking about private sector employees, why can't we tax them differently if it's fair to pay them differently? You want everything to be equal, right?

[Chip NoVaMac]

If you said EC votes, then I would agree with you.

The electoral college system has outlived its usefulness. The candidates still focus their attention on the states with the "most votes", in this case the electoral college vote.

Carrying the following states:

California 55 votes (10.9m turnout in 2000)
Florida 27 votes (5.9m)
Georgia 15 votes (2.5m)
Illinois 21 votes (4.7m)
New Jersey 15 votes (3.1m)
New York 31 votes (6.9m)
North Carolina 15 votes (2.9m)
Michigan 17 votes (4.2m)
Ohio 20 votes (4.7m)
Pennsylvania 20 votes (4.9m)
Texas 34 votes (6.4m)

These 11 states have the highest number of electoral votes to the magic number of 270. Using 2000 election numbers, they account for 57.1 million of the voter turnout in 2000. Total turnout was 105.5 million. 39 states with a turn out of 48.4 million. Since this is a hypothetical examination, lets say in XY election that there were only two parties. And in these key states the race was close (50.1/49.9 split). The winner (X) would get 28.07m popular vote. In the other states not being fed by gerrymandering and big political money, the results flip for the other party (Y). They win the remaining states at a 60% rate of turnout (29.04m). Yet because of your revered electoral college system, their votes are invalidated.

The only reason for the electoral college IMO is to maintain a Party's power for a 10 year cycle and perhaps beyond. Back when the Founding Fathers came up with the electoral college system, there was no mass communication as it exists today. A few states had the major population. It was far better not to go by popular vote.

11 states SHOULD NOT be able to control an election. It increases the odds of dirty politics, and voting fraud. Far easier to "cheat" in 11 states, than it is to in 50 states.

Realize that by going to a popular vote, I too am putting my faith in my fellow voters nationwide to vote the way I do. Sometimes my candidate will win, and other times they will lose. Gerrymandering will still exist, so the Party's can still try to control the process at the Capital. At least allow the population to choose the leader of the nation, and by some accounts the free world - not by Party trickery.

Lets face it, you want a system that currently favors your particular Party. For me I am willing to accept a popular vote of the people to choose. Then maybe we would see better campaigns.

Side note: In regards to the 2000 election I can only imagine the howls from Republicans if the shoes were reversed. And if it were Gore that had been "misled" on the WMD, the Republicans would be trying to impeach him too.

[Frohickey]

You say that... But then why should one persons vote count more than another? If government is for the people and all that.

OK then, all governement employees make the same amount. Sound good to you? I mean if paying the same amount in taxes is fair.... Also if we're talking about private sector employees, why can't we tax them differently if it's fair to pay them differently? You want everything to be equal, right?

Lets see...if I live in a state with only 3 people living in it, then my vote is responsible for garnering 1/3rd of the electoral votes coming from this state. If I were to trade places with another citizen living in a state with 30million people, my vote would only be 1/30millionth of the electoral votes. The candidate better convince another 9.99million people in that state.

Do all government employees do the same amount of work? You are confusing benefits and cost of government with work performed by government. If all government employees do the same amount of work, then your above comment would be equitable.

The benefits given by government to citizens should be equal to all citizens. By that, the cost of government to citizens should be equal as well.

[miloblithe]

Well to me, the man was a hero. In many ways. The tax reform, standing up to the soviets and bankrupting them. Ending the cold war, etc.

He is a hero to me.

I'm curious, when was the Soviet Union bankrupted? When did the Cold War end and why?

If you'd like to read some books on what led to the demise of the Soviet Union, I'd be happy to recommend some for you.

[Backtothemac]

I'm curious, when was the Soviet Union bankrupted? When did the Cold War end and why?

If you'd like to read some books on what led to the demise of the Soviet Union, I'd be happy to recommend some for you.

That is ok, I have a masters degree in Military history, so I am very well versed in the subject. Have you read Reagan's diary? If not, I would recommend it to you.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Lets see...if I live in a state with only 3 people living in it, then my vote is responsible for garnering 1/3rd of the electoral votes coming from this state. If I were to trade places with another citizen living in a state with 30million people, my vote would only be 1/30millionth of the electoral votes. The candidate better convince another 9.99million people in that state.

Yep that is right, but you can't look at it from just a two state hypothetical. Since so many are singing the praises of Reagan this week, he is a candidate that we could see more of. His wins were the direct result of reaching beyond Party lines. Eliminating the electoral college will bring more positive candidates to the political process.

I assume that you support the electoral college because of the 2000 census and the resulting gerrymandering will "fix" the electoral college votes for sometime to come. And your candidate(s) can't win without the college. Either that or you are afraid that the two party system will fall with the rise a better third party. In 1992 18.87% went to a third party, in 1996 8.39% went to a third party, and in 2000 2.74% went to a third party.

While the numbers are declining, it may be the result of voters getting disenfranchised by the Democrats and Republicans trying to maintain control of the White House. It also shows that peoples votes are not be counted where it counts.

[mactastic]

Lets see...if I live in a state with only 3 people living in it, then my vote is responsible for garnering 1/3rd of the electoral votes coming from this state. If I were to trade places with another citizen living in a state with 30million people, my vote would only be 1/30millionth of the electoral votes. The candidate better convince another 9.99million people in that state.

Ah a perfect example of a Frohickey contradiction. You claim you want government to be equal for all... except when it comes to voting. Yes in one place your vote is worth a different amount than in another. Not very equal is it? I figured you for a 'one man, one vote' kind of guy.

Do all government employees do the same amount of work? You are confusing benefits and cost of government with work performed by government. If all government employees do the same amount of work, then your above comment would be equitable.

The benefits given by government to citizens should be equal to all citizens. By that, the cost of government to citizens should be equal as well.

Yeah, love your proposal for a poll tax. Perfect for bringing back the debtors prisons of a bygone era. And by the way, I'd love to share in the benefits given to Halliburton, Enron, Bechtel, or Bacardi. Government benefits don't just come in the form of AFDC checks you know. And those guys are splitting up BILLIONS of our tax dollars. Some of them even set up offshore shell corporations to avoid paying for what they get. Yet you claim you want equality in government benefits to each citizen.

[miloblithe]

That is ok, I have a masters degree in Military history, so I am very well versed in the subject. Have you read Reagan's diary? If not, I would recommend it to you.

Dear Diary,

Today I defeated Communism. It felt good, but I can't help but feel like I'm losing an old friend...


Military history eh? So then you must know all about the big battle when Reagan led the charge to defeat the Soviets.

[wwworry]

Government is for the people... why should it be more for one class of people and less for another?

As to paying everyone the same amount, I assume you are talking about people working in private companies. Some people work harder and smarter than others, why should they not get paid more than others?

After all, white men deserve it don't they?
:confused:

[wwworry]

This whole heorification of Reagan is really Bush trying to run as someone else because people are finding out what a dufus George W Bush is. Just go to http://www.georgewbush.com to see.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Dear Diary,

Today I defeated Communism. It felt good, but I can't help but feel like I'm losing an old friend...


Military history eh? So then you must know all about the big battle when Reagan led the charge to defeat the Soviets.

Nice that he was safe in Hollywood, while the men were storming Normandy...

[Chip NoVaMac]

This whole heorification of Reagan is really Bush trying to run as someone else because people are finding out what a dufus George W Bush is. Just go to http://www.georgewbush.com to see.

I guess it is not hard to figure out who really decided who would deliver the eulogies today.

it is the RNC if you need a hint....

It feels like the 1930's again...

[Desertrat]

Chip, I hope you never have to live with a bad back, or any other partial disability which would make you 4F. Unending low-level pain just ain't fun.

Keeps you off the combat beaches, of course. Even if you wanted to go, they won't take you.

In the FWIW department, there were several Hollywood actors who volunteered for WW II service. They were told that their movies were more important as morale-builders for both the troops and we "mere" civilians; "Stay home and make movies." Same for some in industry, as well.

'Rat

[Chip NoVaMac]

Chip, I hope you never have to live with a bad back, or any other partial disability which would make you 4F. Unending low-level pain just ain't fun.

Keeps you off the combat beaches, of course. Even if you wanted to go, they won't take you.

In the FWIW department, there were several Hollywood actors who volunteered for WW II service. They were told that their movies were more important as morale-builders for both the troops and we "mere" civilians; "Stay home and make movies." Same for some in industry, as well.

'Rat

I stand corrected. Apologies for not researching that particular fact.

Though the military can be two faced on the issue evidently, given JFK's injury in 1943 ( http://www.jfklibrary.org/jfk-manofsea-2.html ).

Maybe you could give some insight as to why a different standard?

[mactastic]

Welcome to the all-Reagan news today.... Apparently there is nothing else going on in the world.

[Lyle]

Well to me, the man was a hero.Apparently also to the tens of thousands of people lining up to pay their respects in Washington over the last few days. People standing in line up to eight hours for what I gather was only a few seconds' opportunity to actually see the flag-draped coffin. If people would put the numbers and rhetoric aside for just a moment and step back into reality, it's blatantly obvious how the American people felt, and still do feel, about President Reagan.

[dopefiend]

They are moving him now :(

Doing the 21 gunshot salute thingy. Mrs. Reagan still has a look of sadness on her face. She reminds me of my grandmother when my grandfater passed away. :(

[Chip NoVaMac]

Apparently also to the tens of thousands of people lining up to pay their respects in Washington over the last few days. People standing in line up to eight hours for what I gather was only a few seconds' opportunity to actually see the flag-draped coffin. If people would put the numbers and rhetoric aside for just a moment and step back into reality, it's blatantly obvious how the American people felt, and still do feel, about President Reagan.

My standing for hours to pay my respects had nothing to do with him being a hero. It was about paying respect to a man that I may not always have agreed with, yet did have an effect on the world - both good and bad.

For some standing in line with me, it was about being part of history. The first state funeral in 30 years.

No disrespect to former President Reagan, but try not to read too much into those paying their respects to the man.

[Lyle]

And after the 2000 election, it is harder to get people to see the value of voting. I know, it is flawed logic, but I have heard from more than one person, "Why bother? I knew my vote doesn't count".As you say, it's flawed logic, and I'm guessing that those same people would feel differently if Al Gore were President today. But if those people really do feel that their vote doesn't count, that the election was "fixed", or whatever Michael Moore has told them to believe, that should energize them even more so to get out and vote. If you think "the man" stole your vote, speak up and do something about it.

[Chip NoVaMac]

They are moving him now :(

Doing the 21 gunshot salute thingy. Mrs. Reagan still has a look of sadness on her face. She reminds me of my grandmother when my grandfater passed away. :(

Having gone through the same thing in my family, my heart goes out to her. It is even harder to say goodbye, when it takes ten years.

[Chip NoVaMac]

As you say, it's flawed logic, and I'm guessing that those same people would feel differently if Al Gore were President today. But if those people really do feel that their vote doesn't count, that the election was "fixed", or whatever Michael Moore has told them to believe, that should energize them even more so to get out and vote. If you think "the man" stole your vote, speak up and do something about it.

I doubt it, even if Gore had won the electoral vote, or the USSC had given the election to Gore. For the other side would feel that their vote doesn't count.

It is not only Democrats that I have spoken with that feel that votes don't count. It crosses party lines. It is the money of politics that sets the tone.

And that is the sad state that the populace is in. The disenchantment I believe goes back to the 1992 election with Perot getting over 18% of the vote. The third party vote has gone down from there.

No sure why the American people are so willing to give up on what so many other countries would love to have an opportunity for.

To honor Reagan, people should demand that money be removed from party politics, so that we can truly have that shining city on the hill.

[zimv20]

Welcome to the all-Reagan news today.... Apparently there is nothing else going on in the world.
not even news of ray charles? how very interesting.

[IJ Reilly]

not even news of ray charles? how very interesting.

At least three threads started here on the passing of Brother Ray.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75061

I know this is going to sound a little cruel to some, but Ray's the one I'm really going to miss.

[dopefiend]

I know this is going to sound a little cruel to some, but Ray's the one I'm really going to miss.

I'll miss both of them :(

[zimv20]

At least three threads started here on the passing of Brother Ray.

i mean in the mainstream media, especially TV. will they find time to do even a small piece about mr. charles? or will that all start tomorrow?

[dopefiend]

i mean in the mainstream media, especially TV. will they find time to do even a small piece about mr. charles? or will that all start tomorrow?

Its already been all over local channels. Imuse was making a fuse about it this morning, heh.

[mactastic]

For a media that's so liberal, they sure are fawning over a conservative god-like figure.... Why would a media so liberal do that?

[zimv20]

Imuse
who/what is imuse?

[mactastic]

who/what is imuse?

Imus.

[dopefiend]

Yup, Imus. Comes on MSNBC around 5ish am cst.

[zimv20]

i don't have cable

[Frohickey]

Ah a perfect example of a Frohickey contradiction. You claim you want government to be equal for all... except when it comes to voting. Yes in one place your vote is worth a different amount than in another. Not very equal is it? I figured you for a 'one man, one vote' kind of guy.

Yeah, love your proposal for a poll tax. Perfect for bringing back the debtors prisons of a bygone era. And by the way, I'd love to share in the benefits given to Halliburton, Enron, Bechtel, or Bacardi. Government benefits don't just come in the form of AFDC checks you know. And those guys are splitting up BILLIONS of our tax dollars. Some of them even set up offshore shell corporations to avoid paying for what they get. Yet you claim you want equality in government benefits to each citizen.

Ah, a perfect example of a mactastic no-comprehending-what-he's-reading. That is the way it is now. That is the way it has been since this country started. This country is a representative democracy, and this is the way representatives are elected. In your idea, the 30million strong state ought to just annex the 3person state, and forcibly add its territory to its own. :eek: :eek: :eek: Because that would be the outcome with your much-vaunted-but faulty popular vote for President.

[Frohickey]

For a media that's so liberal, they sure are fawning over a conservative god-like figure.... Why would a media so liberal do that?

Because liberals have to eat too, and if they don't provide coverage that people are willing to watch, the advertisers are not going to pay them.

Most of the time though, people don't have a strong sense of what type of coverage or stories they want to hear, and during these times, that is when the liberals have their bias come shining through. Since there is no strong sense from the people, the advertisers don't care either.

[mactastic]

Ah, a perfect example of a mactastic no-comprehending-what-he's-reading. That is the way it is now. That is the way it has been since this country started. This country is a representative democracy, and this is the way representatives are elected. In your idea, the 30million strong state ought to just annex the 3person state, and forcibly add its territory to its own. :eek: :eek: :eek: Because that would be the outcome with your much-vaunted-but faulty popular vote for President.

Yeah the way it's always been is the way it always should be huh? Good thing you wern't in charge in the days of slavery or womens sufferage! :eek: :eek: :eek: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[skunk]

Good thing you wern't in charge in the days of slavery or womens sufferage!
Um, we ARE in the days of women's suffrage...
;)

[mactastic]

Um, we ARE in the days of women's suffrage...
;)

I meant the movements that gave women sufferage and that freed the slaves.

[skunk]

I meant the movements that gave women sufferage and that freed the slaves.
;)

[mactastic]

Amazing photo...

[Frohickey]

Yeah the way it's always been is the way it always should be huh? Good thing you wern't in charge in the days of slavery or womens sufferage! :eek: :eek: :eek: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

If I was in charge back in 1787, slavery would have been stopped at that point (like Thomas Jefferson wanted to do, but repeatly got shot down by both the Virginia legislature and the Constitutional Convention).

As for women's suffrage, I agree with Ann Coulter. Women should not be allowed to vote, but they would be allowed to run for office. ;)
(Anecdotal evidence suggest that the growth of government was preceeded by women's suffrage.)

[Don't panic]

As for women's suffrage, I agree with Ann Coulter. Women should not be allowed to vote, but they would be allowed to run for office. ;)


If it means that only women would be allowed to be in office (elected by men), then you'd have a bizarre but interesting proposition. If instead it is meant as it sounds, maybe this Ann Coulter should refrain from voting herself and let the rest use their (much) better judgment

[IJ Reilly]

Ann Coulter is certifiable. Citing her as an authority on anything speaks for itself.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Because liberals have to eat too, and if they don't provide coverage that people are willing to watch, the advertisers are not going to pay them.

Most of the time though, people don't have a strong sense of what type of coverage or stories they want to hear, and during these times, that is when the liberals have their bias come shining through. Since there is no strong sense from the people, the advertisers don't care either.

Most advertising is purchased in advance, for certain days and day parts. In the case of breaking news like this, any commercials missed are then put in to the "make good" category to be rescheduled. An advertiser that feels that their message may be misunderstood, or not in keeping with good taste in times like this can make a request to reschedule their airtime.

When covering a news item, the coverage may not affect immediate ad revenue; but may be future revenue. Yet in the end the advertisers need the media outlets just as much.

To be fair both have to pander to the fickle audience. We are a nation so divided politically. (I am sure at sometime in the future, we'll find out that the RNC orchestrated the Reagan farewell. That Nancy wanted a short period of viewing at the Reagan library, and a private burial at the library.)

So in the case of Reagan's passing they decided the high road was the better way of going. Offer just enough of the alternative view to provide some balance. Much as Nixon was praised as a great statesman.

If there is greed in the media's eyes, it is because of the great campaign chest that the Republicans have for this 2004 election cycle. This is one reason that serious reform is needed.

But in the end the liberal media is not as liberal as you would want to portray them. If anything they are sharks, and when they smell blood in the water they will attack. Regardless of the Party involved.

[mactastic]

Because liberals have to eat too, and if they don't provide coverage that people are willing to watch, the advertisers are not going to pay them.

Most of the time though, people don't have a strong sense of what type of coverage or stories they want to hear, and during these times, that is when the liberals have their bias come shining through. Since there is no strong sense from the people, the advertisers don't care either.

But if they are so willing to cover conservative news, how can you call them liberal?

[Chip NoVaMac]

If I was in charge back in 1787, slavery would have been stopped at that point (like Thomas Jefferson wanted to do, but repeatly got shot down by both the Virginia legislature and the Constitutional Convention).

As for women's suffrage, I agree with Ann Coulter. Women should not be allowed to vote, but they would be allowed to run for office. ;)
(Anecdotal evidence suggest that the growth of government was preceeded by women's suffrage.)

And I guess only property owners would still be the only ones having the right to vote too....

[numediaman]

Ann Coulter is certifiable. Citing her as an authority on anything speaks for itself.

Some of my favorite Coulter lines:

About Muslims: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity"

The environment: "God says, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"

RE: The Oklahoma City bomber: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

Torture in Iraq: "If you support the Marines, then how in God's name can you oppose taxpayer-funded photos of bullwhips up men's anuses? At least I think that's the logic."

[IJ Reilly]

Collect the whole set!

I think the other point that no one is making about the abuse photos is just the disproportionate number of women involved, including a girl general running the entire operation.

[skunk]

Of course, Reagan wouldn't look good except by comparison with the present incumbent. Coco the Clown would look good too.

[Frohickey]

Of course, Reagan wouldn't look good except by comparison with the present incumbent. Coco the Clown would look good too.

Wow.
So much vitriol for a non-citizen who can't even vote. :eek:

[Neserk]

Wow.
So much vitriol for a non-citizen who can't even vote. :eek:

All the more reason for his anger. He has to depend on us to oust the idiot in charge! He is completely helpless to vote him out!

[skunk]

Wow.
So much vitriol for a non-citizen who can't even vote. :eek:
Why should my being a "non-citizen" make me less vitriolic? Your SOB is screwing it up for everybody, not just you.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Why should my being a "non-citizen" make me less vitriolic? Your SOB is screwing it up for everybody, not just you.

Are you saying that Cheney has his other free hand up you know who's butt? :)

[skunk]

Are you saying that Cheney has his other free hand up you know who's butt? :)
Eww. Don't go there. :eek:

[Frohickey]

Why should my being a "non-citizen" make me less vitriolic? Your SOB is screwing it up for everybody, not just you.

Why don't you give Mr Blair a call and get the UK to invade the USA. And this time, don't do it with four young 'musicians' and their ugly Japanese wife who can't sing to save the world. :eek: :p :D

Actually, I think that you should send money to the political opponents of GWBush. (That ought to go real well with the FEC, when they find out that a foreign national is contributing to the election campaign within the US.) :p

[Disclaimer: Foreign nationals are NOT ALLOWED to contribute to US election campaigns]

[Frohickey]

All the more reason for his anger. He has to depend on us to oust the idiot in charge! He is completely helpless to vote him out!

"Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. I sense much fear in you." -Fuzzy Bear... err... Yoda, Master Jedi :D :D :D

[Chip NoVaMac]

"Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. I sense much fear in you." -Fuzzy Bear... err... Yoda, Master Jedi :D :D :D

Maybe Republicans can learn a thing or two from that...

They seem to fear anyone not white, heterosexual, Christian, and earning at least six figures. :D :D :D

[skunk]

Why don't you give Mr Blair a call and get the UK to invade the USA.
Why would we want to do that? Your oil's running out.
I didn't realize it was Americans only here. You should have said.
Of course the real problem for you is that you can't tell me to "love it or leave it" because I'm not there to start with. Hmmm.

And this time, don't do it with four young 'musicians' and their ugly Japanese wife who can't sing to save the world. :eek: :p :D
? :confused: WTF?? :confused:
Did I hear the word "vitriol"?

Actually, I think that you should send money to the political opponents of GWBush. (That ought to go real well with the FEC, when they find out that a foreign national is contributing to the election campaign within the US.) :p
They all seem plenty rich enough already. I'll pass.