cwsox Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 I have a question I need help on. What would you call a person who gave aid and support to both Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein? That includes weapons to Osama and aid to Hussein so Hussein could divert money for weapons to commit massacres? What would you call that person? What if that same person gave aid, support, and weapons to someone who was responsible for the killing of a bishop at mass, the massacre of clergy and students, and the raping and murder of nuns and lay workers and used the newly gotten weapons to commit more massacres? what would you call that person? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 President? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsSuck1 Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 President? Whaaaa?? ..... GWB? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted June 12, 2004 Author Share Posted June 12, 2004 President? ahhh... but which one? 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsSuck1 Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 ahhh... but which one? 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 GHWB? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 Damn, cw. All you had to do was wait another 30 minutes and he would have been in the ground before you started trashing him. :headshake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsSuck1 Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 Damn, cw. All you had to do was wait another 30 minutes and he would have been in the ground before you started trashing him. :headshake oh. Reagan. I am teh smart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted June 12, 2004 Author Share Posted June 12, 2004 Damn, cw. All you had to do was wait another 30 minutes and he would have been in the ground before you started trashing him. :headshake He was in the ground by the news out here What is telling the truth you call trashing. It is not trashing. It is truth telling. What I posed is true. It is true. The Reagan Legacy was Saddam and Osama. Most of Saddam's best heinous acts were done with the aid and support of the Reagan administration. And that was to kill Iranians (and his own people) while on the other side Reagan was trading with Iran arms for hostages, Iran Contra, in violation of US law. (But there was a Bible and birthday cake tossed in there, so ok) And the Reagan financial support for the murderous Roberto d'Aubission of El Salvador. The puppet light and shadow show is over. Time to be real. As real as Nancy running the White House scheduling for Ron based on astrological readings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 Wow. I expected better than this. Very, very disappointing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted June 12, 2004 Author Share Posted June 12, 2004 Wow. I expected better than this. Very, very disappointing. We didn't expect better of Reagan and it was yet even with low level of expectations it wasvery disappointing. Or do you mean you are disappointed that taking truthfully about Reagan foreign policy is disappointing because the marketing image of the cowboy is so gratifying? I love the way it gets said "disapointing" as if there is a moral or personal flaw in the one who points out the truth which you cannot rebut, rather than admitting that the flaw is in the actions that have been pointed out. I am disappointed that you don't try to justify Reagan's foreign policy beginning with its source, Jeanne Kilkpatrick's article in Foreign Affairs. I have a copy if you want to borrow it. It s the one that caught his eye when she expalined the difference between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes (ones we liked, authoritarian, good, ones we disliked, totalitarian, bad). I think using Reagan's own source would have been your best bet, as weak as that is. I remember Reagan discussing waging a limited nuclear war in Europe. I remember Reagan saying that if fired ballistic missiles could be recalled. He had some unusual views, to say the least. But as Michael Deaver pointed out - deputy chief of staff - it never mattered what Reagan said, they cared about the backdrop, the scenerym did it look prsidential and as long as the scenery was good it was irrelevant what Reagan actually said, tv America wouyld buy the image. That is from michael Dever, Reagan's deputy chief of staff. He said it again on CNN today. Fight your battle with him, not me, on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsSuck1 Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 We didn't expect better of Reagan and it was yet even with low level of expectations it wasvery disappointing. Or do you mean you are disappointed that taking truthfully about Reagan foreign policy is disappointing because the marketing image of the cowboy is so gratifying? I love the way it gets said "disapointing" as if there is a moral or personal flaw in the one who points out the truth which you cannot rebut, rather than admitting that the flaw is in the actions that have been pointed out. I am disappointed that you don't try to justify Reagan's foreign policy beginning with its source, Jeanne Kilkpatrick's article in Foreign Affairs. I have a copy if you want to borrow it. It s the one that caught his eye when she expalined the difference between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes (ones we liked, authoritarian, good, ones we disliked, totalitarian, bad). I think using Reagan's own source would have been your best bet, as weak as that is. I remember Reagan discussing waging a limited nuclear war in Europe. I remember Reagan saying that if fired ballistic missiles could be recalled. He had some unusual views, to say the least. But as Michael Deaver pointed out - deputy chief of staff - it never mattered what Reagan said, they cared about the backdrop, the scenerym did it look prsidential and as long as the scenery was good it was irrelevant what Reagan actually said, tv America wouyld buy the image. That is from michael Dever, Reagan's deputy chief of staff. He said it again on CNN today. Fight your battle with him, not me, on this. CW, With your vast amount of political knowlege, could you try to explain to me why, that as I learn and observe more about politics, I hate Republicans more and more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 We didn't expect better of Reagan and it was yet even with low level of expectations it wasvery disappointing. Or do you mean you are disappointed that taking truthfully about Reagan foreign policy is disappointing because the marketing image of the cowboy is so gratifying? I love the way it gets said "disapointing" as if there is a moral or personal flaw in the one who points out the truth which you cannot rebut, rather than admitting that the flaw is in the actions that have been pointed out. I am disappointed that you don't try to justify Reagan's foreign policy beginning with its source, Jeanne Kilkpatrick's article in Foreign Affairs. I have a copy if you want to borrow it. It s the one that caught his eye when she expalined the difference between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes (ones we liked, authoritarian, good, ones we disliked, totalitarian, bad). I think using Reagan's own source would have been your best bet, as weak as that is. I remember Reagan discussing waging a limited nuclear war in Europe. I remember Reagan saying that if fired ballistic missiles could be recalled. He had some unusual views, to say the least. But as Michael Deaver pointed out - deputy chief of staff - it never mattered what Reagan said, they cared about the backdrop, the scenerym did it look prsidential and as long as the scenery was good it was irrelevant what Reagan actually said, tv America wouyld buy the image. That is from michael Dever, Reagan's deputy chief of staff. He said it again on CNN today. Fight your battle with him, not me, on this. Frankly I am disappointed in the amount of class you are showing. I always thought of you as a better person than this, and much less vindictive. There is a time and a place for everything, and of all people, I would have thought that you would have known and respected that. And this is the exact reason that while my family has been suffering that I have avoided this site. There has been a horrible epidemic of just horrible self-serving vindictiveness. Maybe I didn't stay away long enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted June 12, 2004 Author Share Posted June 12, 2004 CW, With your vast amount of political knowlege, could you try to explain to me why, that as I learn and observe more about politics, I hate Republicans more and more? it is in the Bible: 1 Corinthians 13.11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. You are on your way to an intelligent and thoughtful adulthood and a thoughtful citizen and thinking American! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 Wow. I expected better than this. Very, very disappointing. Liberals couldn't wait for Reagan to be put 6 ft. under ground. Now, they'll commence with the trashing of the greatest President of my lifetime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsSuck1 Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 Frankly I am disappointed in the amount of class you are showing. I always thought of you as a better person than this, and much less vindictive. There is a time and a place for everything, and of all people, I would have thought that you would have known and respected that. And this is the exact reason that while my family has been suffering that I have avoided this site. There has been a horrible epidemic of just horrible self-serving vindictiveness. Maybe I didn't stay away long enough. While it may be a little hard to swallow, cwsox is giving his opinion on what he belives is best for America and its citizens, including yourself. Even though you may not agree with what he thinks about politics, you should atleast respect the fact that he wants what is best for you and every other American. The opposite of love is not hate. It is indifference. it is in the Bible: 1 Corinthians 13.11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. You are on your way to an intelligent and thoughtful adulthood and a thoughtful citizen and thinking American! Jesus Walks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 You are on your way to an intelligent and thoughtful adulthood and a thoughtful citizen and thinking American! Why? Because he thinks like you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 And this is the exact reason that while my family has been suffering that I have avoided this site. There has been a horrible epidemic of just horrible self-serving vindictiveness. Maybe I didn't stay away long enough. Sorry to hear about your family. But taking an absence from this site following some of the offseason turmoil was one of the most calming things I've done. I know how you feel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted June 12, 2004 Author Share Posted June 12, 2004 Frankly I am disappointed in the amount of class you are showing. I always thought of you as a better person than this, and much less vindictive. There is a time and a place for everything, and of all people, I would have thought that you would have known and respected that. And this is the exact reason that while my family has been suffering that I have avoided this site. There has been a horrible epidemic of just horrible self-serving vindictiveness. Maybe I didn't stay away long enough. time and place I observed all week until he was buried. A lot of folks, myself included, have resented the hailography and deification that has been taking place all week, plus the classless attacks on those of us who would not adhere to the canonization theme. You want a respite from the truth forever? The deifiers have had their week. The burial has happened. Since so much was thrust at us with accusations that we were stupid leftistsw ho know nothing, now, at the right time and place, following the burial, comes the response - held for the right time and place. Don't try and guilt trip me. Won't accept it. It's not valid. And I am fueled by a righteous anger of the policies of the 80s that I fough vehemently which empowered bin laden and Hussein and how many people on all sides have died in the 80s, 90,s and 00s because of those short sided Reagan policies? What you call vindictive, I call righteous anger at the very preidctable end results of those horrendous short sited polices which we opposed and were belittled for. And I won't get in to Reagan's support for apartheid. reagan gets no passes because he was avuncular. He was a bad president. He gave give image, I admit, and he loved his wife dearly, true. He was a wonderful friend to people although every one says there was something they couldn't get close to, and he had the ability to on occasion work bi partisanly, which is a trait sorely missing in the current administration. Or do you expect the "lets not disrupt the canonization of Reagan" period to last forever by forbidding discussions of the actual record as opposed to the image? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 A lot of folks, myself included, have resented the hailography and deification that ahs been taking place all week, plus the classless attacks on those of us who would not adhere to the canonization theme. And the same will be done for Carter and Clinton when they pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted June 12, 2004 Author Share Posted June 12, 2004 Why? Because he thinks like you? no, but because he is thinking and learning - CK, you are free to commend those who you wish to too. Commending people is not forbidden when someone doesn't think like you. I love you CK, you know that. You are one of the best of people. We seldom agree but I see you as my baseball bro, a real fan and true friend and one of the best people out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wise Master Buehrle Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 I like to think that living in the past is a worthless thing to do. Therefore, this miniature argument which has been created is unnecessary. This happened what, 20 years ago? Live for the future! There's nothing we can do about the past, but there is things we can do about the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 I like to think that living in the past is a worthless thing to do. You also like to think that we should nuke Middle East. Do me a favor, stop thinking. You'll feel better. This thread came 3 days too soon. Bad move CW, you could have waited until Monday, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 This was horribly handled and thats all I'm going to say. If a friend of mine died and they had a drug problem (assuming the death wasn't do to drugs), I wouldn't say served them right the day they were burried. I may eventually bring up that the person had problems, but not then. Every president can be villified if you look at certain facts. When you are running the country for 4 or 8 years your going to make your fair share of mistakes, but its how you handle those mistakes and how you overall policy as well as successes do that will help judge what kind of president you are. I think its garbage to soley point out a few mistakes that Regan made and I should add that at the time they were by far the lesser of the two evils. I wasn't old enough then, but from what I understood, the political conditions of the middle east during that time were incredibly different then they are now. THeir is still turmoil now, but at that time, if I recall, their were some that feared the middle east was going to all be taken over by the same group of people that were incredibly radical and were going to do what they could to continue to spread their views outward. If you don't like a president thats fine, but to bash him on his national day of mourning, screw that. Even for Clinton, who I respect as a politician, despite as a person (sorry, but lying and cheating isn't cool in my book, but I will admit he was a great politican, although I didn't agree with his policies and such). I'm not going to go rip him and say how s***ty of a president he was or anything along those lines (even though I personally have that opinion), especially the day of. And Cubsuck, I don't care what party you end up following, but I am going to say this, when a democrat says something their view is going to be slurred towards their opinion, just as when a republican says something they will use evidence to point out their opinion. Politics is tough because you have to draw the line and decide where you stand on issues and go the hell with what people say at times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 I have a question I need help on. What would you call a person who gave aid and support to both Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein? That includes weapons to Osama and aid to Hussein so Hussein could divert money for weapons to commit massacres? What would you call that person? What if that same person gave aid, support, and weapons to someone who was responsible for the killing of a bishop at mass, the massacre of clergy and students, and the raping and murder of nuns and lay workers and used the newly gotten weapons to commit more massacres? what would you call that person? You do need some help I'll give you that much. Reagan did more for this country in his 8 years than any other president this century save for Roosevelt and his record of accomplishments speaks for itself. You can try to tarnish his record as much as you like to but as always you dont have a leg to stand on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 I'm not going to get into the rights or wrongs about waiting 1 hour, 1 day, or 1 week after the 'national week of mourning' ended to try to set the record straight. For the record, there was a great measure of civility here this last week while people basked in their revisionist history of the Reagan years. Reagan was a bad President and we're still dealing with the consequences of his myopic policies, as has already been said here. Sadly, he was at the same time charming and disarming and fatherly and lots of people people bought into everything he said. Ask the NAACP or civil rights activists about what they thought of the "Great Uniter." Ask them what they thought about Reagan essentially launching his 1980 Presidential campaign in Philadelphia Mississippi – where 4 clack civil rights proponents had been lynched as recently as 1964 – by talking about his belief in 'state's rights' (read: the rights of states to decide to roll back 20+ years of social reform as they felt like it). Then again, he ran in 1976 essentially as Goldwater's heir to the southern Republican voters, and was right there in 1964 with Goldwater trying to kill off the Civil Rights Act before it got passed. Ask anybody who cares about social justice about what they thought of Reagan going to bat for the segretationist southern Bob Jones University, trying to get them federal funding that hed been denied because of their racially descriminatory admission policies. Ask poor southern single mothers what the thought about being referred to by Reagan as "welfare queens driving around in pink Cadillacs." Ask the world what they think about Reagan's staunch support for the government of Apartheid South Africa. Ask any physicist what they think of throwing billions of dollars into a 'Star wars' Strategic Defense Initiative that no independent scientist thought would work. Sadly, we are now pouring billions into our own satar wars progrram that won't work. I'll let others debate the economics, some people may see a hidden benefit of the balloning of trillions of dollars of National debt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.