Osama and Hussein

[FlaSoxxJim]

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.

I caught your typo Nuke. You must have meant to say 'Reagan did more TO this country in his 8 years than any other president this century...'

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

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.

Bad president my ass.

 

Reagan did the following for us.

 

-Ended the Cold War and was responsible for countless millions of people being freed from being under the thumb of communisim.

-Ended Stagflation

-His "voodoo economics" policies began what was hitherto the largest and longest economic expansion in our history

-Restored flagging national morale

-Beefed up a floundering military

 

If that's how you and cwsox define a bad president then I guess God will have to step up on inauguration day to satisfy you two. But then you two'd probably find some rediculous carping criticism of him too.

[CubKilla]

If that's how you and cwsox define a bad president then I guess God will have to step up on inauguration day to satisfy you two.

 

[FlaSoxxJim]

Bad president my ass. 

 

Reagan did the following for us.

 

-Ended the Cold War and was responsible for countless millions of people being freed from being under the thumb of communisim.

-Ended Stagflation

-His "voodoo economics" policies began what was hitherto the largest and longest economic expansion in our history

-Restored flagging national morale

-Beefed up a floundering military

 

If that's how you and cwsox define a bad president then I guess God will have to step up on inauguration day to satisfy you two.  But then you two'd probably find some rediculous carping criticism of him too.

The Cold War ended because the Soviet machine had overspent and overbuilt the military and had spread themselves way too thin for way too long. Clinton detractors have no patience for people that credit the strong economy during his tenure to his policies and contend he was merely in office at the right time. If you want a case study on someone truly in office at the right time, it's Reagan at the time of the inevitable fall of the Soviet Union.

 

Then again, maybe they really did tear down the wall because Reagan asked them to.

 

How about taking a stab at defenfing his attacks of civil justice, starting in 1964 with trying to help Barry Goldwater "preserve the Southern way of life" by fighting the Civil Rights act right through his time in office? It's a harder proposition than just waving a flag and talking about restored American pride.

 

Then again, "Facts are stupid things," right? That's some President.

 

And as far as God throwing his hat in... If he sent Jesus, I assume it would be you that had the beef with him since he was an advocate of a strong centralized government – "Give unto Caesar" and all that...

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

The Cold War ended because the Soviet machine had overspent and overbuilt the military and had spread themselves way too thin for way too long. 

 

If you want a case study on someone truly in office at the right time, it's Reagan at the time of the inevitable fall of the Soviet Union.

 

Then again, maybe they really did tear down the wall because Reagan asked them to.

It wasn't me that said it was Reagan that forced the Soviets over the edge into collapse, it was Gorby and a host of other top Soviet officials that said it. Explain that one away.

 

Why would they say such things? Maybe it was because Reagan's military buildup forced them to do the same thing but with far fewer resources.

 

Why'd they have fewer resources? Recall SS2K4's post about Reagan's push to build on massive capacity in the middle east thusly sinking the price of oil and with it a major revenue source for the Soviets.

 

Were the Soviets on the downslope when Reagan took office? To an extent yes, but after Reagan got through with them they were all but gone. If you wanted to at least be accurate about someone who "just happened to be in office when the Soviets actually collapsed" then you'd be talking about Bush Sr.

[Wise Master Buehrle]

You also like to think that we should nuke Middle East.    Do me a favor, stop thinking. You'll feel better.       

Unprovoked personal attack.

 

What class.

[FlaSoxxJim]

If you wanted to at least be accurate about someone who "just happened to be in office when the Soviets actually collapsed" then you'd be talking about Bush Sr.

That's true enough, he did reap the benefits. But he reaped the benefits of 40 years of Soviet overbuilding overspending overexpanding topheaviness, not just the 8 years of Reagan's administration.

 

I'll check back when you've gotten a chance to defend the social politics and policies of the man, I understand it takes some time coming up with anything on that score.

[The Beast]

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?

George Bush.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

That's true enough, he did reap the benefits.  But he reaped the benefits of 40 years of Soviet overbuilding overspending overexpanding topheaviness, not just the 8 years of Reagan's administration.

 

I'll check back when you've gotten a chance to defend the social politics and policies of the man, I understand it takes some time coming up with anything on that score.

Since you cant explain why everyone who was someone in the Soviet Union during that time said it was Reagan who finished them off........

 

Score one for the Gipper.

[CubsSuck1]

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.

Yea, it is tough. I would probably be better off not getting involved as politics are such a heated topic. Just from what I have observed, the Republican point of view does not make sense to me, and Republicans I know seem to be overly concerned with themselves and their money. However I know I have much to learn. Some of my comments were probably a little offensive and I apologize.

[IlliniBob72]

Well cw, if you ever get tired of the clergy, you could always be a shock jock or write Mariotti's column. Maybe the clergy isn't for you anyways. I can't imagine such bitterness and anger is suitable for a man of God. It is too bad that FDR is already dead. You could rip him a new asshole on the day he was buried for giving support to Stalin in WW II, thereby saving the Soviet Union and condemning countless millions to death. I'm sure there are some FDR historical sites around that you could share those thoughts with.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Since you cant explain why everyone who was someone in the Soviet Union during that time said it was Reagan who finished them off........

 

Score one for the Gipper.

Wave that flag. Don't question why, just wave and smile.

 

I don't consider treating the world as our personal Risk boardgame as in any way commendable, and the beginnings of the Pax Americana/New World Order/New American Century or whatever you want to call American Imperialism are at Reagan's feet. We continue to pay for the national arrogance that Reagan legitimized and the current administration consider's our divine birthright..

[FlaSoxxJim]

Republicans I know seem to be overly concerned with themselves and their money.

They're not so complicated after all, are they? Dress it up as 'enlightened self-interest' and you can get away with it though.

[BrandoFan]

I can't imagine such bitterness and anger is suitable for a man of God.

 

And, pray tell, what's wrong with (righteous) anger - or ideological bitterness for that matter?

[FlaSoxxJim]

I can't imagine such bitterness and anger is suitable for a man of God.

No, anger and religion shouldn't ever go together.

 

Martin Luthor should have kept his 95 stupid ideas to himself and not rocked the boat.

 

Moses should have stopped at "Let my people go... pretty please and only if you really want to," and not been so forceful.

 

That Jesus was a real pain in the ass when he turned over the moneychangers' tables in the temple. Anger management class is most definatele in order you silly Messiah you...

[1549]

Yea, it is tough. I would probably be better off not getting involved as politics are such a heated topic. Just from what I have observed, the Republican point of view does not make sense to me, and Republicans I know seem to be overly concerned with themselves and their money. However I know I have much to learn. Some of my comments were probably a little offensive and I apologize.

I am still not old enough to vote, but the best choice is to stay moderate and make your decisions based on the candidates, not the party.

 

The Republican party freed the slaves, the radical republicans punished the south.

The democrats held down black people in the south for years, pretty much until it became socially unacceptable.

 

The Republican party does not stand up for the little man, the poor man, or the the man in need.

The Democratic party does.

 

When this country was in its greatest depression...a democrat was there to help.

When the USA was faced with an escalating problem, in an asian country...a democrat was there, and he f***ed it up.

 

When this country needed prosperity, and nationalism after WWII...a republican was there.

When this country needed hope, needed something to be proud of...a paranoid republican was there, and he f***ed it up.

 

However just as an old cliche says "the man does not make the time, the time makes the man" (or something like that). It is true that the party does not make times of success, it only enjoys the benefits of good luck.

 

In our system, the president, the congressman, and the supreme court justices do not affect us as much as the guy sitting at his computer who creates a whole new form of communication. All we can do is try to find someone who will make us safe, and make progress possible.

 

Neither party is perfect. Neither party is right 100%. Hardliners will never achieve anything in our system, because they will crash and burn with the parties failures. They will always weigh down reform, and will stop us from bettering ourselves.

 

The greatest presidents, the giants of our nation's history, united the left and the right. People have to make concessions to succeed, that is something a strong conservative and a strong liberal will never do.

 

So CS1, do yourself a favor, and position yourself in the middle of the spectrum.

[1549]

Since you cant explain why everyone who was someone in the Soviet Union during that time said it was Reagan who finished them off........

 

Score one for the Gipper.

That is because they have too much pride to blame themselves.

 

If you don't recognize that the Soviet Union failed because of flaws in their own system, you need to do more research.

[CubsSuck1]

I am still not old enough to vote, but the best choice is to stay moderate and make your decisions based on the candidates, not the party.

 

The Republican party freed the slaves, the radical republicans punished the south.

The democrats held down black people in the south for years, pretty much until it became socially unacceptable.

 

The Republican party does not stand up for the little man, the poor man, or the the man in need.

The Democratic party does.

 

When this country was in its greatest depression...a democrat was there to help.

When the USA was faced with an escalating problem, in an asian country...a democrat was there, and he f***ed it up.

 

When this country needed prosperity, and nationalism after WWII...a republican was there.

When this country needed hope, needed something to be proud of...a paranoid republican was there, and he f***ed it up.

 

However just as an old cliche says "the man does not make the time, the time makes the man" (or something like that). It is true that the party does not make times of success, it only enjoys the benefits of good luck.

 

In our system, the president, the congressman, and the supreme court justices do not affect us as much as the guy sitting at his computer who creates a whole new form of communication.  All we can do is try to find someone who will make us safe, and make progress possible.

 

Neither party is perfect.  Neither party is right 100%.  Hardliners will never achieve anything in our system, because they will crash and burn with the parties failures.  They will always weigh down reform, and will stop us from bettering ourselves.

 

The greatest presidents, the giants of our nation's history, united the left and the right.  People have to make concessions to succeed, that is something a strong conservative and a strong liberal will never do.

 

So CS1, do yourself a favor, and position yourself in the middle of the spectrum.

Which is what I did somewhat, before Bush. I know I wasn't even a teenager when Bush was voted in, but I still wanted to support who I thoght was the better candidate (For the record I supported Gore). I liked MCCain a lot, in fact, and he was my top choice for president in 2000. However, Bush's time in office and his actions have turned me against him, and probably has given me the wrong ideas and caused me to make generalizations against ALL Republicans, which would be unfair on my part. Its tough to support Republicans when your family was fine while a democrat was in office, but your parents are out of work with Bush in office. I really wish I could be more in the middle of the spectrum, but as of now, my views are to the liberal side. Maybe oncde I can learn and observe more, my views will change.

[IlliniBob72]

No, anger and religion shouldn't ever go together. 

 

Martin Luthor should have kept his 95 stupid ideas to himself and not rocked the boat.

 

Moses should have stopped at "Let my people go... pretty please and only if you really want to," and not been so forceful.

 

That Jesus was a real pain in the ass when he turned over the moneychangers' tables in the temple.  Anger management class is most definatele in order you silly Messiah you...

The people you refer to saw a wrong and took action to make things better. They did not take pot shots at a dead man 16 years after the man was out of power on an internet message board. Not only that, but their anger was well placed. They weren't whining like a little b**** about a guy having the nerve to help people fight to keep a Communist invasion from taking over their country. Yeah, one of them turned into an international terrorist, so we should have let the Soviets have Afghanistan. Great f***ing argument. Fundamentalist Islam was viewed as the menace of the times, so the U.S. threw in its lot with Saddam and his secular government. Who knows what would have happened had Iran and its radical Islamic government had its ideas sweep through the Middle East, but it sure as hell must have been the better option, right? Sure, that should have been known then. Again, I point to FDR. In choosing between Hitler and Fascism vs. Stalin and Communism, he chose Stalin. Are we to now condemn FDR as a bad president because he allowed Stalin to stay in power and spawn the Cold War? He also was responsible for the American nuclear program. That son of a b****!!!

 

Comparing Jesus, Martin Luther, and Moses to a guy making ridiculous arguments on the internet is absolutely laughable.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Bob, your original statement suggested that men of God should never have feelings of anger. I pointed out a couple high falutin' men of God and a facet of the Christian tripartete Divinity as well for good measure, to posit that it was in fact that simplistic viewpoint that was 'absolutely laughable'.

 

"Pot shots" inplies the statements are not deserved and not true, and tthat's not the case here. It doesn't matter that someone has been out of office 16 years if the nation and the world is still living with the consequences.

 

We're just shy of the 60th anniversary of our dropping atomic bombs on civilians in two cities. Is it taking pot shots to still comment on that sin and crime against humanity because some statite of limitation on outrage has transpoired?

 

To be fair to FDR, he was kept completely in the dark on most of the Manhatten Project, as was Truman until a couple weeks before we nuked fellow human beings.

[cwsox]

Thank you Jim

 

Anger at injustice is a hallmark of the Scriptures and the Church. "I hate, I despise your solemn feasts... where there is no justice and the poor are exploited..." That would be God speaking via the 8th century prophets and elsehwere. The clergy of God have had a Biblical and since the since the canon of Scripture closed a historical role in calling the powers that be to account.

 

When people start complaining of so called potshots at the dead they have no argument (do they, for examle, then keep total silence on Kennedy, on Johnson, on FDR?) and anything that says "and your/he is a pastor too" is always a sign of a lack of argument. To make it personal is yet another sign. When one cannot rebut the fatcs, attack the one who proclaims them.

 

The concept of the enemy of my enemy is my friend so I must give him arms and support is morally and politically bankrupt (let alone short sited) and affects us is drastic ways to this day. Most of the masacres that Hussein committed that were complained of late were during the Reagan supporting Hussein years. And training and arming bin Laden was so short cited of a policy. Look at the predictable results of both decisions. Thousands upon thousands of deaths, including thousands upon thousands of our own. The death toll in supporting D'Aubbison in Salvador who murdered archbishop Romero, the raping and murdering of the three nuns and layworker, and the massacre of the priests and laity is but a small token of the thousands that his Reagan supported death squads killed.

 

Is it really so that we can discuss the policies and their effects of any president but Reagan? Bulls***. And the bulls*** flung at me is just that. My favorite was the attack on me for having said nice things about the man so I must be a hypocrite because I ripped into his policies. That speaks for itself. It is quite possible for Reagan to have a personally kind man and yet an abomidable president. And indeed he was.

 

FDR and Churchill made allegiance with Stalin to defeat Hitler and Mussolini and Japan in a world war. That is not compreabale (in my opinion) to Reagan's for arming of bin Laden and supporting Hussein with technology and other supplies that enabled Hussein to massacre his own and Iranians.

 

The ad absurdum argument that "everyone" in eastern Eurpe gives Reagan credit for the fall ofthe USSR is precisely that. The avowed aim at the time of the Reagan administration was to bankrupt the USSR into collapsing. The method of doing that was to bankrupt the US in massive deficits. But we didn't have to do that. The USSR was there anyway, bankrupt. They faced four things: a failing economy, the rise of dissidence especially in Solidarnosc (which was enabled by the coincidence of a Polish pontiff who used Vatican channels to convey Solidarnosc communications), demographics (the Lucey study in Wisconsin in 83 and 84 showed that that the Russians were a rapidly dwindling percentage of the populaton and the republics and what that portended), and the failure of Soviet ideology in the up and coming generation within Russia itself (the number of baptisms in the late 70s and into the 80s that were taking place 60 miles away from Moscow revealed there was whole generation coming of age that rejected Soviet ideology - and Moscow being Moscow, that meant that the young generations of party members/up and coming bureaucrats were rejecting Leninism) all portended the fall of the Soviet Union without the firing of a single shot - which happended, as the peace movement in the Church had predicted. Where we were wrong was the year - I was surprised it happened in 89 and 91 - I would have given it another 5-10 years at most to survive).

 

If one goes back to the 80s one will find many church bodies in the US who assailed Reagan's nuclear and economic and foreign policies. That would also include a certain bishop of Rome, who just recently blasted our Iraq policy as he has repeatedly. That the churches and their "can you imagine their clergy who should be shock jocks and not clergy" have spoken so much and so often indicates that I am but a part of a demographic - clergy who deplored the Reagan administration's policies and actions. I cant even claim originality. I am just one of many clergy. The voice of the Church when it speaks to injustice and militray madness in the world has been consistent and certainly was all through the Reagan administration.

[IlliniBob72]

Thank you Jim

 

Anger at injustice is a hallmark of the Scriptures and the Church.  "I hate, I despise your solemn feasts... where there is no justice and the poor are exploited..."  That would be God speaking via the 8th century prophets and elsehwere.  The clergy of God have had a Biblical and since the since the canon of Scripture closed a historical role in calling the powers that be to account. 

 

When people start complaining of so called potshots at the dead they have no argument (do they, for examle, then keep total silence on Kennedy, on Johnson, on FDR?) and anything that says "and your/he is a pastor too" is always a sign of a lack of argument.  To make it personal is yet another sign.  When one cannot rebut the fatcs, attack the one who proclaims them.

 

The concept of the enemy of my enemy is my friend so I must give him arms and support is morally and politically bankrupt (let alone short sited) and affects us is drastic ways to this day.  Most of the masacres that Hussein committed that were complained of late were during the Reagan supporting Hussein years. And training and arming bin Laden was so short cited of a policy.  Look at the predictable results of both decisions.  Thousands upon thousands of deaths, including thousands upon thousands of our own.  The death toll in supporting D'Aubbison in Salvador who murdered archbishop Romero, the raping and murdering of the three nuns and layworker, and the massacre of the priests and laity is but a small token of the thousands that his Reagan supported death squads killed.

 

Is it really so that we can discuss the policies and their effects of any president but Reagan?  Bulls***.  And the bulls*** flung at me is just that.  My favorite was the attack on me for having said nice things about the man so I must be a hypocrite because I ripped into his policies.  That speaks for itself.  It is quite possible for Reagan to have a personally kind man and yet an abomidable president.  And indeed he was.

 

FDR and Churchill made allegiance with Stalin to defeat Hitler and Mussolini and Japan in a world war.  That is not compreabale (in my opinion) to Reagan's for arming of bin Laden and supporting Hussein with technology and other supplies that enabled Hussein to massacre his own and Iranians.

 

The ad absurdum argument that "everyone" in eastern Eurpe gives Reagan credit for the fall ofthe USSR is precisely that.  The avowed aim at the time of the Reagan administration was to bankrupt the USSR into collapsing.  The method of doing that was to bankrupt the US in massive deficits.  But we didn't have to do that.  The USSR was there anyway, bankrupt.  They faced four things: a failing economy, the rise of dissidence especially in Solidarnosc (which was enabled by the coincidence of a Polish pontiff who used Vatican channels to convey Solidarnosc communications), demographics (the Lucey study in Wisconsin in 83 and 84 showed that that the Russians were a rapidly dwindling percentage of the populaton and the republics and what that portended), and the failure of Soviet ideology in the up and coming generation within Russia itself (the number of baptisms in the late 70s and into the 80s that were taking place 60 miles away from Moscow revealed there was whole generation coming of age that rejected Soviet ideology - and Moscow being Moscow, that meant that the young generations of party members/up and coming bureaucrats were rejecting Leninism) all portended the fall of the Soviet Union without the firing of a single shot - which happended, as the peace movement in the Church had predicted.  Where we were wrong was the year - I was surprised it happened in 89 and 91 - I would have given it another 5-10 years at most to survive).

 

If one goes back to the 80s one will find many church bodies in the US who assailed Reagan's nuclear and economic and foreign policies.  That would also include a certain bishop of Rome, who just recently blasted our Iraq policy as he has repeatedly.  That the churches and their "can you imagine their clergy who should be shock jocks and not clergy" have spoken so much and so often indicates that I am but a part of a demographic - clergy who deplored the Reagan administration's policies and actions.  I cant even claim originality.  I am just one of many clergy.  The voice of the Church when it speaks to injustice and militray madness in the world has been consistent and certainly was all through the Reagan administration.

Maybe then this should be a lesson in trying to make a point in a way and at a time when people are willing to listen. I turn off the TV after watching Nancy Reagan weeping on the coffin of her dead husband and flip on the computer. Then I begin to read some bulls*** about Ronald Reagan being the reason we have to deal with Saddam and Osama today. Bulls*** argument, but perhaps at a different time it would be taken better.

 

Now for the way to make a point. Are these points put to the audience in a way to begin a thoughtful discussion? Hardly. It is put to the class in a smug bulls*** guessing game kind of way. I quote...

 

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?

 

What the f*** is that? What is that other than an attempt to inflame? I see it as an attempt by a guy tired of yelling at the rain to rile people up, and sadly I fell for it. If it was an honest attempt to discuss Reagan's shortcomings politically, I can't think of a worse way or time to do it. If you don't want to wait out of respect for the dead, that's your business, but maybe you should wait for a time when it would be accepted more readily.

 

Comparing FDR and Stalin to Reagan and Saddam is inaccurate? How? How can you know that tanks that FDR "lent" Stalin wasn't used to keep help from the staged Polish uprising in Warsaw? How can you be sure that it was American bullets used to execute over 4000 Polish officers in Katyn Woods? You can't be sure that any or all of Stalin's atrocities weren't committed using weapons and materiel given to Stalin by FDR.

 

Teaming up with enemies to fight a common enemy, while maybe poor policy, has been going on throughout history. Why? Because it is often necessary. Andrew Jackson enlisted the aid of pirates before the Battle of New Orleans, who went on to some more piracy. I suppose he is a rotten guy too. You've got to pick your poison some times. Dealing with Saddam was probably seen as a better option than dealing with a fundamentalist Islamic Middle East. Helping the mujhadeen was seen as preferable to risking the spread of communism through south Asia and to India. Besides, unless I'm mistaken, bin Laden was not a terrorist then and was in fact just one of dozens of mujhadeen leaders.

 

And your points about the Soviet Union self-destructing without Reagan. You point to Solidarity. Lech Walesa wrote an op-ed stating that Solidarity would have never succeeded without Reagan's support. That the Polish people love him and America for the help and strength he/we provided, that without knowing that he had their back that they would have accomplished nothing. Anyway, a lot of people who know far more than you or I do about it attribute it to him. The people directly involved attribute it to him. The people who gained the most from it, their freedom, attribute it to him.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Maybe then this should be a lesson in trying to make a point in a way and at a time when people are willing to listen. I turn off the TV after watching Nancy Reagan weeping on the coffin of her dead husband and flip on the computer. Then I begin to read some bulls*** about Ronald Reagan being the reason we have to deal with Saddam and Osama today. Bulls*** argument, but perhaps at a different time it would be taken better.

 

Now for the way to make a point. Are these points put to the audience in a way to begin a thoughtful discussion? Hardly. It is put to the class in a smug bulls*** guessing game kind of way. I quote...

 

 

 

What the f*** is that? What is that other than an attempt to inflame? I see it as an attempt by a guy tired of yelling at the rain to rile people up, and sadly I fell for it. If it was an honest attempt to discuss Reagan's shortcomings politically, I can't think of a worse way or time to do it. If you don't want to wait out of respect for the dead, that's your business, but maybe you should wait for a time when it would be accepted more readily.

 

Comparing FDR and Stalin to Reagan and Saddam is inaccurate? How? How can you know that tanks that FDR "lent" Stalin wasn't used to keep help from the staged Polish uprising in Warsaw? How can you be sure that it was American bullets used to execute over 4000 Polish officers in Katyn Woods? You can't be sure that any or all of Stalin's atrocities weren't committed using weapons and materiel given to Stalin by FDR.

 

Teaming up with enemies to fight a common enemy, while maybe poor policy, has been going on throughout history. Why? Because it is often necessary. Andrew Jackson enlisted the aid of pirates before the Battle of New Orleans, who went on to some more piracy. I suppose he is a rotten guy too. You've got to pick your poison some times. Dealing with Saddam was probably seen as a better option than dealing with a fundamentalist Islamic Middle East. Helping the mujhadeen was seen as preferable to risking the spread of communism through south Asia and to India. Besides, unless I'm mistaken, bin Laden was not a terrorist then and was in fact just one of dozens of mujhadeen leaders.

 

And your points about the Soviet Union self-destructing without Reagan. You point to Solidarity. Lech Walesa wrote an op-ed stating that Solidarity would have never succeeded without Reagan's support. That the Polish people love him and America for the help and strength he/we provided, that without knowing that he had their back that they would have accomplished nothing. Anyway, a lot of people who know far more than you or I do about it attribute it to him. The people directly involved attribute it to him. The people who gained the most from it, their freedom, attribute it to him.

[israel4ever]

Wow.  I expected better than this.  Very, very disappointing.

Why say something nice about someone who is dead IF you wouldn't say something nice about them when they were alaive?

[southsider2k5]

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?

Basically what you did was wait outside of someone's funeral and then trash the deceased as the mourners streamed outside. Now is this included in that wonderful funeral ceremony that you were bragging about putting on? Because if it is, I think I will look elsewhere. I will put it this way. If I ever heard someone trash my relatives on the day of their burial the way you just did, you had better be prepared to get your ass kicked for it.

 

You are damned right I call it vindictive. Go back and look at the anger in your words and actions. You were so bent on trashing a dead man that you could hardly wait until he was in the ground to do it. To put it another way, will you be outlining all of the outrages of the Clinton administration when he is buried? If this was done just because of who Reagan was, and you wouldn't do it for Clinton, there isn't a much better explanation than hate or revenge.

 

Also my anger stems from the fact that you of all people should know better. You see first hand the anguish that death causes a family. Yet you could barely contain yourself, waiting to exploit the death of someone to make your political statement. I don't claim to be a people expert, but I know better than to piss on someones grave, while people are mourning.

 

And the worst of it, is you are giving an ends justifies the means response. There is no compassion at all in your actions. There is no respect for those who look at Reagan as a father-figure of sorts, the sameway that some have looked at Clinton in the same respect. I can't believe that this thought didn't at least make you delay your posting.

 

Go ahead, hate Reagan all you want. I just can't believe you of all people couldn't show more compassion to other people.