Steff Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 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. Oh please Mike... you aren't serious..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 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. This is how I know I am not a liberal. I didn't think like that, in fact I said very many nice things about the qualities I respected in him. Funny, Ive been voting Dem almost straight party for 10 years now, but I'm not a liberal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 time and place I observed all week until he was buried. Bull-f***ING-s***!!!! You accused him of adultery during the week? Is that waiting for a time and place? I asked for sources, you gave none. You are a weak sorry little man. And by the way, the administration you should be bashing is the UN. The UN is the group that gave the money to Osama and Saddam. Yes, with the OK and support from the US. It was a very different time and your manipulating of the facts to young people on here that didn't live through the Cold War and nuclear threats, it's just pathetic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 You accused him of adultery during the week? Is that waiting for a time and place? I asked for sources, you gave none. You are a weak sorry little man. Which, BTW, is bulls***. Jane filed for divorce from Ronald over a year before he was introduced to Nancy on a blind date. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Ahhh, but facts like these are ok when it suits a particular political purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 I think CW's posts point out something that is important to our society. First off, democracy isn't pretty. While someone may achieve almost god-like status in one corner, he is being torn down in another. Yet another check and balance. The conservatives and the "Reagan Democrates", would have left him in office forever as many liberals would have liked Clinton for 4 more years. Reagan wasn't perfect, he made some mistakes. I've defended Clinton's handling of Bin Laden as correct and I must also defend Reagan's handling of Saddam, etc. Revisionist history is wrong. Every person makes mistakes. Even hindsight isn't always 20-20. I've come to believe that Democrates are more interested in the future and the GOP trying to preserve the past. CW, why not move forward, work to get Kerry elected, trying to highight Reagan's mistakes is counterproductive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Which, BTW, is bulls***. Jane filed for divorce from Ronald over a year before he was introduced to Nancy on a blind date. I know. I pointed that out to Vince, but he just replied with his form letter: lots of people have very different memories of those things than the things you citedand the classic: I prefer to have you as a friend so I'll catch you later and talk some baseball. He can't even admit when he's busted. He feels the need to trash the relationship of a dead man to feel better about what Clinton did/does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Memories... Maybe facts sould be used when attempting to debate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Memories... Maybe facts sould be used when attempting to debate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted June 14, 2004 Author Share Posted June 14, 2004 Mr Eye, so be it with you. Other than that there are other accounts of why the Reagans divorced than the offical campaign one you cite - and no one questions Ron and Nancy's love for one another - it is under Roman Catholic Church teaching he was commiting adultery because he was in a sexual relationship with another woman (they did have a child) while his wife Jane Wyman lived and there was no annulment. He was ineligible for the sacrament if he were Catholic. Other than the annulment, the same interpretation would hold with the most fundamentalist churches. As well, there are other accounts out there of why Jane Wyman wanted out of that marriage. This "busted" talk is ludicrous. As for Osama and Sadaam, yes indeed Reagan gave aid, support, weaponry. Many of Sadaam's worst and most heinoius acts were done during the Reagan and Bush 1 years. His support for d'Aubbison and his death squads in Salavador was reprehensible. You must be "busted" on this as you have failed to respond and that and other things. In the midst of the haliography that was taking place last week... in the blasting that was received by those who did adhere to the party line that he was just the greatest when some of us hold his administration in low esteem... as the board police attacks on those with differing opinions? It feels like you are ofering a cult where any dissent is to be ridiculed and smashed. I have family and friends dear to me that voted for Reagan, liked Reagan. But this cult like adoration that is being displayed is unsettling. Texsox, we hold understanding the past and looking forward in tension as a difficult dycotomy to maintain. As Santyana said, those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. The latching on to someone to prop up because they are the enemy of an enemy (foreign policy wise) is exactly what led to Reagan's generous support to bin Laden and Saddam, which end result cost this nation plenty. We just saw a bit of this again with this Chaladi (spelling) -for several years he is built up as the new Iraq because we was Sadaam's enemy, he was Laura Bush's seat mate at a State of the Union address, and a few weeks ago our troops raided his office because it appears he was not so warm and wonderful. The expedient embrace of anyone because it serves a short term or momentary policy is the worst way, most dangerous way, to operate for national security. One of the reasons I like Kerry is that his knowledge of foreign affairs is so much more vast than the incumbent but even and far more because he operates under a different philosophy - build alliances, operate with consensus, act as a part of the world rather than Imperial Rome. (And Imperial Rome will always suffer from Goths and Visigoths and Vandals.) As the world's only superpower, we must act in concert with others. ... and as well, as Kerry has said, operate in reality and not ideology. I was reading yesterday an extensive Tribune piece on conservative Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, one of the most respected senators on foreign policy. (My intital thought and I have witnesses when I heard Bush 1 picked Quyale was, "my God, he picked the wrong senator from Indiana.") Lugar listed all the ideological "truths" that have been so wrong from this administration: we will be welcomed with roses and dancing, we'd be out of there in a few months, on and on and on. And the administration is snubbing Lugar because he will not tell them what they want to hear. I am looking forward to the future where President Kerry does not force things to fit into an ideological preconception but takes reality as is and addresses problems with an understanding of the careful uses of power that the sole superpower must employ for national and world security. And I suspect President Kerry will listen to Senator Lugar --- Kerry gets bashed because he doesn't always answer questions in sound bytes, he lays out all the possible considersations of something as he discusses it. That the man is capable of understanding there are a variety of consequences to possibilties of action, is marked improvement over what we got. And someone who takes time to answer a question in length - we need a president in these times who can think at length. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Mr Eye, so be it with you. Other than that there are other accounts of why the Reagans divorced than the offical campaign one you cite - and no one questions Ron and Nancy's love for one another - it is under Roman Catholic Church teaching he was commiting adultery because he was in a sexual relationship with another woman (they did have a child) while his wife Jane Wyman lived and there was no annulment. He was ineligible for the sacrament if he were Catholic. Other than the annulment, the same interpretation would hold with the most fundamentalist churches. As well, there are other accounts out there of why Jane Wyman wanted out of that marriage. Now, that is comical! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Now, that is comical! Hysterical, actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Hysterical, actually. He HAD to be laughing while he was typing it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 He HAD to be laughing while he was typing it out. Oh, who the hell knows. Some are neck deep in their own s*** to tell the difference between reality and fiction. Doesn't matter. The facts are the facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Oh, who the hell knows. Some are neck deep in their own s*** to tell the difference between reality and fiction. Doesn't matter. The facts are the facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 What's with CW being bashed by the petty, the soul-less and the retarded (ss2k4 notwithstanding) lately? Not cool. I guess internet friendships always have an inspiration date, don't they? Dig-a-ling-ling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 What's with CW being bashed by the petty, the soul-less and the retarded (ss2k4 notwithstanding) lately? Not cool. I guess internet friendships always have an inspiration date, don't they? Dig-a-ling-ling. You're well aware they do Brando. Don't worry.. the light has been shed on your words, too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 I was reading yesterday an extensive Tribune piece on conservative Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, one of the most respected senators on foreign policy. (My intital thought and I have witnesses when I heard Bush 1 picked Quyale was, "my God, he picked the wrong senator from Indiana.") Lugar listed all the ideological "truths" that have been so wrong from this administration: we will be welcomed with roses and dancing, we'd be out of there in a few months, on and on and on. And the administration is snubbing Lugar because he will not tell them what they want to hear. I cw, I agree 100% with this assessment. Lugar is one of the most under-rated senators in Wash. DC, IMO. The man has paid his dues and foreign policy matters are his forte. If you really wanted to bolster the ticket for Kerry, I'd almost be tempted to vote for a Kerry-Lugar ticket... ... (but not quite)... I agree with cw on a political matter! *faints* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Funny, Ive been voting Dem almost straight party for 10 years now, but I'm not a liberal. Why did you switch in the first place, Big Jim? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted June 14, 2004 Author Share Posted June 14, 2004 cw, I agree 100% with this assessment. Lugar is one of the most under-rated senators in Wash. DC, IMO. The man has paid his dues and foreign policy matters are his forte. If you really wanted to bolster the ticket for Kerry, I'd almost be tempted to vote for a Kerry-Lugar ticket... ... (but not quite)... I agree with cw on a political matter! *faints* I was thinking of a Kerry-Lugar ticket this morning too! something that was "national unity" would be so worthwhile I still dream of Kerry-McCain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 I still dream of Kerry-McCain You are not the only one my friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 I was thinking of a Kerry-Lugar ticket this morning too! something that was "national unity" would be so worthwhile I still dream of Kerry-McCain McCain-Kerry instead of Kerry-McCain I would vote for. I would have voted for McCain in 2000, and would do so even more emphatically in this election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Reagan was the teflon president. Nothing could take him down when he was alive, and it certainly isn't going to change any minds after his death. I fact, it will only galvenize his image. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted June 14, 2004 Author Share Posted June 14, 2004 McCain-Kerry instead of Kerry-McCain I would vote for. I would have voted for McCain in 2000, and would do so even more emphatically in this election. How can you vote for Bush after the way he savaged McCain so cruely in the 2000 primaries? Not asking to fight, asking because I am interested. What Bush did to McCain, failed to in Michigan, succeeded in South Carolina, was one of the smuttiest dirtiest campaigns I have ever seen. In fact I was reminded of that day in 1988 when Dole grabbed the vice president on the floor of the Senate and said, "stop lying about my record." You don't often see such physical anger on the Senate floor but Dole was so incensed at Bush the first for what he did to Dole's record in the 1988 campaignn, just as Bush the second did to McCain in 2000, except the 1988 thing was no where near as bad as what was done to McCain. 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.