Former President Ronald Reagan Dies at 93

Status
Not open for further replies.
Because they're dead now...they're life is over. You can hate him while he lives, but to disrespect someone who has passed away is awful man.

Life is a gift for everyone, and a precious thing, when it's all over and you can't put past what you think of a dead person, then I guess you're going to live your life as a very angry person
 
^ Angry I am not. Life may be everyones gift. But some need to return it. WE ALL DIE. As death is lifes gift. So by him dying and not suffering, I think he was lucky. And that is the highest opinion I hold of the man. He was lucky.
 
Well I think he was too senile to realize he was suffering
 
softdrink.gif
 
Well, you can pull quotes out of context or interpret facts however you like, I suppose. I don't like Clinton and I especially don't like Hillary, but I have all the respect in the world for his talent and accomplishments. (for Hillary I never heard her say anything that wasn't ridiculously biased, or I'd say the same) Ok wait, we'll give her credit for "it takes a village." :D

I can't imagine any president EVER truly supported terrorism. You have to consider the historical perspective, the sources of facts, and the scope of what was known/decided at the time. That's really hard to do, which is why people spend years in grad school to become historians. I certainly don't think I know even 25% of everything that truly happened, (and the rationales at the time) which is why I'm so skeptical that anyone else on this board does, especially when responses seem so colored by political affiliation.

Reagan thought of everyone worldwide as brothers, due to his faith. Do I think this is unrealistic? Sure. But it's far more plausible than thinking he advocated and delighted in rape, torture, and killing.

If good 'ol Kim Jong II says tomorrow to GW Bush, stop using petroleum energy sources or I'll kill 1 million Koreans. We keep using petroleum and he kills 1 million people. Well, Bush didn't kill them, Kim Jong did. And no, we didn't "fund" the killing because we give funding to N. Korea...but that's the way it would be painted by those who hate Bush.

Everything said about how evil Pol Pot, Saddam, the contras, et al. are is completely true. But Reagan had nothing to do with their specific evil actions, the choices they made. Once again, the PEOPLE WHO KILL are responsible for the death of the victims. Getting people riled up with such images and then pointing to Reagan as the one responsible is just sad.

You just have to consider the scope of all events at the time. I guarantee that if the entire world was a peaceful utopia in 1985 except for horrible atrocities being committed in El Salvador, we would've intervened pretty damn quick. There are no easy answers, and mistakes get made. I'm far from agreeing with everything Reagan did, but I still think he was a great president. Oh, I'm also not rich or a kid, and I'm only half white.

FYI: Iran Contra Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandinista

Discussion of the Article: (because it's biased in favor of Reagan)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sandinista
 
I can't imagine any president EVER truly supported terrorism. You have to consider the historical perspective, the sources of facts, and the scope of what was known/decided at the time. That's really hard to do, which is why people spend years in grad school to become historians. I certainly don't think I know even 25% of everything that truly happened, (and the rationales at the time) which is why I'm so skeptical that anyone else on this board does, especially when responses seem so colored by political affiliation.
Click to expand...

luckily, there are some people on this board who are going through the process of becoming historians. Belisarius is one, for example.

if you'd like some proper reading lists (wikipedia = useful for definitions, useless for actual concrete historical / historiographical detail) about reagan's involvement in south america in general, or cambodian history, or whatever - let me know!

:)
 
Everything said about how evil Pol Pot, Saddam, the contras, et al. are is completely true. But Reagan had nothing to do with their specific evil actions, the choices they made. Once again, the PEOPLE WHO KILL are responsible for the death of the victims. Getting people riled up with such images and then pointing to Reagan as the one responsible is just sad.
Click to expand...

i said in my first post that reagen is OBVIOUSLY not being labelled with full culpability; that others (such as Thatcher with cambodia, for example) also bear responsibility - especially those actually doing the killing.

but then again,

hitler never killed any jews personally. saddam doesn't appear to have killed any marsh arabs with his own hands. and the inaction of political leaders in the weimar parliament in pre-WWII germany was one of the main reasons we ended up with national socialism in all its horror. you're not doubt aware of the saying: 'for evil to triumph, all that is necessary is for good men to do nothing'. well, whether or not reagan was a good man, he certainly did nothing (along with all manner of other good & bad people) to help Cambodians, and the contras were inexcusable, just inexcusable.

trying to justify it is difficult, IMO. you've presumably read the CIA's torture and assasination manuals? it's grim, grim grim.
 
^
shhhh! .. don't say stuff like that. You'll offend j22, then he'll spread the drama to every forum you post in. 8(
 
The reason why people are saying "fuck him" regarding Reagan is that we have to be subjected to news reports, radio addresses, tv coverage of his death 24/7 since it happened. Not everyone agrees with what he did in life and certainly don't want to hear a bunch of stories about what a "hero" he was. I think most people can sympathize with his family and friends and give them respect for their loss. But how can you expect people to respect Reagan himself based on his record? Any good things the man may have done have been blown way out of proportion to the bad. Some know that and some don't. The ones that do can't be expected to fellate his dead body as some of Reagan's groupies would have us all do.
 
Originally posted by j22
Because they're dead now...they're life is over. You can hate him while he lives, but to disrespect someone who has passed away is awful man.


where do you draw the line? i'm not, for one second, comparing reagan, but do you respect charles manson/hitler/whoever simply because they have passed away? yes? what about somebody who's murdered a close friend or member of your family? there are no exceptions whatsoever to your rule?

you have to draw a line somewhere don't you? if you agree, then we're simply discussing a difference of opinion over where that line is drawn.

alasdair
 
honEbee said:
The reason why people are saying "fuck him" regarding Reagan is that we have to be subjected to news reports, radio addresses, tv coverage of his death 24/7 since it happened. Not everyone agrees with what he did in life and certainly don't want to hear a bunch of stories about what a "hero" he was. I think most people can sympathize with his family and friends and give them respect for their loss. But how can you expect people to respect Reagan himself based on his record? Any good things the man may have done have been blown way out of proportion to the bad. Some know that and some don't. The ones that do can't be expected to fellate his dead body as some of Reagan's groupies would have us all do.
Click to expand...

GREAT post. exactly what i think.
 
honEbee said:
The reason why people are saying "fuck him" regarding Reagan is that we have to be subjected to news reports, radio addresses, tv coverage of his death 24/7 since it happened.
Click to expand...
You don't have to fucking watch it do you. I've not seen any coverage of Reagan at all on tv.
 
^
i don't watch tv or listen to the radio. I catch it from my conservative family and friends about what a tragedy.. and "oh did you watch the funeral procession". Then go to the gas station to see every paper with his face plastered on the front page. I open every new website and the ol' glorious "hero" is the first fucking thing you see.

There's people dying in Iraq, there's genocides going on in this world, and we're concerned about honoring a war criminal b/c he passed away?
 
honEbee said:
I think most people can sympathize with his family and friends and give them respect for their loss.
Click to expand...

If I was a member of his family I would have smothered him with a pillow long ago... Right about the time he started his b-grade acting career...
 
buzzy said:
You don't have to fucking watch it do you. I've not seen any coverage of Reagan at all on tv.
Click to expand...

Oh I don't watch it. Whenever it comes on I turn off the tv. But if you're claiming that you haven't seen any coverage of it you must be living in a cave.
 
alasdairm said:
Originally posted by j22
Because they're dead now...they're life is over. You can hate him while he lives, but to disrespect someone who has passed away is awful man.


where do you draw the line? i'm not, for one second, comparing reagan, but do you respect charles manson/hitler/whoever simply because they have passed away? yes? what about somebody who's murdered a close friend or member of your family? there are no exceptions whatsoever to your rule?

you have to draw a line somewhere don't you? if you agree, then we're simply discussing a difference of opinion over where that line is drawn.

alasdair
Click to expand...


I draw no lines sorry. IT applies across the board. Just because someone may deserve to die doesnt mean I'm going to insult them and their spirit after they've passed. I am vehemently against the death penalty, and vehemently against disrespect any of the dead.

I hope Reagan comes and haunts all you fuckos. Judging by DD's pics in the Gallery he'll be crying like a woman if that happens! :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top