What a great man.... HAPPY 100th Ronald Reagan, you are truly missed.

[Foxfyre]

I have to admit that compared to today's republican leaders Reagan is missed. As flawed as the real Ronald Reagan was there are no contemporary republicans yet emerged with his appeal. That says a lot more about the lack of quality at the top in the GOP than how good Reagan was. It is the same problem with Bachmann and Palin. All of these people are better suited as characters in a Simpson's cartoon than residents of the White House.

Ronnie's presentation as "the great communicator" is apparently too high a bar for the GOP hopefuls in 2012. They must give him some phony God status as an admittedly and rightfully unachievable standard.

Reagan did have the general appeal of a movie star. Try in your own mind to cast one of the wannabees in national republican politics in some Hollywood hero's role. They all fail. Who would YOU cast as the hero? Some of them might get bit supporting parts as villains or quirky whacky sidekicks but nary a one can wear the white hat. Sadly that was Ronnies only claim to fame. A second rate hero capable of wearing the white hat ...that is until a real hero enters the scene...when Brando or Wayne show up ...someone with appeal and depth...even precious Ronnie must exit the set leaving the hat for a better head.

I don't think it is a 'God status' at all. Most of us who appreciated Reagan know all the flaws and foibles and mistakes that are part and parcel of his Administration. But one does not have to assign godlike status to a person to appreciate qualities that we admire. And Reagan had them. It is what he stood for, what he believed in, what he helped us to believe in ourselves, and the fact that it was largely due to his conviction that hundreds of millions of people should not have to live under totalitarian communism, that we admire him for. If he wasn't perfect.....well, nobody is.

There's a flip side too. There are those who can't stand for anyone to admire those qualities that at least some of us admire in Reagan--they have so little charity they can't allow somebody like him to be commemorated on what would have been his 100th birthday--so they presume to tear him down in the ugliest and most hateful manner.

So what's worse? Idolizing a man a little despite imperfections? Or demonizing all that he was/is?

Have people been tearing him down?? I wasn't aware of that. I think he was a good man and had many great qualities. I just didn't like his politics. And I think the right treats him in the way they accuse the left of treating Obama.

Just read the acidic posts of several who have yet to find ANY redeeming quality in Ronald Reagan. They enthusiastically recite his sins and sneer at those of us who appreciated him. I wish they had started their own thread to do that out of respect for those of us who did want to show appreciation we think is due. But oh well. The thread now seems to have become an evaluation of him and his presidency instead of the recognition thread it was intended to be. So lets go with that.

About that birthday cake. Any way you slice it, Nancy Reagan, though always a patriot, always an unfailing supporter of her husband, and always a 100% class act, was herself a bit off the beaten path. I'll not use the term wierd but she definitely then and now marched to her own drum. The cake was her idea--her tribute to a man she obviously loved, admired, and respected as much as any wife can.

I'm not going to begrudge her that.

 

[MikeK]

Well stated...and that's whom Reagan was. He belived in this 'Experiment' of freedom, and bolstered it by action.

What would you be saying if Obama had conspired with hostile Iranian hostage-takers the way Reagan did, i.e., giving them military weapons in exchange for facilitating a pre-election publicity stunt?

And what would you be saying if Obama dispatched a Marine amphibious strike force to deal with a situation that called for a platoon of Army military police, a blunder that led directly to the death of those Marines?

Would you be saying the same things you're now saying about Reagan and his "actions?"

More importantly he belived in the people...and did everything in his power to get government off their backs.

Is repealing regulations which had for decades maintained control of the banking and finance industries to keep them honest what you call getting government off the People's backs. If so, would you agree that the economic situation we're dealing with today makes it quite clear that having government on our backs is often quite desirable and necessary.

 

[HUGGY]

I don't think it is a 'God status' at all. Most of us who appreciated Reagan know all the flaws and foibles and mistakes that are part and parcel of his Administration. But one does not have to assign godlike status to a person to appreciate qualities that we admire. And Reagan had them. It is what he stood for, what he believed in, what he helped us to believe in ourselves, and the fact that it was largely due to his conviction that hundreds of millions of people should not have to live under totalitarian communism, that we admire him for. If he wasn't perfect.....well, nobody is.

There's a flip side too. There are those who can't stand for anyone to admire those qualities that at least some of us admire in Reagan--they have so little charity they can't allow somebody like him to be commemorated on what would have been his 100th birthday--so they presume to tear him down in the ugliest and most hateful manner.

So what's worse? Idolizing a man a little despite imperfections? Or demonizing all that he was/is?

Have people been tearing him down?? I wasn't aware of that. I think he was a good man and had many great qualities. I just didn't like his politics. And I think the right treats him in the way they accuse the left of treating Obama.

Just read the acidic posts of several who have yet to find ANY redeeming quality in Ronald Reagan. They enthusiastically recite his sins and sneer at those of us who appreciated him. I wish they had started their own thread to do that out of respect for those of us who did want to show appreciation we think is due. But oh well. The thread now seems to have become an evaluation of him and his presidency instead of the recognition thread it was intended to be. So lets go with that.

About that birthday cake. Any way you slice it, Nancy Reagan, though always a patriot, always an unfailing supporter of her husband, and always a 100% class act, was herself a bit off the beaten path. I'll not use the term wierd but she definitely then and now marched to her own drum. The cake was her idea--her tribute to a man she obviously loved, admired, and respected as much as any wife can.

I'm not going to begrudge her that.

I don't see how anyone can deny that Reagan was an effective speaker. He delivered his lines almost flawlessly. Alas the bain of all actors is the writer. In his case he had some of the best. He also looked the part. He looked presidential..much like John Kennedy. I'm not suggesting he was as dangerous as Kennedy but there were definitely similarities in the way they both played to a TV camera.

As far as the birthday party theme goes... unless you can figure out a way to exclude ALL who have opinion that doesn't support your quaint Birthday Party thread and just allow well wishers you are better off just sharing some PM's about your private feelings

Many do rightfully and honestly believe Ronnie did harm. I am among them. Not the worst guy..a good egg. I believe strongly that he helped start the destruction of the power of unions allowing some of the biggest corps to make non American favoring trade agreements and move all of our steel and many manufacturing jobs off shore weakening our countries national security and prosperity.

 

[Finnguy]

Hitler made good speeches too. Is that necessarily the measure of a good president? And how was Kennedy dangerous?

 

[HUGGY]

Hitler made good speeches too. Is that necessarily the measure of a good president? And how was Kennedy dangerous?

I don't suppose Viet Nam rings any bells.

 

[sparky]

sure Huggy

it's in just about the same pitch as Afghanistan

 

[The Infidel]

 

[georgephillip]

Hitler made good speeches too. Is that necessarily the measure of a good president? And how was Kennedy dangerous?

I don't suppose Viet Nam rings any bells.

Cuba and Nicaragua Calling JFK and Reagan

"40 years have passed since President John F. Kennedy ordered that 'the terrors of the earth' must be visited upon Cuba until their leadership is eliminated, having violated good form by successful resistance to US-run invasion.

"The terrors were extremely serious, continuing into the 1990s.

"Twenty years have passed since President Reagan launched a terrorist war against Nicaragua, conducted with barbaric atrocities and vast destruction, leaving tens of thousands dead and the country ruined perhaps beyond recovery -- and also leading to condemnation of the US for international terrorism by the World Court and the UN Security Council (in a resolution the US vetoed)."

Chomsky: Mirror Crack'd

 

[MikeK]

They just HATE to admit that Reagan was and is still admired even now in his death.

Did anyone see the people stopping their cars on the highways and overpasses to salute him when his casket passed by? They lined the roads to where he was being buried. I remember it like it was yesterday.

This is not surprising considering that the majority of Americans are widely known to be the most politically ignorant and uninformed citizens of all the nations of the developed world.

And that is not "hate." It is objectivity.

 

[MikeK]

I don't live very far from Dixon, IL (Reagan's home town) and I've been to the place where he was a life guard many times. If you ever get the chance to go through the house that he was living in while in Dixon, IL, you will enjoy it. I think Reagan was an excellent Commander-in-Chief and I was proud to serve in the military while he was President.

Did you ever learn that Reagan dispatched a Marine FMF unit into a situation that called for a platoon of Army MPs, which got 248 Marines killed, and that the ". . .excellent Commander In Chief then just walked away from the pile of blood and bones? Or did that little event escape your attention?

Or do you believe that being a lifeguard in Dixon, IL, qualifies one as ". . .an excellent Commander In Chief?" If so, being a lifeguard on Orchard Beach in the Bronx should qualify me to be Secretary Of Defense.

 

[georgephillip]

Motivation for Bombing:

"According to some observers a major motivation for the bombing was the ill will generated among Lebanese Muslims, especially Shiʿa living in the slums of West Beirut and around the airport where the Marines were headquartered.

"They saw the MNF 'not as a peacekeeping force but as another faction in the Lebanese war.'

"U.S. troops particularly were seen as siding with the Maronite Catholics in their domination of Lebanon. Muslim feelings against the American presence were 'exacerbated when missiles lobbed by the U.S. Sixth Fleet hit innocent by-standers in the Druze-dominated Shuf mountains.'[13]

"Moreover, there was a growing feeling of frustration inside the Muslim and Druze community in Lebanon with US direct backing of Israel in the 1982 invasion of Lebanon and other pro-Israeli factions within Lebanon.

"Furthermore, these factions had been responsible for multiple attacks committed against the Muslim and Druze Lebanese population.[citation needed]

"Col. Timothy J. Geraghty, the commander of the Marines in Beirut during the incident, has said that 'the Marine and the French headquarters were targeted primarily because of who we were and what we represented;' and that,

"'It is noteworthy that the United States provided direct naval gunfire support -- which I strongly opposed for a week -- to the Lebanese Army at a mountain village called Suq-al-Garb on 19 September and that the French conducted an air strike on 23 September in the Bekaa Valley.

"'American support removed any lingering doubts of our neutrality, and I stated to my staff at the time that we were going to pay in blood for this decision.[14]'"

1983 Beirut barracks...

 

[Jroc]

How should we feel about the S.O.B. who systematically sowed the seeds of the incremental destruction of our economy?

And if those who have been successfully deluded by this movie actor cannot or will not examine the facts and effects of Reagan's egregiously flawed presidency that's not the fault of the "lefties." We happen to be consciously aware of the damage Reagan did to America and the hypnotic trance he left his cult of Conservative groupies in.

It's not hate. It's disgust.

Humm...Ok... you want to explain that? Have you even looked at our unfunded liabilities? Social Security and Medicare are what is going to break this country, and who implemented those big government, unsustainable programs? FDR and LDJ, two liberal Democrats, maybe you should explain yourself instead of making stupid statements not backed up by anything. Bush and Obama added to it, but these are democrat programs.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln559gjNpW4"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln559gjNpW4[/ame]

makes it quite clear that having government on our backs is often quite desirable and necessary.

That says a lot doesn't it? Roosevelt thought the same way...

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom

 

[Political Junky]

Wow, that must be popular on right wing sites.

 

[georgephillip]

How should we feel about the S.O.B. who systematically sowed the seeds of the incremental destruction of our economy?

And if those who have been successfully deluded by this movie actor cannot or will not examine the facts and effects of Reagan's egregiously flawed presidency that's not the fault of the "lefties." We happen to be consciously aware of the damage Reagan did to America and the hypnotic trance he left his cult of Conservative groupies in.

It's not hate. It's disgust.

Humm...Ok... you want to explain that? Have you even looked at our unfunded liabilities? Social Security and Medicare are what is going to break this country, and who implemented those big government, unsustainable programs? FDR and LDJ, two liberal Democrats, maybe you should explain yourself instead of making stupid statements not backed up by anything. Bush and Obama added to it, but these are democrat programs.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln559gjNpW4"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln559gjNpW4[/ame]

makes it quite clear that having government on our backs is often quite desirable and necessary.

That says a lot doesn't it? Roosevelt thought the same way...

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom

It's the RICH who are breaking this country

"Thanks largely to the $13 trillion Wall Street bailout – while keeping the debt overhead in place for America’s 'bottom 98 per cent' – this happy 2 per cent of the population now receives an estimated three quarters (~75 per cent) of the returns to wealth (interest, dividends, rent and capital gains).

"This is nearly double what it received a generation ago.

"The rest of the population is being squeezed, and foreclosures are rising."

Obama's Greatest Betrayal

 

[georgephillip]

"Subprime was the spark that lit the fuse, but subprime wasn't big enough to bring down the whole financial system.

"That would take bigger ructions in the shadow banking system.

"Here's an excerpt from an article by Nomi Prins which explains how much money was involved:

"'Between 2002 and early 2008, roughly $1.4 trillion worth of sub-prime loans were originated by now-fallen lenders like New Century Financial. If such loans were our only problem, the theoretical solution would have involved the government subsidizing these mortgages for the maximum cost of $1.4 trillion. However, according to Thomson Reuters, nearly $14 trillion worth of complex-securitized products were created, predominantly on top of them, precisely because leveraged funds abetted every step of their production and dispersion. Thus, at the height of federal payouts in July 2009, the government had put up $17.5 trillion to support Wall Street's pyramid Ponzi system, not $1.4 trillion.' ("Shadow Banking", Nomi Prins, The American Prospect)"

Another Financial Crash

 

[traveler52]

ah yes I can see why Repukes love Reagan. the one who sold arms to our enemys. which last i checked is called TREASON. Reagans nickname instead of the great communicator should be the great traitor

The Great Rectum and his cabal gave military assistance to Murder Squads in El Salvador and Nicaragua. He Rummy to meet with and then shake hands with Saddam Hussein. The Great Ronnie god gave money to a little known Saudi by the name of Usama Bin Laden.

The man was great at giving aid and assistance to dictators and terrorist groups that would later turn the weapons we gave them against the U.S.

 

[HUGGY]

ah yes I can see why Repukes love Reagan. the one who sold arms to our enemys. which last i checked is called TREASON. Reagans nickname instead of the great communicator should be the great traitor

The Great Rectum and his cabal gave military assistance to Murder Squads in El Salvador and Nicaragua. He Rummy to meet with and then shake hands with Saddam Hussein. The Great Ronnie god gave money to a little known Saudi by the name of Usama Bin Laden.

The man was great at giving aid and assistance to dictators and terrorist groups that would later turn the weapons we gave them against the U.S.

Ha..Ha.. The movie was over..everyone left the theater believing the guy in the white hat had saved the day.. then something odd happened... The movie script was played out but the characters, especially the villains, did not die...they awoke, materialized and burned down the theater.

 

[Rinata]

I don't think it is a 'God status' at all. Most of us who appreciated Reagan know all the flaws and foibles and mistakes that are part and parcel of his Administration. But one does not have to assign godlike status to a person to appreciate qualities that we admire. And Reagan had them. It is what he stood for, what he believed in, what he helped us to believe in ourselves, and the fact that it was largely due to his conviction that hundreds of millions of people should not have to live under totalitarian communism, that we admire him for. If he wasn't perfect.....well, nobody is.

There's a flip side too. There are those who can't stand for anyone to admire those qualities that at least some of us admire in Reagan--they have so little charity they can't allow somebody like him to be commemorated on what would have been his 100th birthday--so they presume to tear him down in the ugliest and most hateful manner.

So what's worse? Idolizing a man a little despite imperfections? Or demonizing all that he was/is?

Have people been tearing him down?? I wasn't aware of that. I think he was a good man and had many great qualities. I just didn't like his politics. And I think the right treats him in the way they accuse the left of treating Obama.

Just read the acidic posts of several who have yet to find ANY redeeming quality in Ronald Reagan. They enthusiastically recite his sins and sneer at those of us who appreciated him. I wish they had started their own thread to do that out of respect for those of us who did want to show appreciation we think is due. But oh well. The thread now seems to have become an evaluation of him and his presidency instead of the recognition thread it was intended to be. So lets go with that.

About that birthday cake. Any way you slice it, Nancy Reagan, though always a patriot, always an unfailing supporter of her husband, and always a 100% class act, was herself a bit off the beaten path. I'll not use the term wierd but she definitely then and now marched to her own drum. The cake was her idea--her tribute to a man she obviously loved, admired, and respected as much as any wife can.

I'm not going to begrudge her that.

I agree that some people say overly mean things about him, which is not necessary. I didn't like his politics, but I liked him. That is possible!!! I also didn't like Gerald Ford's politics, but I liked him a lot. I think he was such a nice man.

As for the cake, just because I think it's strange does not mean it was wrong. I guarantee you if I'd have been there I would have accepted a piece, if offered.

 

[Foxfyre]

Have people been tearing him down?? I wasn't aware of that. I think he was a good man and had many great qualities. I just didn't like his politics. And I think the right treats him in the way they accuse the left of treating Obama.

Just read the acidic posts of several who have yet to find ANY redeeming quality in Ronald Reagan. They enthusiastically recite his sins and sneer at those of us who appreciated him. I wish they had started their own thread to do that out of respect for those of us who did want to show appreciation we think is due. But oh well. The thread now seems to have become an evaluation of him and his presidency instead of the recognition thread it was intended to be. So lets go with that.

About that birthday cake. Any way you slice it, Nancy Reagan, though always a patriot, always an unfailing supporter of her husband, and always a 100% class act, was herself a bit off the beaten path. I'll not use the term wierd but she definitely then and now marched to her own drum. The cake was her idea--her tribute to a man she obviously loved, admired, and respected as much as any wife can.

I'm not going to begrudge her that.

I agree that some people say overly mean things about him, which is not necessary. I didn't like his politics, but I liked him. That is possible!!! I also didn't like Gerald Ford's politics, but I liked him a lot. I think he was such a nice man.

As for the cake, just because I think it's strange does not mean it was wrong. I guarantee you if I'd have been there I would have accepted a piece, if offered.

That's fair enough. Actually I feel that way about most of our elected leaders--most are likable outside of their politics. There are a few of exceptions, but we probably wouldn't agree on those either.

If we all wanted the same kind of person and the same kind of politics, we wouldn't need more than one person to run for any office. Actually I guess we could just skip the election.

 

[Rinata]

Just read the acidic posts of several who have yet to find ANY redeeming quality in Ronald Reagan. They enthusiastically recite his sins and sneer at those of us who appreciated him. I wish they had started their own thread to do that out of respect for those of us who did want to show appreciation we think is due. But oh well. The thread now seems to have become an evaluation of him and his presidency instead of the recognition thread it was intended to be. So lets go with that.

About that birthday cake. Any way you slice it, Nancy Reagan, though always a patriot, always an unfailing supporter of her husband, and always a 100% class act, was herself a bit off the beaten path. I'll not use the term wierd but she definitely then and now marched to her own drum. The cake was her idea--her tribute to a man she obviously loved, admired, and respected as much as any wife can.

I'm not going to begrudge her that.

I agree that some people say overly mean things about him, which is not necessary. I didn't like his politics, but I liked him. That is possible!!! I also didn't like Gerald Ford's politics, but I liked him a lot. I think he was such a nice man.

As for the cake, just because I think it's strange does not mean it was wrong. I guarantee you if I'd have been there I would have accepted a piece, if offered.

That's fair enough. Actually I feel that way about most of our elected leaders--most are likable outside of their politics. There are a few of exceptions, but we probably wouldn't agree on those either.

If we all wanted the same kind of person and the same kind of politics, we wouldn't need more than one person to run for any office. Actually I guess we could just skip the election.

But then some fool would elect himself and just take over. Guess we'll always have to have elections.