Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Knight Templar on June 05, 2004, 04:08:36 pm
-
http://us.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/05/reagan.health/index.html
-
By 'eck. Didn't know he was that old.
-
:( :( :( :(
RIP
-
I don't like Reagan the President, but he, like any other decent human being, deserves at least this:
God speed, and rest in peace.
-
Ronald Reagan
1911 - 2004
RIP
-
Whether I agree with him or not, I feel for those who grieve for him. He is a part of our history.
Rest in Peace.
-
Lets just hope that his death doesn't mean a U-turn on stem cell research or his final years really will have been in vain.
-
One of my favorite presidents. :(
I think Patton said it best. "It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived." ~ Gen. George Patton Jr.
-
Well chosen, HotSnoJ. Patton may have been a prima-donna, but he had a way with words, and this was definitely a great quote.
Reagan wasn't my favorite president, but in his defense, he did force the Soviet Union to throw in the towel. I won't add the negative comment I normally would, not today, of all days.
Let a dead man be given a decent burial before we, of any political belief, speak ill of him. Please, my friends and fellows, let us step aside from our usual political divisiveness and honor the fallen of every generation today.
-
Really rather fitting that tomorrow is D-Day, given the Loss. At least his suffering has ended.
The world has lost one of it's greatest leaders ever.
Please mention Mrs. Reagan and the rest of the family in your prayers.
-
Ronald Reagan was my favorite president... a damn shame this had to happen. However, I think we are lucky he lived to be so old... lets see, he was in his 70's during second term... I believe 77...
Rest In Peace... :(
-
Ronald Reagan was one of the greatest presidents and one of the greatest men of all time. Only the likes of Lincoln, Washington, and Franklin D. Roosevelt can match his record. Some say he is more than human. But, after some thought, I came to realize that Reagan encapsulated what it meant to be human.
Like it or not, the human spirit resides in all of us, so wonderful and yet so appalling. Peaceful and yet violent, tolerant but hateful, and always seeking, striving, glorious, despicable, cowardly, courageous, unblushing, unashamed, bold, uncompromising, and utterly indomitable. We sometimes embrace it, sometims shun it, but we cannot rid ourselves of it, and why should we? It has propelled us through the Stone Age, through ancient times, through plagues, depressions, wars, and all manner of other crises. In Ronald Reagan and in the nation he led, we can all learn something about ourselves. Reagan--and America--are everything that is good and everything that is bad about the human race. Nations like France have tried to stifle the violent, intrepid, and uncouth side of human nature and nations like Saddam-era Iraq have tried to suppress the other side, the compassionate, peaceful, and "civilized' side. America accepts and embraces both aspects of our existence.
Some people love the way we are, some people hate it, but no one can dispute that we have accomplished great things with it. Reagan is reflected in all of us, and especially strongly in President Bush, who faces similar crises and deals with them similarly. Maybe even, after his presidency is over and after he has left his mark on our country, we will remember him with the same respect we have for Reagan.
Goodbye, Reagan. You will be missed.:(
-
My....God....
That's the truest, most beautiful thing I've ever read Woolie.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
My....God....
That's the truest, most beautiful thing I've ever read Woolie.
Thanls. The events that occurred this weekend really made me think about this kind of thing. A turning point in history is unfolding right before our eyes, and our choices now will have great ramificatons in the future. It's time to put some thought into our leaders. In a time of turmoil, a strong leader is needed to pull the nation through, whether said leader is liberal (Lincoln, FDR) or conservative (Reagan, Bush II). This is why Jimmy Carter and James Buchanan failed as presidents, and why George W. Bush may yet succeed.
-
Amen. ;)
-
Reagan did nothing that could be defined as great.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Reagan did nothing that could be defined as great.
/me pulls out flamethrower.
Run while you still can little man.
[edit] on a side note, I've added some Reagan quotes to my random quote thing on my site. http://www.josherickson.org/quote.php
-
Originally posted by Gank
Reagan did nothing that could be defined as great.
How's that?
-
Guys, just let it rest. If certain people want to honour Reagan, let them. I'm sure there could be a big deabte on the merits of Raegan's presidency, but at least wait until he's buried to start.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
How's that?
Great men tend to achieve great things, like Ghandi or Mandela, Reagan just made rich people richer, poor people poorer, started arms races and bombed countrys for no good reason.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Great men tend to achieve great things, like Ghandi or Mandela, Reagan just made rich people richer, poor people poorer, started arms races and bombed countrys for no good reason.
The ideal American president, then?
:nervous:
-
I never really saw the signifigance of Reagan's presidency (Gorbachev played a far larger role in the actual end of the Cold War), but still, it isn't right to make fun of the dead, aldo.
-
Reagan, I was too young to appreciate what you did at the time you were in office..... dang Nintendo. Thanks for leading the US into OUTSTARING the Soviet Union and fixing the economy from Carter's mess.
NOW GIVE THOSE TERRORISTS IN THE AFTERLIFE HELL!!!!!
-
You realize we were ahead of the Soviets in the arms race basically the entire time, right? At least from the 1960s. The only reason the numbers even seemd competitive was because the USSR was exagerating their numbers for propaganda purposes.
Realistically, that means that Reagan's arms race can be viewed as two things:
1. Provoking an enemy for no real reason.
2. Causing a massive debt, once again for no real reason.
-
I don't know about you, but if these were the old days, I wouldn't want to live in a kingdom or a civilization that did not have the means to defend its citizens. Either it be a wall or a grand army.
Do not EASILY forget the Cuban missile crisis. The Soviet Union was a real threat at the time. The lack of communication and intelligence assumptions kept that threat real.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
I never really saw the signifigance of Reagan's presidency (Gorbachev played a far larger role in the actual end of the Cold War), but still, it isn't right to make fun of the dead, aldo.
I wasn't aware I was making fun of anyone - 'twas a satirical comment.
However, why should we regard the dead differently from the living? One of the most annoying things about the world is that some people seem to become uncriticisable after they die..... i.e. Princess Diana (pre death - publicity seeking media whore, post death - 'people's princess).
-
Remember, those were MRBMs and IRBMs. Part of the reason that Russia was willing to move those to Cuba is that they were basically useless to the Russians as their range was too short.
In ICBMs, the Russians were behind, and we knew it from about 1962 onward. They had a fraction of the missiles that they claimed to have.
Also, the Star Wars program would have put us more at risk than we were earlier. By building it, we would have been force to pull out of the ABM Treaty, as we did early in Bush's presidency. And as the tech isn't really that effective yet, let alone then, it was not an intelligent idea.
Aldo: I'm not saying that we should glorify people after their death. It's just that it doesn't seem fair to criticize someone who can't fight back. Since they are dead, let the discussion about them die with them.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Do not EASILY forget the Cuban missile crisis. The Soviet Union was a real threat at the time. The lack of communication and intelligence assumptions kept that threat real.
The Soviet Union was never a real threat.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I wasn't aware I was making fun of anyone - 'twas a satirical comment.
However, why should we regard the dead differently from the living? One of the most annoying things about the world is that some people seem to become uncriticisable after they die..... i.e. Princess Diana (pre death - publicity seeking media whore, post death - 'people's princess).
"I was so naive that I thought the point of any eulogy was to tell the truth about the subject!...But it now looks as though this isn't the way to deliver a proper eulogy at all..."
-Socrates, from one of Plato's books.-
-
Aldo_14, I don't think dead people become uncriticisable, there's proper a time and place for it. I believe its is inappropriate and TACTLESS to launch an attack on a person who passed on so recently.
SUppose a CLOSE relative or LOVED one of yours passed away and in the funeral a person starts criticizing and bashing the individual, would you be up in arms at the dude for disrespecting?
People are in pain at this point. Only inconsiderate $$$holes would be so cruel as to not be sensitive to the families. So anyone who has something TACTLESS to say, say it else where. Its obvious that this thread was made for final respects. Make another thread titled
"I don't like Reagan and don't I don't care who I hurt while expressing it"
I'm actually surprised that so many TV networks are airing the Reagan Tribute right now, considering how biased many of them are because of the upcoming elections.
To whover was sponsoring that tasteless anti-Reagan mini-propaganda-series about Reagan and the network that even CONSIDERED airing it WHILE HE WAS STILL ALIVE,
::cough:: CBS ::coucg::
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO AIR TONIGHT's MEMORIAL!!!!
Now the network execs want to be friends to the friends and loveones of the deceased? I THINK NOT. Ratings are so fun aren't they?
Gank, perhaps you are right, but the FEAR was real enough for people to act. Perhaps if the US and USSR stopped posturing at the time both sides would have realized that the fear is not necessary.
-
Omni: kind of hard to keep your tongue when at any other time you would let loose and put those who pervert history to their cause in their proper place. But I try. Give it a few months, and maybe we can have a proper discussion.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Aldo_14, I don't think dead people become uncriticisable, there's proper a time and place for it. I believe its is inappropriate and TACTLESS to launch an attack on a person who passed on so recently.
SUppose a CLOSE relative or LOVED one of yours passed away and in the funeral a person starts criticizing and bashing the individual, would you be up in arms at the dude for disrespecting?
People are in pain at this point. Only inconsiderate $$$holes would be so cruel as to not be sensitive to the families. So anyone who has something TACTLESS to say, say it else where. Its obvious that this thread was made for final respects. Make another thread titled
"I don't like Reagan and don't I don't care who I hurt while expressing it"
I'm actually surprised that so many TV networks are airing the Reagan Tribute right now, considering how biased many of them are because of the upcoming elections.
To whover was sponsoring that tasteless anti-Reagan mini-propaganda-series about Reagan and the network that even CONSIDERED airing it WHILE HE WAS STILL ALIVE,
::cough:: CBS ::coucg::
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO AIR TONIGHT's MEMORIAL!!!!
Now the network execs want to be friends to the friends and loveones of the deceased? I THINK NOT. Ratings are so fun aren't they?
Like I said, I didn't make any attack. Re-read my first post.
NB: Propaganda is often in the eye of the beholder.
-
Aldo, I wasn't accusing you of attacking. Just responding to your previous post about dead people being uncriticizable.
Richtor, huh?
My relatives were just telling me how much the media attacked Reagan for his idealism much like the way Bush is today. Is there anyone old enough to confirm this?
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Aldo, I wasn't accusing you of attacking. Just responding to your previous post about dead people being uncriticizable.
k. To be clear, I'm not arguing against sympathy, etc, during initial mourning process - just in perpituity.
i.e. that everyone's (public personas) life needs to be subject to review, criticism, etc posthumously* for the purposes of history. If that means criticism, then so be it.
*tactfully
-
It's called being respectful people. There is a time and a place for criticism, a funeral is not it.
You don't speak ill of the dead until they are buried. You show compassion to the family. And above all else, you remember the good and forget the bad.
Reagan was the finest man in the last 40 years to occupy the Office. The world is a lesser place with his absence.
Remind me to make an inappropriate comment the next time solemnity is the rule.
A Great Man has died, show him the respect he's due, POLITICS BE DAMNED.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
It's called being respectful people. There is a time and a place for criticism, a funeral is not it.
You don't speak ill of the dead until they are buried. You show compassion to the family. And above all else, you remember the good and forget the bad.
Reagan was the finest man* in the last 40 years to occupy the Office. The world is a lesser place with his absence.
Remind me to make an inappropriate comment the next time solemnity is the rule.
A Great Man has died, show him the respect he's due, POLITICS BE DAMNED.
*Contras.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
It's just that it doesn't seem fair to criticize someone who can't fight back.
By that token you shouldn't criticise anyone who isn't with you at the time, or otherwise aware of what you're doing.
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
By that token you shouldn't criticise anyone who isn't with you at the time, or otherwise aware of what you're doing.
which is usually the best time :nervous:
-
Exactly :D
-
Thatcher, Raegan and Gorbachev were the most influential peacetime premiers of the 20th century. The trio brought about the end of the Cold War and of course the collapse of the Soviet Union. I have far more praise for Raegan than any of his republican successors and he was truly one of the more generally likeable US presidents as well. RIP.
-
The Soviet union was well beyond repair by the time Thatcher and Reagan came to power, neither deserve any credit for being in the right place at the right time.
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Gank, perhaps you are right, but the FEAR was real enough for people to act. Perhaps if the US and USSR stopped posturing at the time both sides would have realized that the fear is not necessary.
Reagan was one of the biggest posturers, remember all that evil empire ****e.