• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Reagan on Rushmore?

Reagan is waaaayyy too liberal to be put up on Rushmore. He would be clobbered in the current GOP primary (probably a Democratic one too).

Daredelvis
 
daredelvis said:
Reagan is waaaayyy too liberal to be put up on Rushmore. He would be clobbered in the current GOP primary (probably a Democratic one too).
Click to expand...
You don't quite get it. In 2011 GOP reality, those aspects of Reagan never existed. Sort of like the Mormons and Joseph Smith.
 
Tricky said:
In other news, Republicans have decided to paint Reagan in between the man and the woman in American Gothic.

Really, what makes people think they can screw with other people's art? Gutzon Borglum designed Mt. Rushmore and unless you get permission from his kin or estate, don't even think about messing with a piece of art.
Click to expand...

Right on. Should Reagan be added standing behind Lincoln at the lincoln memorial? Perhaps he could be conversing with Jefferson at his monument? Perhaps the French could place him on the back of Charlemagne and his horse.

This is the reason no one should be added to any existing monument.

Reagan doesn't deserve a monument anyway, at least not for the reasons conservatives think he does. Besides he already has a hollywood star.
 
Um, isn't there kind of controversy about the existing Rushmore already? Something about stolen land, slaughter, genocide, and carving a bunch of conquistadors in somebody's sacred mountain? My point is, it may be bad enough what's already carved there without adding more incredibly ugly people. Why are all our politicans so ugly? If we're going to carve anybody into mountainsides it should be attractive people.
 
sarge said:
Reagan on Rushmore? Stupid.

FDR on Rushmore? Only slightly less stupid. FDR did more long term harm to America than any president until Bush 43. That FDR also did some lasting good merely balances the scales and makes him average. Average should not make it to Rushmore.

Clinton I've come to hate much less over time. Given time for some perspective, he may actually merit consideration.

All things considered, I say leave it the way it is. America is unable to reach a consensus of anything right now, and immortalizing should require consensus.
Click to expand...

Let me see. What are the awful things FDR did to this country? Could it be eliminating child labor? Or was it the establishment of the minimum wage and the 40 hour work week? Perhaps it was his handling of World War II. Perhaps all the harm he did was the reason America came out of WWII financially and militarily so powerful.
 
TimCallahan said:
Let me see. What are the awful things FDR did to this country? Could it be eliminating child labor? Or was it the establishment of the minimum wage and the 40 hour work week? Perhaps it was his handling of World War II. Perhaps all the harm he did was the reason America came out of WWII financially and militarily so powerful.
Click to expand...

But he was a god damn Democrat - that nullifies any of these mamby pamby improvements you are so boastful of :p
 
doctoraudit said:
The question that should also be asked is Can you add any more faces? From what I.ve read there is not enough good granite on Rushmore to add any more faces. If someone on the board actually knows for certain please post. From the pictures of the mountain I've seen there is not enough room for another face.
Click to expand...
The consensus is that there isn't enough room, at least on the part of the mountain where the other portraits are. Usually this ends the discussion. Usually. Putting Reagan on the mountain was proposed during his presidency, and the idea was shot down by a terse prnouncement that there wasn't room up there for anyone else, no matter who they were.

Gutzon Borglum, the artist who created and supervised the work, had to make quite a few changes just to get the four men up there. If I remember right, Jefferson got the worst of it. His position and the direction of his gaze had to be adjusted to work with the stone that was there. And even then, his face has a serious crack in it.
 
Penemue said:
Personally, I love Reagan. How can you not? The man ended the Cold War and actually bankrupted the Soviet Union with a Jedi Mind Trick that he even had the balls to call 'The Star Wars Program'.
Click to expand...

Now that's pith.
 
Penemue said:
Personally, I love Reagan. How can you not? The man ended the Cold War and actually bankrupted the Soviet Union with a Jedi Mind Trick that he even had the balls to call 'The Star Wars Program'.

But still, putting him on Rushmore is just dumb.
Click to expand...

I'll grant he really tried and had the best interests of the country at heart.

Same was true of GHW Bush.

But that isn't the bar one needs to rise to in order to be immortalized on the whole side of a mountain.

I suggest that those who think otherwise consider doing for Reagan what Stone Mountain did for those filthy traitors... In fact I would be totally OK with erasing Stone Mountain and putting RR up there.
 
Brown said:
The consensus is that there isn't enough room, at least on the part of the mountain where the other portraits are. Usually this ends the discussion. Usually. Putting Reagan on the mountain was proposed during his presidency, and the idea was shot down by a terse prnouncement that there wasn't room up there for anyone else, no matter who they were.

Gutzon Borglum, the artist who created and supervised the work, had to make quite a few changes just to get the four men up there. If I remember right, Jefferson got the worst of it. His position and the direction of his gaze had to be adjusted to work with the stone that was there. And even then, his face has a serious crack in it.
Click to expand...
.
Use the other side.... of course, RRR's ass would need to be identified as to which pol's ass it was. :)
 

Attachments

  • RushmoreBackside.jpg
    RushmoreBackside.jpg
    70.8 KB · Views: 8
Last edited:
FDR stabilized us for 80 years. Reagan led the first part of the destabilization effort.
 
Penemue said:
Personally, I love Reagan. How can you not? The man ended the Cold War and actually bankrupted the Soviet Union with a Jedi Mind Trick that he even had the balls to call 'The Star Wars Program'.

But still, putting him on Rushmore is just dumb.
Click to expand...

Well, there was a lot more to the Soviet dissolution than the "Star Wars" SDI program. Even if you want to just talk about military stuff Carter needs to get some credit too. Many programs he approved (like the stealth aircraft program) also led to the Soviets spending more money than they should have.
 
TimCallahan said:
Let the damn Reaganites get their own damn mountain.
Click to expand...

Better yet, let them do the whole thing with private money. At least that would be consistent with their philosophy instead of making the government pay for a monument to Reagan :rolleyes:
 
varwoche said:
You don't quite get it. In 2011 GOP reality, those aspects of Reagan never existed. Sort of like the Mormons and Joseph Smith.
Click to expand...

Why pick on the Mormons? Pretty much all of Christianity tries to pretend the witch burnings didn't happen.

So how many people did Joesph Smith murder again?
 
TimCallahan said:
Let me see. What are the awful things FDR did to this country? Could it be eliminating child labor? Or was it the establishment of the minimum wage and the 40 hour work week? Perhaps it was his handling of World War II. Perhaps all the harm he did was the reason America came out of WWII financially and militarily so powerful.
Click to expand...

Did your readingcomprehesionator stop working half way through my post?

And for the record, FDR did not invent the 40 hour week, did not eliminate child labor, didn't handle WWII particularly well, and had relatively little direct influence over the USs post-WWII affluence. I'll give you the minimum wage thing though.

FDR committed the greatest constitutional abuses since Lincoln and he fundamentally changed the relationship between citizens and the federal goverment. Much of what he "accomplished" was unconstitutional (more accurately, extra-constitutional). That he also accomplished some lasting good mitigates the bad......which is what I said from the begining.

FDR is perfectly Reaganesque. He is remembered fondly without regard for his actual record.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom