Ronald Reagan dies

[evildave]

Opinion, that and a buck will get you a cup of coffee at 7-11.

Hardly the point of the thread or justification for your vitriol. Why not just hate the guy instead of coming up with lame justification for it?

Dunno. Why all the hostility, dude? I mean, like, he's dead and you're all pissed off because people are pokin' fun at the dead dude.

I should think your expectations for an evil person would be lower than all that.

"If a man speaks in the forest, and there is no woman there to hear him, is he still wrong?"

When the Challenger exploded, the jokes were circulating on the Air Force base before the last pieces hit the water. 'Need Another Seven Astronauts'. What color were her eyes? Blue. One blew this way, one blew that way.

I was posting 9/11 jokes by 9/12/2001. Why didn't Superman save the 9/11 victims? 'Cause he's quadrapligic. Who are the fastest readers in the world? New Yorkers: they go through 144 stories in a minute flat. What did they play on the elevators? It's raining men.

Columbia? Why anything different? What color were her eyes? Blue. One blew this way, one blew that way. Why didn't superman... OK, they're template jokes.

Reagan? If anything the so-called tragedy is too small. But joke I shall.


Q: What's the difference between a liberal and conservative?

A: Liberals knew from the start that Reagan had Alzheimer's.


Ronald Reagan's Alzheimer's Disease is getting so bad that Nancy sent him to the video store to pick up "A Scent Of A Woman" and he came back with "A Fish Called Wanda".


Ronald Reagan, Albert Einstein and Pablo Picasso all died. Due to glitches in the celestial Time-Space continuum, all three arrived at the Pearly Gates more or less simultaneously (even though their deaths took place decades apart).

The first to present himself to Saint Peter was Einstein. Saint Peter questioned the Good Doctor. "You look like Einstein, but you have NO idea the lengths certain people will go to, to sneak into Heaven under false pretenses. Can you prove who you really are?"

Einstein pondered for a few seconds and asked, "Could I have a blackboard and some chalk?" Saint Peter complied with a snap of his fingers; the blackboard and chalk instantly appeared. Einstein proceeded to describe--with arcane mathematics and symbols--his theory of relativity.

Saint Peter was suitably impressed. "You really are Einstein! Welcome to heaven!"

The next to arrive was Picasso. Once again Saint Peter asked for his credentials. Picasso didn't hesitate. "Mind if I use that blackboard and chalk?"

Saint Peter said, "Go ahead."

Picasso erased Einstein's scribbles and proceeded to sketch out a truly stunning mural. Bulls, satyrs, nude women: he captured their essences with but a few strokes of the chalk. Saint Peter clapped. "Surely you are the great artist you claim to be! Come on in!"

The last to arrive was Ronald Reagan. Saint Peter scratched his head. "Einstein and Picasso both managed to prove their identity. How can you prove yours?"

Reagan looked bewildered. "Who are Einstein and Picasso?" he asked.

Saint Peter sighed, "Come on in, Ron!"


OK, so pretty much *all of them* are template jokes.

 

[RandFan]

AUP,

FWIW I don't hate you and I know I have said allot of things that I will regret. I can respect those who don't like Reagan or who strongly disagree with the direction he took this country. I can also admit that he wasn't perfect.

I don't think it wise to put people on pedestals. It is hard not to sometimes. I cried when John Candy died. He is the only celebrity that I ever cared enough to be emotional about when they passed away.

As evildave points out Reagan has been effectively passed for sometime. Still, it saddened me much when I heard the news. I liked and admired him very much. I won't appologize for that.

I can respect those who didn't like Reagan and or those who strongly disagreed with his politics and policies. This is a political forum. It is quite appropriate for you to voice your criticism here. I just wish you could do so with a modicum of respect for a man who I personally cared about. That is just a wish though.

It is almost midnight my time and I'm going to bed.

CIO

 

[RandFan]

Dunno. Why all the hostility, dude? I mean, like, he's dead and you're all pissed off because people are pokin' fun at the dead dude.

I should think your expectations for an evil person would be lower than all that.

Perhaps it is late and I just don't get your point. I have already responded positively to a joke about Reagan in another thread so I am not at all too sensitive for jokes or criticism "screw Reagan" didn't sit well with me I'll admit.

As far as I can remember I have always found you honest and intelligent. I respect you and thought your words unbecoming. Perhaps the fault is mine and I just didn't get the gist of what you were trying to say or just took them too serious or something else. If so then I'm sorry.

In any event, thanks for the response (I think).

 

[Cain]

This is why I love _Counterpunch_. Unrepentant, irreverent, anti-sentimental, radical.

GOODBYE AND GOOD RIDDANCE

Ronald Reagan has finally died at age 93. Predictably, politicians from both major parties have issued gushing tributes to this venal and vicious man, who was happy to slash workers' wages, see families thrown onto the street, support sadistic death squads and bomb other countries, if this was in the interests of the American ruling class.

Meanwhile, if recent history is any guide, the mainstream media will steer well clear of providing an accurate portrayal of Reagan, the man and the president.

...

in real life, Reagan refused to mention AIDS publicly for six years, under-funded federal programs dealing with the disease and, according to his authorized biography, said, "Maybe the Lord brought down this plague," because "illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments."

C. Everett Koop, Reagan's surgeon general, later revealed, "because transmission of AIDS was understood primarily in the homosexual population and in those who abused intravenous drugs, the advisors to the president took the stand, they are only getting what they justly deserve."

...

Reagan's economic policies were a disaster for working-class Americans.

...

"Poor dear," remarked British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, his closest international ally, "there's nothing between his ears." As for a "moral man," Reagan's morality included union busting... an unprecedented war on the poor, opposition to civil rights and support for apartheid South Africa. The "moral" Reagan trained and supported terrorists, including the Nicaraguan contras ("the moral equal of our Founding Fathers") who killed over 30,000 people, and Islamic radicals in Afghanistan who later formed the al-Qaeda network.

Reagan was also a liar. [Iran Contra stuff]

...

The man whose administration spearheaded class warfare on behalf of the rich, dragged American politics to the right, and rebuilt US imperialism after the Vietnam debacle, is dead. Good riddance.

See the full article on _CP's_ frontpage: http://www.counterpunch.org/

 

[a_unique_person]

Thank you counterpunch.

And this

Mr Reagan did not "win" the Cold War single-handed; he was one of nine presidents who led the US in the east-west conflict from 1947 to 1989. But he did play a key role in ending the Cold War, and by the time of his death 15 years after he left the Oval Office, even some of his most dogged critics were willing to grant him credit. "Reagan's contribution to ending the Cold War was comparable to [president Richard] Nixon's contribution to opening up China," said Walter LaFeber, a historian at Cornell University who has long been critical of Mr Reagan. "Politically, to have somebody of Reagan's ideology do this was very important. It would have been very difficult for [a Democrat]."

One of the paradoxes of politics. Only a conservative president could have ended the Cold War. An attempt by, say, Carter to do just this would have seen the Republicans have a field day about giving in to communism.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/06/1086460175364.html?from=storylhs

Asked what he was going to do about the trebling of the budget deficit during his first term, Mr Reagan responded: "Why should I do anything about the deficit? It's big enough to look after itself".

Honestly, tell me, what would have happened if Carter had made that remark?

 

[shemp]

Thank you counterpunch.

And this



One of the paradoxes of politics. Only a conservative president could have ended the Cold War. An attempt by, say, Carter to do just this would have seen the Republicans have a field day about giving in to communism.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/06/1086460175364.html?from=storylhs



Honestly, tell me, what would have happened if Carter had made that remark?

Impeachment, or 25,000,000 people storming the White House and instituting mob rule.

 

[shemp]

Oh yes, Godwin's law would have to raise it's ugly head sooner or later. Nice touch./B]

Hey, don't you read entire threads? I invoked it earlier. At least give credit where it's due!

 

[Roadtoad]

Wow. I have to admit, it's been a long time since I've seen a thread on this Forum sink to this level.

You didn't like Reagan? That's fine. There were a lot of reasons I wasn't crazy about him, either. Some of them have already been outlined, so I don't feel any great need to go into how my wife and I lost family and friends to AIDS, and lost them needlessly.

You liked Reagan? That's fine, too. I remember hearing Reagan's speech live just as I was about to go on the air at AFN Wuerzburg, not quite getting the historic significance of that speech, until a number of years later when Germany was finally reunited after nearly 50 years of pointless division.

Dishonor the man with false eulogy, or dishonor him with false criticism. Your choice. He was simply a man who did the best he believed he could do. If you didn't like the job he did, well, that's why in the USA, we hold elections every four years.

 

[Nitpick]

"All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk."
--Ronald Reagan (Republican candidate for president), quoted in the Burlington (Vermont) Free Press, February 15, 1980. (In reality, the average nuclear reactor generates 30 tons of radioactive waste per year.)

I think that's not as wrong as it seems to be at first sight.
With a specific weight of 19.1 grams/cubic centimeter for Uranium, a cubic meter (~ 35.31 cubic feet) of nuclear waste should weigh approximatively 19 (metric) tons. A volume of 1.5-2 cubic meters sounds credible for a (huge presidential ) desk (the desk itself, not the free space beneath it). Probably still wrong, but just slightly.
Of course the apologists of nuclear power will talk about volume rather than weight (and its opponents will mention weight rather than volume ).

Then comes death and gives a damn about units of measure (for waste or for the greatness of people).

I never liked Reagan's politics, but at least he didn't screw up when history and Gorbatschow gave him the assist. I wonder how Europe would look like today, if George W... (oh, never mind...)

 

[blackpriester]

Thank you,

I know that Liberals are human like anyone else. It's nice to know that there are some that truly value compassion and tolerance and not just play lip service. I know that there are those who honestly disagreed with the policies of Reagan. I don't have any problem with that. I don't even have a problem with vocalizing those disagreements shortly after he died.

I have a real problem with people who preach compassion or hold an ideology that preaches compassion and then spew hate on the day or day after this man has died. I'm simply not capable of that. I could not spit on someone's grave or mock a dead person who was loved by so many on the day that person died.

Please note these same people will be crying fowl when Republicans or conservatives spew their hate at Carter when he dies. Please note that I will take those a$$holes to task also.

I believe you - after all, I have "caught you" before being critical of your own affiliates. Politics would be so much more interesting if everybody stuck to principles instead of party lines .

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by demon:
If it was down to you the IRA would still be active, even as big a bigot as Thatcher was, she knew she had to talk to them.

The IRA are still active, brainiac. Or as Gerry Adam's put it "They haven't gone away, you know."

Of course, they lied about it because they knew little bigots like yourself would have got all upset and started crying foul. Aawwwwww.

Little bigots? I'm 6" I'll have you know. I'm a very well built bigot.

I get the idea you are a bit pissed off they aren`t active anymore because pub commentators always did like to prattle

I'm pissed off because they're still active and preaching about the evils of militarism! Maybe you ought to speak to the widow of Garda Gerry McCabe. She knows all about the "non-activity" of the IRA.

The Sun headlines about Ireland. .... but never mind there are those nasty sandni**ers now to fill the space...there`s always someone for a bigot to hate, it`s one of those nice movable feast/double standard qualities you have.

Oh I don't read "The Sun". You may be surprised to hear that Irish newspapers have a few things to say about Sinn Fein/IRA duplicity, but then you probably couldn't name an Irish newspaper, let alone have ever read one.

 

[corplinx]

This is why I love _Counterpunch_. Unrepentant, irreverent, anti-sentimental, radical.



See the full article on _CP's_ frontpage: http://www.counterpunch.org/

While some of their criticisms have an air of validity, saying the Reagan years were bad for working families goes against all empirical hard data we have. I'm not familiar with counterpunch, is it just blanket contrarianism?

 

[Jessica Blue]

We ought not to be forget what Ronald Reagan did for bryl-cream.


A triumph of the embalmers art.
- Gore Vidal, on Ronald Reagan

There are of course quite a few parallels between Reagen and GWB.

1). In both cases, we have a president who freed millions abroad from tyranny and enriched millions at home with an economic turnaround based on tax cutting . . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Anybody else here think maybe Skeptic is GWBush in real life?

LOL! If not he ought to be his speech writer...

 

[VicDaring]

....
OK, so pretty much *all of them* are template jokes.

[derail]
My favorite of the genre:

Did you know that Princess Di was on the radio the night she died?

And on the dashboard, and the steering wheel...

(Can also be used for Grace Kelly, or any other auto accident death)
[/derail]

 

[Lothian]

I for one will never forget the debt skepticism has to Ronald Reagan with his well publicised debunking of astrology...oh wait was that someone else ?

 

[Tmy]

Somthing good about Regan......................Hmmmmmmmm..........

HE did sign the MLK holiday into law.

 

[Cain]

While some of their criticisms have an air of validity, saying the Reagan years were bad for working families goes against all empirical hard data we have. I'm not familiar with counterpunch, is it just blanket contrarianism?

For instance? Real wages were relatively stagnant over the Reagan area, working class people were saddled with higher payroll taxes (and slightly higher income taxes), and his administration regularly sought cuts in benefits aimed at aiding the lower end of the economic spectrum.

Michael Kinsley wrote an article a couple of years ago disabusing Reagan hagiographers of their fantastical, reality-challenged claims.

Two things that clearly did not cause [economic prosperity in the 1980s] are smaller government and lower taxes, because this legendary Reagan revolution barely happened. Federal government spending was a quarter higher in real terms when Reagan left office than when he entered. As a share of GDP, the federal government shrank from 22.2 percent to 21.2 percent—a whopping one percentage point. The federal civilian work force increased from 2.8 million to 3 million. (Yes, it increased even if you exclude Defense Department civilians. And, no, assuming a year or two of lag time for a president's policies to take effect doesn't materially change any of these results.)

Under eight years of Big Government Bill Clinton, to choose another president at random, the federal civilian work force went down from 2.9 million to 2.68 million. Federal spending grew by 11 percent in real terms—less than half as much as under Reagan. As a share of GDP, federal spending shrank from 21.5 percent to 18.3 percent—more than double Reagan's reduction, ending up with a federal government share of the economy about a tenth smaller than Reagan left behind.

And taxes? Federal tax collections rose about a fifth in real terms under Reagan. As a share of GDP, they declined from 19.6 percent to 18.3 percent. After Clinton, they are up to 20 percent. It's hard to think of variations in this narrow range as revolutionary one way or the other. For most working Americans, the share of income going to taxes (including FICA) went up even under Reagan.

http://slate.msn.com/id/100474/


Yes, I would consider _Counterpunch_ contrarian. In fact, co-editor Alexander Cockburn used to be good friends with Christopher Hitchens (_Letters to a Young Contrarian_), though now, probably still both contrarian in their own ways, despise each other. Liberals like Eric Alterman detest Cockburn more than he hates the editors of _The Wall Street Journal_. Cockburn's politics can be weird at times, and sometimes has a seemingly strong right-wing edge. He's fanatically pro-gun rights and thinks global warming is part our culture's
"eschatology of guilt."

 

[Skeptic]

Look, can we just stick to the real business of reminding everyone what an idiot Reagan was, and how it was, perhaps, the darkest day in American history when he was elected.

Well, it was a dark day. But then again, so were many days in America then.

After four years of Carter, surely the worst president since WWII, Inflation and unemployment were both very high; the Soviets were advancing in Afghanistan, in Africa, in South America; it was humiliated in Iran; the people had lost faith in the future of America, and believed (since the intelligentia told them so) that America has passed its prime and is now suffering from the effects of "late capitalism", while the inevitable victory of socialism and Marxism is coming soon.

After eight years of Reagan, the socialist revolution and Marxism disappeared like a bad dream; inflation and unemployment were drastically decreased as the economy vastly improved due to Reagen's policy of cutting taxes and government; Communist revolutions were stopped across the globe; and America once more believed in its future, which of course was one of the major (unaccredited) reasons for its recovery, since when you believe in the future of the country, you do far more for it.

Not bad for an "idiot".

The real reason he is hated so much by people like AUP is not merely that he succeeded (although of course they resent that as well). It is that he succeeded despite--or, more likely, because--he simply ignored all the theories and dogmas intellectuals love to believe are the truth.

For example, the intellectuals had all these theories on why high taxes are necessary to create a plethora of social programs if one wants to REALLY help the poor. Reagen's view was that high taxes and government beurocracy hurt the poor far more than they help. He was correct. Similarly, most intellectuals believed the twin dogmas that a). the USSR is really more-or-less the same, morally and economically, as the USA; and b). it is here to stay and, if anything, is more stable than the USA. Reagan believed that these two claims are utter nonsense, and the precise opposite is true. He was correct.

So what do liberal intellectuals do when their beloved dogmas--socialism, welfare state, moral equivelancy between tyrannies and democracies, etc.--are shown to be spectacularly wrong? They launch a campaign to smear the person who dared to make them look like utter fools. You can tell that it is an intellectual "job" of smearing by the fact that Reagen, in these criticisms, is invariable called the worst insults intellectuals can thing of: calling Reagen "racist" is very common, so is "simplistic" and, of course, there is always the intellectual uber-insult, saying Reagan was "stupid". (These "independent thinkers" are rather predictable when it comes to insults, at least.)

Yes, I know, I know: in theory, these people are against personal attacks and smearing people instead of arguing against their views; but the rules are only for other people, you know.)

 

[LostAngeles]

When I was a little girl, about six or seven, the prospect of nuke-yoo-lar war dawned on me one evening as I watched Reagan on T.V. I connected Ronald Reagan with nuclear holocaust. (and to a lesser extent George Herbert Walker Bush as he was Reagan's V.P.)

Whether it's that lingering connotation or not, I've never been a fan of Reagan's policies. I won't argue that he seemed like a pretty vibrant guy when he was President.

I feel bad for him as a person having had to live with the Alzheimer's slowling taking away his mind and for his family for having to go through it. Aside from that, I think I'm kind of ambivalent.

 

[a_unique_person]

Look, can we just stick to the real business of reminding everyone what an idiot Reagan was, and how it was, perhaps, the darkest day in American history when he was elected.

Well, it was a dark day. But then again, so were many days in America then.

After four years of Carter, surely the worst president since WWII, Inflation and unemployment were both very high; the Soviets were advancing in Afghanistan, in Africa, in South America; it was humiliated in Iran; the people had lost faith in the future of America, and believed (since the intelligentia told them so) that America has passed its prime and is now suffering from the effects of "late capitalism", while the inevitable victory of socialism and Marxism is coming soon.

That's right, Afghanistan and Angola are now living the high life in capitalist paradises.

Carter had the guts to face up to the fact that American support of Iran was unsustainable. It was merely propping up a vicious dictator, every bit as evil as Saddam. It was only because of US support that he was in power, and the Iranians knew it.

As the anecdote goes from Withnail and I, the US was holding onto a helium balloon, pulling it higher and higher. It then becomes a political decision, when do you let go.

Fundy Islamists were getting stronger and stronger, because they were the only ones crazy and strong enough to risk the secret police. Carter had the guts to let go, even though he knew that there were risks, because it was the right thing to do by the Iranians, who don't ever seem to figure much in the scenario, only America's interests. Now, if it was Reagan, or Nixon, who had pulled the plug, they would have been visionary heroes. That paradox again.

Carter was then pilloried, he caused humiliation of the US because the staff of an embassy that actively supported a regime of terror were held hostage. No he didn't cause it. He was prepared to do the right and moral thing. The cause was the years of terror that the US actively supported. The Shah was "our sunofabitch".

After eight years of Reagan, the socialist revolution and Marxism disappeared like a bad dream; inflation and unemployment were drastically decreased as the economy vastly improved due to Reagen's policy of cutting taxes and government; Communist revolutions were stopped across the globe; and America once more believed in its future, which of course was one of the major (unaccredited) reasons for its recovery, since when you believe in the future of the country, you do far more for it.

Not bad for an "idiot".

Reagan did exactly what Dubya has done, invoked the big lie and actually used classic liberal economics, with an extreme conservative twist. Classic Keynsianism says that if the economy is stuffed, start it up with government spending. The assumption is, of course, that you spend it on areas that need it, like the poor, or infrastructure. The conservative twist is to spend it on those areas that least need it, like the rich and powerful. The result is the same, bigger deficits, the economy kicks back into life, but one group gets the benefit ahead of another.

The real reason he is hated so much by people like AUP is not merely that he succeeded (although of course they resent that as well). It is that he succeeded despite--or, more likely, because--he simply ignored all the theories and dogmas intellectuals love to believe are the truth.

No, it's because he lied. He pilloried Carter on the size of the US deficit. If Carter had said, in his election platform, that he was going to kick start the economy by massively increasing the deficit, he would have been shot.

Reagan promised to reduce the deficit. Instead, he increased it massively, and provided a huge stimulus to the economy. He told Americans they didn't have to be responsible for a damm thing their country had done in the world. They could live in a 'my three sons' sit com forever and ever, and live happily ever after.

Dubya is the logical extension of Reagan's policies, and they are now found to be sadly lacking.