Ronald Reagan Dies

I hate communists by the way!

Quote:

Kristogar Velo said:
Quote:

Captain Sammitch said:
I don't think anyone's tactless enough.

...

You've been coming to the RKMBs for how long now?

Point.

Iran-contra.

If you're going to take note of the highs, you must also note the lows.

One of my first memories was seeing him while he was campaigning for his first term. My mom helped with his campaign in Louisiana. We sat a few rows back from the stage. I was three years old.

He was one of the last great presidents. He fought for what he believed in. He wasn't afraid to make jokes. He wasn't obsessed with polling and stood his ground. He will be missed.

Baruch Dayan Ha-emet

Quote:

Jim Jackson said:
Iran-contra. If you're going to take note of the highs, you must also note the lows.

Every day in the newspaper I see obituaries of the famous and not-so famous.

Typically, unless the deceased is some sort of notorious criminal, they are a celebration of a deceased's life with little, if any, mention of "the lows."

Apparently, when the deceased is a dead republican, however, the usual rules of decorum go out the window for some people.

By the way...

If you want to see how depraved the extreme, anti-war, left has become, read this disgusting thread on Democratic Underground.

Meanwhile, at an ANSWER march - the main organization behind the anti-war movement rallies "Hundreds of protesters are cheering upon hearing news that Ronald Reagan has died."

And then there's this comment: "Rest in hell Ronald Reagan."

I wish I could be surprised.

Quote:

the G-man said:
By the way...

If you want to see how depraved the extreme, anti-war, left has become, read this disgusting thread on Democratic Underground.

Meanwhile, at an ANSWER march - the main organization behind the anti-war movement rallies "Hundreds of protesters are cheering upon hearing news that Ronald Reagan has died."

And then there's this comment: "Rest in hell Ronald Reagan."

I wish I could be surprised.

I'm sure plenty of conservatives will smile a bit when Clinton goes the way of all flesh...I don't for one minute expect any Clinton obit to skip his Impeachment. It shouldn't. It happened. Just as no one should overlook Watergate when refering Nixon's life.

Not all of us Liberals are extremists.

Reagan had stengths and weaknesses as president. In fairness to him as a man, we should not overlook or overemphasize either.

Jim

Quote:

the G-man said:
By the way...

If you want to see how depraved the extreme, anti-war, left has become, read this disgusting thread on Democratic Underground.

Meanwhile, at an ANSWER march - the main organization behind the anti-war movement rallies "Hundreds of protesters are cheering upon hearing news that Ronald Reagan has died."

And then there's this comment: "Rest in hell Ronald Reagan."

I wish I could be surprised.

You know posting things like this puts you in the same league as whomod.

Hopefully whomod will condemn this sort of thing.

Quote:

the G-man said:
Hopefully whomod will condemn this sort of thing.

Well actually last night I was at the Franz Ferdiand gig at the Avalon in Hollywood. The opening band which was also from Scotland ('The Kings of Glasgow' or something) made a rude comment about hoping he's roasting in hell for all eternity.

Now I thought that was rather rude and inapropriate considering he's not even buried yet.

I respect Reagan tremendously as a person actually. I did grow up in the 80's as a Reagan Republican after all. It's the lapses in judgement (which I also don't think were actually faults of Reagan personally as a matter of fact) which I have issue now that i'm older and more politically aware (Iran/Contra and Central American intervention specifically). He was a great President just as Reagan himself thought FDR was also a great President. You don't have to be locked into a mentality that I have to think any opposition party President is automatically bad, y'know. That's being a sheep.

G-Man, I've discussed my beliefs many a time here. It's unfortunate that my opposition to this neocon Administration has to be misinterpreted as blind partisan loyalty or hatred or anger or something. I think I mentioned in the Iraq thread or someplace a long while back that the extreme right wing/military/intelligence/industrial apparatus have been historically proven to be liars. And now we're finding that this Iraq situation is no exception (surprise surprise). That doesn't mean I think that ALL Republicans are liars. Just as I don't think ALL Democrats are neccesarily good, truthful or even right. I Just don't beleive these ideologically driven fringe extremists that currently hold the reigns nor thier 'true beleivers' fed on a daily diet of hateful AM radio propaganda. Surprisingly perhaps to yourself, I consider them as a seperate entity more than I consider them "Republicans" per-se.

Anyways, now Franz Ferdinand being a pretty cutting edge arty band are going to have arty, liberally inclined college kids as their core audience. So there were a few cheers when the girl onstage made those comments. There however was one guy who looked completely out of place there. Straight laced, uptight looking older WASP man who was trying to shout her out with loud and angry "boo's" . I also disagreed with him. He was trying to instigate and intimidate in order to silence her which of course, given the audience, failed. Evreyone is entitled to their opinions and to voice those opinions, however rude they may be, and all one has to worry about is themselves IMO. If you disagree, then don't clap, go home, or just step outside to the lobby and don't give the band the time of day.

It's not fair either to try to paint the entire Democratic Party or all "LIBERALS" as holding a celebration right now and reveling in his death. It's pretty unfair and sweeping and really serves no point but to try to use Reagan's death to score a few more political points.

Myself personally, I think Ron is up there waiting for his lifetime love to follow along later. A great man. Some uncouth scottish girl isn't going to change that.

Quote:

There however was one guy who looked completely out of place there. Straight laced, uptight looking older WASP man who was trying to shout her out with loud and angry "boo's" . I also disagreed with him. He was trying to instigate and intimidate in order to silence her which of course, given the audience, failed. Evreyone is entitled to their opinions and to voice those opinions, however rude they may be, and all one has to worry about is themselves IMO. If you disagree, then don't clap, go home, or just step outside to the lobby and don't give the band the time of day.

I don't know. If you can't boo at a rock concert, when CAN you boo?

In any event, whomod, otherwise, I think your comments on this particular thread are for the most part thoughtful even where I disagree.

Quote:

Darknight613 said:
Baruch Dayan Ha-emet

Amen

Anyone else find it ODD that the three MOST devastating domestic issues of the Reagan era have not warranted a single word from the National Media who now seem ready to get Ol’ Ronnie deified or at least nominated for Sainthood?

Crack Cocaine, homelessness and AIDS, the word President Reagan could not even bring himself to utter for his first 6 years in office…

Until Reagan was president, I had rarely if ever seen a woman and her child begging on the street. San Francisco had always had a few bag ladies and Bowery winos but it was the federal housing cuts and policies of our sunny and optimistic President that institutionalized what had previously been an aberration.

It was our sunny and optimistic President whose squeamishness about AIDS allowed a pandemic to RAGE out of control without ANY federal leadership.

It was our sunny and optimistic President on whose watch a generation of Americans was ravaged by the crack epidemic with no further guidance than the facile slogan, “Just Say No”

It was our sunny and optimistic President under who’s watch the United States illegally tried to destroy Nicaragua by funneling arms the to Contras through illicit drug sales and other nefarious means.

It was our sunny and optimistic President who’s support for the repressive regimen in El Salvador gave $1 million a day of our tax dollars to murder peasants and others opposed to that government.

Reagan was neither a hero OR a good leader.

That said, I will certainly never forget him. He was calloused, simple minded, highly negligent and a perfect role model for the dunce we have in the office now.

I can’t wait for Karl Rove and G. Dubya to try and spin his death into an election year plea to “continue his legacy.”

Forget that Reagan cut the 70% tax rate to 28% to allow families money to care for themselves. Most of the homelessness began too soon into his administration for his policies to have been at fault. It was the future planning of Reaganomics that gave Clinton his glory years in office, allowing him to raise taxes. He reduced government to prevent a welfare state where the people it is supposed to help become addicted and reliant to the exent of no longer knowing how to take care of themselves.

Reagan was never much on social issues. He spoke out against Roe vs. Wade and abortion, but did nothing to overturn it. He left such things up to the people who had been appointed to do it. Reagan was about the international scene. He put forth the challenge and the circumstances that led to the fall of communism in Russia and the Eastern Block. Was he a perfect president? No. He had his faults. For you to callously attack a man so soon after his death with total disregard to his goals and accomplishments is disrespectful and ignorant. Please, attempt to express yourself in a manner of decorum and intellect.

Oh I beg your pardon.

I didn't realize this was the REPUBLICAN PARTY LINE forum.

I think Reagan was a lucky, shitty President. He was vacant and vacuous during his terms in office as President and always reminded me of a doddering old man.

Not a “bad” old man. Just an OLD Man

I thought that when he was alive, and his death hasn't changed my opinion.

So now, like the press who are oozing gallons of praise while ignoring the nasty bits of his Presidency (you know, like selling weapons to the Iranians for hostages and the whole Iran-Contra scandal) I have to make kissy faces and wink because he's dead?

Sez who?

Quote:

Kilgore Trout said:
Crack Cocaine, homelessness and AIDS, the word President Reagan could not even bring himself to utter for his first 6 years in office…

Crack Cocaaine.
Did he force people to take drugs?
No

Homelessness.
Was it his fault that people were too lazy to work?
No

AIDS.
Did he force gays to have unprotected sex with each other?
No.

There is one good thing about Reagan's death.

It means there's less coverage of J.Lo's wedding.

Quote:

Kilgore Trout said:
Oh I beg your pardon.

I didn't realize this was the REPUBLICAN PARTY LINE forum.

I think Reagan was a lucky, shitty President. He was vacant and vacuous during his terms in office as President and always reminded me of a doddering old man.

Not a “bad” old man. Just an OLD Man

I thought that when he was alive, and his death hasn't changed my opinion.

So now, like the press who are oozing gallons of praise while ignoring the nasty bits of his Presidency (you know, like selling weapons to the Iranians for hostages and the whole Iran-Contra scandal) I have to make kissy faces and wink because he's dead?

Sez who?

There is such a thing as respect for the dead. You can have your opinions, and you can state them. But to do so the way you are so soon after his death just shows that you're even more callous and uncaring as you claim he was. If you are going to question his policies and actions so soon after his death, you could at least do it intellectually and respectfully. Instead, you're being a complete ass. I saw Reagan as a president with faults and failures, like any other person. I'm not a fan of Clinton's policies or administration; but if he were to die tomorrow, on Thursday or even Friday I wouldn't be celebrating his death and trashing him. The dead deserve some amount of respect, former president or not, as do their family.

Kilgore, did you ever listen to a single one of reagan's glorious speeches?..he had many. He was not a doddering old man.

I agree with Whomod that teh Neocons need to be ousted from the party..I have no faith in their policies or their intentions.

Quote:

rexstardust said:
Quote:

Kilgore Trout said:
Crack Cocaine, homelessness and AIDS, the word President Reagan could not even bring himself to utter for his first 6 years in office…

Crack Cocaaine.
Did he force people to take drugs?
No

Homelessness.
Was it his fault that people were too lazy to work?
No

AIDS.
Did he force gays to have unprotected sex with each other?
No.

You'll pardon me for wondering where you decided that AIDS was strictly a gay disease. In sub-Saharan Africa, they would beg to differ. Or where homelessness was attributable only to a lack of desire to work. Please point me to reference sources where these, um, remarks are deemed fact. Thank you.

Jim

I was never a Reagan supporter. I did not vote for him in the one election he ran in during my adulthood. I never felt that I was someone, as a liberal, whom Reagan would have embraced despite the fact that I, too, was born in the same United States as he. I found he skated out of harm's way over Iran-contra far too easily, and I felt in far more fear of nuclear proliferation than in any time up until the election of George W. Bush.

Nonetheless, I am saddened at his passing. Despite our undeniable differences of opinion, Reagan was a great American, and in these immediate days following his death, I mourn his loss. I misted up at images of Nancy, clearly devastated at his death, and as one who has known death too, I understand her grief and the sense of loss that appears to permeate her. Reagan was cut from a cloth similar to that of my late father-in-law. Both worked for their country, my father in law as a soldier in WWII and Reagan as 40th US President. Both are gone and represent aspects of era we will likely not see again during our lifetimes. In some ways, that's a good thing, as both men probably held beliefs whose times had come and gone. But the time for that discussion is another day.

I wish the Reagan family well.

I actually thought whomod had a pretty good post on this page. I'm glad that Ronald Reagan is now free of a terrible disease nobody should have to live with. He was here far too long, really, and I'm certain he wasn't here for most of the past half decade. I'm saddened that hyper-polarized partisanship almost guarantees that Reagan was the last truly great President of this country, and I doubt that Presidents from either party in the near future will accomplish as much or be as universally respected. Moreover, I'm saddened - and more than a little pissed off - that a small minority of individuals seem to delight in his passing and have spent the past day or two dancing on the man's as yet unoccupied grave. However, I'm not going to fret too much - most of those individuals are people nobody listens to or cares about anyway, and their words will have died out long before the memory of Ronald Reagan fades.

True, Reagan committed his share of oversights and mistakes, as any human being does. His terms as President weren't perfect - although they'd still compare favorably to those of either President since - and I don't see any reason to gloss over the things he could have done better. But at the same time, his accomplishments in international affairs, as Doc pointed out, command respect from any rational observer who looks at everything that happened in the 80s.

I know I'll miss the Gipper, as will most people whose opinions actually matter to me. Whomod and JJ get a handful of points. Doc doesn't need 'em. Trout goes down a coupla pegs. Have a nice day.

Quote:

Pig Iron said:
Anyway, he is one of the 10 greatest Presidents in history and he was a hero. Ronnie was the last great president we will ever have. Party politics have destroyed any chance at having an original or independent thinker in the white house ever again. A shame his final 10 years were so horrible.

Most sane people will miss and mourn him.

I like the way you think Sammitch...

Sorry...

Errrr, I was actually serious.

Oh. I thought you were taking exception to my repeating what you'd already said.

In that case thanks.

In the case of AIDS, you need to first remember that the AIDS virus was not identified until 1982.

From 1984 onward every Reagan budget contained a large sum of money specifically earmarked for AIDS. From fiscal year 1984 through 1989 Reagan proposed at least $2.79 billion for AIDS research, education, and treatment. During the Reagan Presidency overall, the federal government spent $5.727 billion on AIDS.

In February 1986, Reagan's budget message added that AIDS "remains the highest public health priority of the Department of Health and Human Services."

Maybe you think he should have spent more, but subsequent Presidents have and, guess what, there's still no cure.

Why, therefore, attack Reagan for not accomplishing what has, so far, been impossible to accomplish, especially on the day of his funeral?

Quote:

thedoctor said:
For you to callously attack a man so soon after his death with total disregard to his goals and accomplishments is disrespectful and ignorant. Please, attempt to express yourself in a manner of decorum and intellect.

I think one reason why some of us Liberals might be quick to point out perceived flaws in the man is because we feel that in no uncertain terms, the moment Clinton is laid to rest that so many Conservatives will use a forum such as this for piling on criticism before the man's even warm in his grave.

Jim

There's a difference in pointing out perceived flaws and being a cock bastard about it. And being preemptive of insults you think will come from a former president who is no where near death's demise is no excuse. People who would attack Clinton at that time will be just as big of assholes. They will only be as petty as kilgore's comments have been. Wrong is still wrong.

Quote:

I think one reason why some of us Liberals might be quick to point out perceived flaws in the man is because we feel that in no uncertain terms, the moment Clinton is laid to rest that so many Conservatives will use a forum such as this for piling on criticism before the man's even warm in his grave

So, you're defending bad behavior with a hypotehetical?

Quote:

thedoctor said:
There's a difference in pointing out perceived flaws and being a cock bastard about it. And being preemptive of insults you think will come from a former president who is no where near death's demise is no excuse. People who would attack Clinton at that time will be just as big of assholes. They will only be as petty as kilgore's comments have been. Wrong is still wrong.

You're speaking with such anger that you appear to me to be someone who feels personally insulted by kilgore's remarks, as if you knew Reagan personally.

And hey, when you speak of "pre-emption," isn't the guy currently in office, a Republican, big on that?

Let's all lighten up a bit.

Also, an editorial on Reagan in TIME's website indicates that Reagan did not like speaking about AIDS.

Quote:

Jim Jackson said:
You're speaking with such anger that you appear to me to be someone who feels personally insulted by kilgore's remarks, as if you knew Reagan personally.

I'd be doing the same of people attacking Clinton if he just passed away. It's just about decency and respect. Nothing personal.

Quote:

Jim Jackson said:And hey, when you speak of "pre-emption," isn't the guy currently in office, a Republican, big on that?

Thank you for only reading what you wanted to read.

Quote:

Jim Jackson said:
Also, an editorial on Reagan in TIME's website indicates that Reagan did not like speaking about AIDS.

Then Kilgore could have referrenced that article instead of blindly lashing out without any use of manners or respect for a man who just passed on. I did not bash him for stating his opinions. I spoke out against the way he did it.

Quote:

thedoctor said:
I did not bash him for stating his opinions. I spoke out against the way he did it.

Hey Doctor, this is an anonymous message board, no offense taken by me and unlike Reagan, I'm alive!

As you may have guessed I am not a Reagan as President fan, and I don't think that his death should be used to whitewash his record or as gag order concerning his shortcomings in office.

He seemed to love his wife very much and wasn't afraid to show it. I found that admirable and honorable.

That said, I will stop talking crossly about him for the prescribed period of mourning in case Nancy happens by the boards and is horrified that someone didn't love her husband as you all seemed to.

Quote:

Also, an editorial on Reagan in TIME's website indicates that Reagan did not like speaking about AIDS.

How does not liking to talk about something mean inaction or lack of caring?

I don't like to talk about animal abuse or child abuse. Doesn't mean I like them.

Hell, I used to regularly and sometimes still do, prosecute child abuse. And I still don't like to talk about it.

Does that mean all those cases didn't mean anything because I don't wring my hands and whine about it more?

Quote:

Jim Jackson said:
Quote:

thedoctor said:
For you to callously attack a man so soon after his death with total disregard to his goals and accomplishments is disrespectful and ignorant. Please, attempt to express yourself in a manner of decorum and intellect.

I think one reason why some of us Liberals might be quick to point out perceived flaws in the man is because we feel that in no uncertain terms, the moment Clinton is laid to rest that so many Conservatives will use a forum such as this for piling on criticism before the man's even warm in his grave.

Jim

Get over yourself there, we've been doing it while the man was still in office.

Quote:

Jim Jackson said:
I was never a Reagan supporter. I did not vote for him in the one election he ran in during my adulthood. I never felt that I was someone, as a liberal, whom Reagan would have embraced despite the fact that I, too, was born in the same United States as he. I found he skated out of harm's way over Iran-contra far too easily, and I felt in far more fear of nuclear proliferation than in any time up until the election of George W. Bush.

Nonetheless, I am saddened at his passing. Despite our undeniable differences of opinion, Reagan was a great American, and in these immediate days following his death, I mourn his loss. I misted up at images of Nancy, clearly devastated at his death, and as one who has known death too, I understand her grief and the sense of loss that appears to permeate her. Reagan was cut from a cloth similar to that of my late father-in-law. Both worked for their country, my father in law as a soldier in WWII and Reagan as 40th US President. Both are gone and represent aspects of era we will likely not see again during our lifetimes. In some ways, that's a good thing, as both men probably held beliefs whose times had come and gone. But the time for that discussion is another day.

I wish the Reagan family well.

I always wondered who voted for Mondale.

God Bless Ronald Reagan.......We'll never forget you........and Thank You..........you'll be missed.

I always remember an exchange from "King of the Hill" when I think of Reagan.

Peggy reminded Hank of something Reagan did or said and Hank got all choked up and said "Yep...I still miss being able to vote for that man."

I feel the same way.

You have to at least in some way admire a man who bombed the French!

Quote:

thedoctor said:

Thank you for only reading what you wanted to read.

I meant my remark about pre-emption in jest. Jesus, you people are so fucking uptight sometimes...

My condolences to Reagan's family. At the very least, I would imagine, given Reagan's condition, they had a good amount of time to prepare for his passing.

I harbor no ill will towards the man, but I can't say I'm going to "miss" him, either. I was too young to form an opinion of him while in office, but in examining what he did(and didn't do), I don't think he was a particular good president, at least in terms of his direct impact on world events. It is my belief that the Sovient Union's economy was in such a state that a collapse was imminent, anyway, and that Reagan was simply fortunate to be in office when it happened.

I think that his reputation as a good, honest guy is what made him popular, and thus successful-seeming. In my opinion, Nixon accomplished more as a President(ending the Viet Nam war, establishing peace with China), but obviously he won't be on anyone's favorite prez list. In terms of social issues, neither were very progressive.

In the end, I think he deserves respect, as most do. The media always glorifies dead celebrities(most of them, at least), so I was prepared for the onslaught of preachy obituaries. I don't know what it's like elsewhere, but here in Texas, the guy's practically achieved godlike status.

Quote:

the G-man said:
Apparently, when the deceased is a dead republican, however, the usual rules of decorum go out the window for some people.

Or not:

Quote:

Fuck Spain and Fuck France........and Fuck D.Mcdon'tknowshit. By the way how about that shoddy French workmaniship on their new Airport Terminal........Fucking Losers.

Quote:

I'm not shedding any tears for dead Frenchmen......sorry.

Quote:

5 less people to surrender to al-qaeda.

P.S-I think Teddy Roosevelt was the first, last, and only good President. If there's anyone I'll miss, it's him.

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....Ani, since when have we had peace with China post WWII?? I mean, we get a bunch of crap from them, but do we really have peace? I think you are veerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy mistaken.

Nixon was the first President to establish relations with China post WW2, it was in '72. I remember I went to an exhibit in Bejing last year that focused on the anniversary of the precedings.

Here:

Quote:

Julie Nixon Eisenhower, Chinese Minister of Culture Sun Jiazheng, and U.S. Ambassador to China Clark T. Randt, Jr. presided today in Beijing at opening ceremonies for "Journeys to Peace," an exhibition detailing President Nixon's historic 1972 visit to China. The exhibit will open in Yorba Linda on January 9 -- the 90th anniversary of President Nixon's birth.

The grand opening took place at the National Museum of Chinese History in Beijing. The exhibit will move to the Shanghai Library in December, then on to Yorba Linda, where it will be unveiled by Tricia Nixon Cox and Mrs. Eisenhower.
"Journeys to Peace" was mounted by the Ministry of Culture in collaboration with the Nixon Library and the China Exhibition Agency, with the generous support of the Reader's Digest Foundation.

When President Nixon met Premier Zhou Enlai at Capital Airport in Beijing in February 1972, their handshake made history. There had been no diplomatic relations between the two nations since 1949. President Nixon, Chairman Mao Zedong, and Premier Zhou had all come to the same conclusion on behalf of their peoples. Neither nation could benefit from continued estrangement, while both would benefit from establishing a new relationship.

Nixon Library curator Olivia Anastasiadis installs gold horse, lent to "Journeys to Peace" by the White House. It was a gift to President Bush from Chinese President Jiang Zemin. Through original documents, rare photographs (many seen in this exhibit for the first time), and priceless objects, "Journeys to Peace" tells the story of three extraordinary leaders, their diverse paths toward the summit, and their shared goals of reconciliation, peace, and progress for their peoples.

The centerpiece of the exhibition is a film narrated by Mrs. Eisenhower and featuring never-before-seen footage of her parents' historical visit. The exhibit also includes life-sized statues of the President and Premier showing the instant of their first handshake as well as videotaped greetings from President Bush and Chinese President Jiang Zemin.

We had relations with Russia during the cold war. Nixon went to China. China only likes us for our money and Britney spears. The Chinese government would like to destroy us in a billowing plume of nuclear fire.

Heh, well, I don't think we're terribly fond of them, either. So it goes.

You must read through those Nature lies.

You still haven't put me on your nitpicker list.

Dont matter what country they are from,dont matter what party they belong to,all politicians are cunts!

Quote:

Nowhereman said:
Dont matter what country they are from,dont matter what party they belong to,all politicians are cunts!

Holy shee-it!!! You mean, we actually agree on something???

Despite my disdain for VP Cheney, I thought his speech at Reagan's laying-in-state last night was very good.

Still, I will not be casting my vote in November for the Bush-Cheney ticket. But his speech last night was very good.

I haven't read most of this thread. I gather there have been a few comments adverse to Reagan.

Reagan during his presidency was depicted in my country as a dangerous warmonger. He was described as overly reliant upon his wife, who in turn was guided by her tarot reader. Reaganomics was an anaethema to many people, and was perceived as causing many Americans to lose their jobs.

As for the end of the Cold War, many people outside the US, including most of Germany, attribute this to Gorbachev, not Reagan. (I actually do think Reagan was partially responsible for this, although he never intended to be - he dramatically increased defence spending and caused what would otherwise have been a dangerous arms race with the Soviet Union, but which instead damaged its economy.)

And so Reagan was much maligned by Australians during his presidency, and the revelation that he had Alzeimer's was considered to be no big surprise.

As a consequence, I was frankly astonished by calls from some people a few years back that Reagan's face be carved on Mt Rushmore. I think I have said before that I only became recently aware of Reagan's principled stance on taxes, refusing to raise them because he did not want to break an election promise.

In any event, the man is dead: may he rest in peace.

Quote:

Dave said:
I think I have said before that I only became recently aware of Reagan's principled stance on taxes, refusing to raise them because he did not want to break an election promise.

From Paul Krugman, NY TIMES: "But Reagan does hold a special place in the annals of tax policy, and not just as the patron saint of tax cuts. To his credit, he was more pragmatic and responsible than that; he followed his huge 1981 tax cut with two large tax increases."

Reagan did raise taxes.

Go to this source to read some interesting commentary on how much of what we've heard this week deifying Reagan isn't true. http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/4820649.html

I'm not going to dwell on anything anti-Reagan until after this weekend.

Jim

I just wish we could get more media coverage of people walking past his casket...

How long before the DVD comes out?

Probably the most striking image of the day. If anything, this certainly would have been unfathomable in our youths. The former leader of the Soviet Union comforting the former President of the United States' widow.

Quote:

June 11, 2004

FAREWELL TO A PRESIDENT
North Contends He Would Be a Distraction at Funeral

WASHINGTON — Oliver L. North, the decorated Marine who came to personify the Iran-Contra scandal with his ramrod-straight testimony before Congress, will make a sacrifice today for his hero and former boss: He will not attend former President Reagan's funeral.

Recalling a conversation he had Wednesday with William P. Clark, former national security advisor and Reagan confidant, North said: "I told him I did not think I should be a distraction at this, and if I went, I would be."

"Every doggone camera in the place would be shooting pictures of me instead of paying attention to what was going on," he said in a telephone interview from Key West, Fla.

North, host of the Fox News Channel program "War Stories with Oliver North," said he thought the media would try to make something out of his presence if he went to the funeral.

"I had the national press corps camped on my front lawn for nine straight months" during the Iran-Contra scandal, said North, who served as a national security aide in the Reagan White House. "And that's not what this is about."

Although he will miss being at the funeral, North said, he was taking a long view of events.

"I revere Ronald Reagan," he said. "I certainly spent plenty of time with him in the past and I know I'll be with him in the future…. Those of us who know where we are going, and know why we are going there, have no doubt that he is now in that shining city on a hill."

— Vicki Kemper

what a self-important self righteous ass.

Here, have a towel to wipe all that gooey pompous slime off.

Ever get that feeling nobody's listening?

eh?

Quote:

Franta said:
I just wish we could get more media coverage of people walking past his casket...

There was a great bit on Conan, where people were paying respects to the news coverage of people paying respects to the casket, walking by and touching the TV screen...

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/columnists/orl-edpparker09060904jun09,1,5176400.column

Quote:

FOR OUR NATION, A MUCH-NEEDED REMINDER
by Kathleen Parker
Published June 9, 2004
.

If one of the social graces is knowing when to leave, Ronald Reagan was a gentleman with providential timing.
.
His death came at just the right moment. Not for his family, though they must feel relief that his suffering is ended, but for the nation he loved. I mean this: Americans are in the throes of an identity crisis, trying at this difficult historical juncture to figure out what kind of people they are.
.
Are they the sadists at Abu Ghraib? Unwelcome occupiers or liberators of Iraq? Arrogant invaders bent on confiscating precious resources, or freedom fighters trying to help others claim their birthright to liberty?
.
To read commentary from the far left these days -- or to view the world through Michael Moore's propagandist camera lens -- one is hard-pressed to find American affirmation. For the Bush-hating crowd, the leap from "we deserved it" to "Bush lied!" to "quagmire" and now to "Iraq is an unmitigated disaster" was a matter of mere baby steps.
.
That's how life looks if your glass is always half-empty. If your glass is half-full, as Reagan's surely was, you might see things differently.
.
You might see that Abu Ghraib was an awful act of embarrassing deviancy; that Iraq indeed has been liberated rather than occupied as we hand over the reins of government to the Iraqi people; that American gas prices indicate something other than an imperialist oil grab.
.
It is nice to be reminded of these things. Reagan's death was a deus ex machina in the tragedy of American guilt and self-loathing. Not to go biblical, but his final act was divinely ironic: By his death, the man who lost his memory restored the nation's.
.
An eternal optimist, as everyone can't stop saying, Reagan embodied the spirit -- dare we call it cowboy -- that permitted America's founders a vision of freedom that, for all its unattractive manifestations, beats the alternative of terrorist rule every time.
.
It takes an optimist to decide, for instance, that communism isn't something to be tolerated as just another alternative lifestyle, as the ever-luminous Mark Steyn put it, but something to be condemned and obliterated. It takes an optimist to insist on Americans' capacity for self-government rather than to comfortably rely on "those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state," to use Reagan's words.
.
It also takes great courage.
.
At this time -- which Reagan ironically missed as he wandered darkly through Alzheimer's cramped corridors -- it is helpful to be reminded of what optimism and courage can accomplish. As history surely will judge, a free Iraq and an Arab world gradually transformed by democracy are the offspring of such optimism and courage.
.
Other ironies have surfaced since Reagan's passing. Anyone watching television couldn't help noticing the reverential tone among commentators, many of whom must have been choking on their own treacle. The exaggerated golly-gee-ness of some reports was enough to curl Pollyanna's lip.
.
The irony, of course, is that these same reporters, commentators and news readers couldn't stand Reagan when he was president. Surely there's some middle ground between speaking ill of the dead and intellectual honesty. Reagan was loathed by many of the same people who loathe George W. Bush today, and for many of the same reasons.
.
On the other hand, perhaps even those who couldn't bear Reagan's famous simplicity while he was president are attracted now to something more fundamental and primitive. Reagan was the human face of paternalism in a good sense. He oozed masculinity and manly virtues.
.
As everyone seems to have a Reagan story, I'll tell mine. Back in 1980, I was a cub reporter and the unlikely author of a thrice-weekly political column during the run-up to South Carolina's first-ever Republican convention. I got to see a lot of Reagan as he toured the state, and wound up at one point in a Charleston hotel room with him, Mrs. Reagan, and a couple of others.
.
I nearly dozed off sitting there, as comfortable as if I'd been sitting in my own father's kitchen. Therein, I suspect, lies the secret to Reagan's tug on America's heart. At a time when fathers are increasingly scarce in the family home, and the father of all inventions is missing from our secularized society, Reagan's persona fills a void.
.
Even those who once held him in contempt may recognize with Reagan's passing something missed -- that quiet authority, calm strength and humorous dignity all bound up in the self-deprecating humility born of faith in something greater.
.
It is good to be reminded.
.
___________________
.
Kathleen Parker can be reached at kparker@orlandosentinel.com , or 407-420-5202.

Quote:

whomod said:
Quote:

June 11, 2004

FAREWELL TO A PRESIDENT
North Contends He Would Be a Distraction at Funeral

WASHINGTON — Oliver L. North, the decorated Marine who came to personify the Iran-Contra scandal with his ramrod-straight testimony before Congress, will make a sacrifice today for his hero and former boss: He will not attend former President Reagan's funeral.

Recalling a conversation he had Wednesday with William P. Clark, former national security advisor and Reagan confidant, North said: "I told him I did not think I should be a distraction at this, and if I went, I would be."

"Every doggone camera in the place would be shooting pictures of me instead of paying attention to what was going on," he said in a telephone interview from Key West, Fla.

North, host of the Fox News Channel program "War Stories with Oliver North," said he thought the media would try to make something out of his presence if he went to the funeral.

"I had the national press corps camped on my front lawn for nine straight months" during the Iran-Contra scandal, said North, who served as a national security aide in the Reagan White House. "And that's not what this is about."

Although he will miss being at the funeral, North said, he was taking a long view of events.

"I revere Ronald Reagan," he said. "I certainly spent plenty of time with him in the past and I know I'll be with him in the future…. Those of us who know where we are going, and know why we are going there, have no doubt that he is now in that shining city on a hill."

— Vicki Kemper

what a self-important self righteous ass.

Here, have a towel to wipe all that gooey pompous slime off.

Yep, good ole Ollie North. Even Bob Woodward concedes in his book, Shadow (which covers the Iran-Contra scandal in some detail) that Reagan had intentionally broken the law and misled Congress and the American people, even though he genuinely thought it was for a good purpose.

I think that's about as fair a summary of that particular piece of black ops funding that anyone can manage.

I'm reluctant to speak ill of the dead, but a week's worth of mourning of a tainted President (who avoided criminal charges because of his advanced Alzheimers) does seem a little extravagant.

One week is hardly extravagant for one of the most loved and influential leaders of his era.

Reagan died on Saturday, June 5. His funeral was Friday, June 11. So not even a week. Six days.

Regarding the scandals of Reagan's presidency, they were less than most.

Even the sainted Franklin D. Roosevelt had his scandals and improprieties.

Likewise John F. Kennedy.

And Lyndon Johnson.

And needless to say, Richard Nixon.

Even Jimmy Carter.

And needless to say, Bill Clinton.

So... give the guy a break. He's dead.

--------------------

"This Man, This Wonder Boy..."

Too true.

Clinton was just a joke.

Quote:

Batwoman said:
Clinton was just a joke.

This thread was clearly about Reagan, for better or for worse, like him or hate him.

Trust someone to let slip with a kneejerk cheap shot.

There aren't many Presidents of the last 30 years that aren't jokes.

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Even the sainted Franklin D. Roosevelt had his scandals and improprieties.

Likewise John F. Kennedy.

And Lyndon Johnson.

And needless to say, Richard Nixon.

Even Jimmy Carter.

And needless to say, Bill Clinton.

Quote:

Animalman said:
P.S-I think Teddy Roosevelt was the first, last, and only good President. If there's anyone I'll miss, it's him.

This is Ted "I love nature, shoot the bear after I leave" Roosevelt?

Good ole trustbustin' Teddy!

Honestly, now, can you see parents giving their kids Clinton bears, or Bush dolls?

I think not.

Quote:

Animalman said:
Good ole trustbustin' Teddy!

Honestly, now, can you see parents giving their kids Clinton bears, or Bush dolls?

I think not.

I'm sure someone somewhere has received a Carter Peanut.

Quote:

King Snarf said:

"Wow... So they found that in Reagan's corpse, huh?"

Quote:

P.S-I think Teddy Roosevelt was the first, last, and only good President. If there's anyone I'll miss, it's him

Teddy Roosevelt was also a big war monger. As Assistant Secretary of the Navy he was sort of the Rumsfeld of his day. As President he was the architect of America's emerging role as "policeman of the world," which excused unilateral excursions into other nations.

Cunt!

Quote:

Dave said:
Quote:

Animalman said:
Good ole trustbustin' Teddy!

Honestly, now, can you see parents giving their kids Clinton bears, or Bush dolls?

I think not.

I'm sure someone somewhere has received a Carter Peanut.

Or at the very least Billy Beer.

Quote:

Dave said:
Quote:

Batwoman said:
Clinton was just a joke.

This thread was clearly about Reagan, for better or for worse, like him or hate him.

Trust someone to let slip with a kneejerk cheap shot.

I know what this thread is about, but I also read it and know that there were a couple posts about Clinton and I was just adding my 2 cents to it. I do have more to say about something else posted here, but will get to that later.

Quote:

Wednesday said:

June 15, 2004

Quote:

Bush Won't Ease Stem-Cell Limits

WASHINGTON — The White House rejected calls Monday from Ronald Reagan's family and others to relax President Bush's restrictions on stem-cell research in pursuit of potential cures for illnesses.

Bush signed an executive order in August 2001 limiting federal research funds to 78 existing embryonic stem-cell lines. Because day-old embryos are destroyed when stem cells are extracted, the process is opposed by some conservatives who link it to abortion.

Nancy Reagan has long argued that using stem cells from embryos could lead to cures for a number of diseases like the Alzheimer's that afflicted her husband. Bush opposes using embryos for stem-cell research.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush continued to think that his policy was the right one.

"The president came up with a policy that will allow us to explore the promise of stem-cell research, and do so in a way that doesn't cross a certain moral threshold that he set," McClellan said. "And I think he articulated his reasons for arriving at that decision. And that is his position, and that remains his position."

What Bush will do however is use Reagan's image to help him get re-elected.

Quote:

Wednesday said:

That's really really funny.

Quote:

whomod said:

What Bush will do however is use Reagan's image to help him get re-elected.

Presidential Elections - AP

Conservative Campaign Ad Invokes Reagan
1 hour, 15 minutes ago

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Days after Ronald Reagan was laid to rest, a conservative interest group on Tuesday unveiled a campaign ad that aligns him with President Bush and criticizes Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.

The Club for Growth's ad, which is to begin airing Wednesday, portrays both Republican presidents as leaders — Reagan on communism and Bush on terrorism, while claiming Kerry was "wrong then, wrong now" on national security.

The ad shows Kerry, a Vietnam veteran, testifying to Congress in 1971 that "we cannot fight communism all over the world and I think we should have learned that lesson by now."

Former President Reagan is then seen at the Berlin Wall in 1987, saying "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." That's followed by Bush telling rescue workers at the World Trade Center after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks: "I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon."

The Reagan family's spokeswoman said Tuesday that permission is needed for anyone to use Reagan's likeness in an ad because doing so implies that he endorsed one candidate over another.

"No one has requested the permission to use his image in an ad, nor would we feel it appropriate to give such permission at this juncture," Joanne Drake said. "We protect his image very carefully, particularly as it relates to politics."

The Club for Growth will spend $500,000 over a week, a moderate amount, to run the ad on national cable networks and in media markets in the contested states of Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Reagan died June 5 after a 10-year struggle with Alzheimer's disease. He was 93. The nation ended a week of mourning last Friday with a national funeral in Washington and his burial at his presidential library in California.

Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton criticized the use of Reagan. "It's pretty sad that less than a week after America said farewell to President Reagan, George W. Bush's supporters are politicizing it," Clanton said.

Steve Moore, the group's president, defended the timing of the ad, saying it was intentional because the public had been reminded for days about "Reagan's philosophy of peace through strength."

"We wanted to draw on how similar Bush and Reagan have been in terms of fighting evil," Moore said.

He said the group wrote a letter to Reagan's widow, Nancy, informing her of the ad.

Quote:

Wednesday said:
Quote:

whomod said:

What Bush will do however is use Reagan's image to help him get re-elected.

Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton criticized the use of Reagan. "It's pretty sad that less than a week after America said farewell to President Reagan, George W. Bush's supporters are politicizing it," Clanton said.

That's nothing. Bush's website had Reagan all over it during the week of memorial.

I suppose Kerry never "exploited" the Vietnam war for his
own political gain?

And of course, Kerry, and Dean before him, never
crapped on the greiving surviving families of the 9-11
victims, and by extension crapped on the United States
itself, expoitatively asserting that "Bush knew in
advance" about the 9-11 attacks, bitterly alleged on
the most specious, divisive and angry rhetoric possible?

Or similarly with the Iraq war, Kerry has not politicized
and exploited events in Iraq, has he ? No, of course
not, Kerry would never add to the grief of families
whose sons and daughters have died in Iraq, by implying
they died for nothing, or "blood for oil" or whatever.

No, of course not, Kerry's campaign is so above
that, aren't they?

Like hell.

The Democrats have exploited far more. Far more
divisively, far more bitterly, and with far less evidence.

I would argue that Reagan would want his name used
in Republican ads, and would want to offer any assistance
his name could offer in the political struggle to keep his
party in the White House, to preserve a legacy closer to
his own than anything the Democrat alternative could
offer.

The Democratic Party has been digging up JFK's corpse for the last 40 years and exploiting it every election.

Quote:

Dave said:
Quote:

Wednesday said:

That's really really funny.

what did it really say first....

I'm pretty sure that the cartoonist just "faked" having his cartoon censored because he realized that his usual brand of liberal hate would get him kicked out of a lot of newspapers.

.......good lord, it's a joke.

Venom more like. It's also a distortion of biasness in the media. It clearly leans in the Liberal direction while Conservatives are absorbing the false accusation and getting blamed for strangling free speech.

I'm not saying it should be changed, cuz' after all, free country. But the writer/illustrator is A) An asshole and 2) Not funny. Every cartoon I read or watch normally that involves politics I make sure is as tasteful as possible. This is entailing representations of all sides of the argument and every pro and con from said representations. The person's POV of the situations (especially the weight of his opinions on the subject) should come secondary after it's made sure that his or her political leaning isn't THAT obvious.

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:

I suppose Kerry never "exploited" the Vietnam war for his own political gain?

One of the points made in this very forum during "Reagan Week" was that it was in poor taste to do anything other than to eulogize the man. Criticisms of Reagan were met with anger, here. OK, that was fine, it was a week of memorial. But the President himself took advantage of Reagan beyond any kind of memorial by sticking his face on the Bush website.

This was done DURING the week of Reagan's memorials. What's bad for the goose is bad for the gander.

Furthermore, indications are that the Reagan family did not grant permission for this usage.

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I would argue that Reagan would want his name used in Republican ads, and would want to offer any assistance his name could offer in the political struggle to keep his party in the White House, to preserve a legacy closer to his own than anything the Democrat alternative could offer.

Your argument is irrelevant if the Reagan family has not granted permission.

And do not be so quick to suppose that Reagan or his family are supporters of George W. Bush. Ronald P. Reagan took a jab at the religiosity of the current President in his eulogy for his father, by claiming that the elder Reagan saw his religion as his responsibility, not as his mandate.

So let's wait for the formal declaration of "Ronny would want the Shrub" before you try taking us down the path of utter presumption.

Jim

Quote:

Pariah said:
Venom more like. It's also a distortion of biasness in the media. It clearly leans in the Liberal direction while Conservatives are absorbing the false accusation and getting blamed for strangling free speech.

No, it's called "humor". One sided humor, perhaps, but commonly found in political cartoons everywhere. If it's venom when it has a liberal tint, what do you call it when it's coming from someone like Jim Huber?

Quote:

I'm not saying it should be changed, cuz' after all, free country. But the writer/illustrator is A) An asshole and 2) Not funny. Every cartoon I read or watch normally that involves politics I make sure is as tasteful as possible. This is entailing representations of all sides of the argument and every pro and con from said representations. The person's POV of the situations (especially the weight of his opinions on the subject) should come secondary after it's made sure that his or her political leaning isn't THAT obvious.

...says the fan of "This Just In." You're full of shit, Pariah.

UComics has both liberal and conversative cartoonists. This is one of the liberal ones. I happen to think it's funny, not because I hate Reagan, but because the media does adopt selective memory when someone famous dies, and hearing phrases such as "Reagan was loved by all, regardless of political affiliation" on TV is quite an exaggeration. Infact, I can imagine that to a lot of non-wealthy, non-white Americans, it's practically an offensive exaggeration.

Funny. I find Aaron McGruder's The Boondocks to be one of the most tasteful political satires out there. It never fails to put a smile on my face. Sure, sometimes he's a little nuts, but it's a joke. It's funny. Huey is supposed to be an extremist. You're supposed to laugh at his conspiracy theories. Sheesh.

Quote:

whomod said:
Quote:

Wednesday said:

Quote:

Animalman said:
No, it's called "humor". One sided humor, perhaps, but commonly found in political cartoons everywhere.

Nope. Venomous.

Quote:

If it's venom when it has a liberal tint, what do you call it when it's coming from someone like Jim Huber?

HA! Dude, I don't read Jim Huber's stuff for the exact reasons I stated when I named my ideal characteristics for a good cartoon. I'm a nitpicker in that category.

Quote:

...says the fan of "This Just In." You're full of shit, Pariah.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

I'm sorry, but an "lol" emoticon could not encapsulate that, and seeing too many is an eye sore.

Anyway...

This statement coming from the guy who confessed that he only watch one episode (and only part of one I'm guessing) before making a total judgement call on the entire series.

Sorry Animalman, but you're the one full of shit. I described my animated political preferences up top with that very show in mind. And as I said, it does go over every factor of every political subject through its leftist cast. After all the stereotyping of both parties is done, then Brian Newport has his final say. You just won't bend because the main character is to the right.

On a final note: I'd wager good money that even if the character was standing on his soapbox (as you denote as being "not funny")--But maintaining Liberal VPs instead of Conservative ones--Then your entire opinion of the show would do a full 180.

Quote:

UComics has both liberal and conversative cartoonists. This is one of the liberal ones. I happen to think it's funny, not because I hate Reagan, but because the media does adopt selective memory when someone famous dies, and hearing phrases such as "Reagan was loved by all, regardless of political affiliation" on TV is quite an exaggeration. Infact, I can imagine that to a lot of non-wealthy, non-white Americans, it's practically an offensive exaggeration.

Maybe if you actually looked at the strip good buddy, you'd find that the words were FORCED into the character's mouth while his mannerisms were implied to be those born of rage at the subject in question (and if you deny that, then you're a tool

). Namely: Reagan.

Liberal media has the freedom to say whatever it wants, but this strip is making it out like Conservatives are hussling it to STFU and make them speak neutrally--Which, in reiteration, is a load of shit. And while saying that Reagan is the greatest human being on Earth would be overexaggerated (not far from the truth though), the media did the bare minimum job of analyzing his terms and very well could have included a few more honorable mentions which they KNEW existed.

Another thing: I have not once heard or seen cast from one of the news stations who covered his death say, "Reagan was loved by all, regardless of political affiliation". Not even that strip said that--And saying that because Reagan's body was crowded around by many a fan and that his death has been more memorable than other presidents', it constitutes "exaggeration"--Is total BS.

Or perhaps........Just maybe. Reagan was indeed loved by all and the Liberal media was afraid of having their credibility destroyed.......That's sumthin' to think about.

Quote:

PenWing said:
Huey is supposed to be an extremist. You're supposed to laugh at his conspiracy theories. Sheesh.

Can I quote HIM on that?

Quote:

Pariah said:
This statement coming from the guy who confessed that he only watch one episode (and only part of one I'm guessing) before making a total judgement call on the entire series.

I didn't "confess", I told you I watched a full episode, and that I didn't like what I saw. You said the episode I saw wasn't very good, so I watched another one, and didn't like it either.

Quote:

I described my animated political preferences up top with that very show in mind. And as I said, it does go over every factor of every political subject through its leftist cast. After all the stereotyping of both parties is done, then Brian Newport has his final say. You just won't bend because the main character is to the right.

No, because the leftist characters are there only as parodies, who are blasted by the main character throughout the show(as are various liberal politicians or celebrities).

Telling me This Just In has a fair depiction of liberals is like telling me Monty Pyton and the Holy Grail has an accurate depiction of the French.

If you like it, that's fine...but, to borrow a Texan phrase, just don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

The show is what it is. Even G-Man admitted as much, in the same thread our conversation on it took place.

Quote:

On a final note: I'd wager good money that even if the character was standing on his soapbox (as you denote as being "not funny")--But maintaining Liberal VPs instead of Conservative ones--Then your entire opinion of the show would do a full 360.

Heh. Allow me to play the part of nitpicker, briefly, then I'll move on.

You mean 180. 360 degrees would just bring me back around to the point where I was at the start.

Anyway...naturally, I disagree. I don't care for overly political tv shows. There's enough fact spinning in both directions, I'm tired of it all. This is the same reason why I had zero interest in Al Franken's radio station(and even less interest in Rush Limbaugh's radio show).

I don't care for Will and Grace. Would you call it a politically leftist show? What would you call a politically leftist show?

Quote:

Liberal media has the freedom to say whatever it wants, but this strip is making it out like Conservatives are hussling it to STFU and make them speak neutrally--Which, in reiteration, is a load of shit.

Not exactly. It's making it seem like the media in general(liberal or otherwise) has filtered out anything even remotely negative about Reagan in its summary of his life and works, practically deifying the guy.

You can assume it's a shot at conversatives all you want(that flies in the face of the whole "liberals dominate the media" argument preached here a good deal, but that's another topic entirely), but that's reading a lot more into it than what's actually there.

Quote:

Another thing: I have not once heard or seen cast from one of the news stations who covered his death say, "Reagan was loved by all, regardless of political affiliation". Not even that strip said that--And saying that because Reagan's body was crowded around by many a fan and that his death has been more memorable than other presidents', it constitutes "exaggeration"--Is total BS.

Actually, the cartoon did say that. Did you not read the full one, that whomod posted?

Either way, while I can't remember if that exact quote has been used before, I've heard a lot of similar eulogies given, in the same vein. This is in addition to those of conversative newsletters, like Ed Koch's We All Loved Ronald Reagan article.

Quote:

Animalman said:
I didn't "confess", I told you I watched a full episode, and that I didn't like what I saw. You said the episode I saw wasn't very good, so I watched another one, and didn't like it either.

Mmkay. Full episode. Didn't like what you saw. Associated it with the entire series, made a judgement call right there.

Quote:

No, because the leftist characters are there only as parodies, who are blasted by the main character throughout the show(as are various liberal politicians or celebrities).

Throughout the entire series, they ALL take shots at eachother. Not just Newport to everyone else. Search out the episode that involved selective voting process for best example.

Quote:

If you like it, that's fine...but, to borrow a Texan phrase, just don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

I didn't. I did, however, say that you were being myopic for judging it so quickly.

Quote:

The show is what it is. Even G-Man admitted as much, in the same thread our conversation on it took place.

Conservative perspective. Not a bias agenda. I will say that episode was Bush was a bit wacky, but that's about it.

Quote:

You mean 180. 360 degrees would just bring me back around to the point where I was at the start.

Already edited it.

Quote:

Anyway...naturally, I disagree. I don't care for overly political tv shows. There's enough fact spinning in both directions, I'm tired of it all. This is the same reason why I had zero interest in Al Franken's radio station(and even less interest in Rush Limbaugh's radio show).

Coulda' fooled me by giving time to it.

Quote:

I don't care for Will and Grace. Would you call it a politically leftist show? What would you call a politically leftist show?

WTF?

Yeah Animalman, those are REALLY comparable.

Quote:

Not exactly. It's making it seem like the media in general(liberal or otherwise) has filtered out anything even remotely negative about Reagan in its summary of his life and works, practically deifying the guy.

As I said before and demonstrated by the implication of the characters' actions: Censorship.

Heh! Yeah, it really "deifies" him

. Nothing negative, but sure as hell nothing good. They can't bad mouth him for obvious (shallow) reasons, but they can't praise him for even more ( too influential) reasons.

Quote:

(that flies in the face of the whole "liberals dominate the media" argument preached here a good deal, but that's another topic entirely)

No it doesn't.

Quote:

Actually, the cartoon did say that. Did you not read the full one, that whomod posted?

Just got around to it. But I was focusing on the other strip.

Quote:

Either way, while I can't remember if that exact quote has been used before, I've heard a lot of similar eulogies given, in the same vein. This is in addition to those of conversative newsletters, like Ed Koch's We All Loved Ronald Reagan article.

I'm talking Liberal stations. Not Conservatives. Liberals.

Quote:

Pariah said:
Mmkay. Full episode. Didn't like what you saw. Associated it with the entire series, made a judgement call right there.

Associated it with the entire series? It was the pilot episode. That was the entire series.

...but again, no, I simply said it seemed like too much of a one-sided agenda-pusher, which I don't care much for in cable TV. Like I said, I can get that stuff anywhere(in political cartoons, for example).

You said the episode I watched wasn't a good example of the show's usual format, so I watched another, and saw the same approach.

What would you have me do, watch every episode from now on, before I made a "judgement call"? Sorry, no thanks. I think two episodes was generous, to be honest. At least I didn't call the guy:

"A) An asshole and 2) Not funny"

after reading one row of one cartoon.

Quote:

I didn't. I did, however, say that you were being myopic for judging it so quickly.

You also said it's fair and balanced, and shows both sides of the political spectrum. Which is horseshit.

Quote:

Coulda' fooled me by giving time to it.

....not sure what you mean by this one....are you saying I listen to Al Franken's radio show?

Quote:

WTF?

Yeah Animalman, those are REALLY comparable.

I asked you what was. Will and Grace was the most liberal television show I could think of offhand. What do you have?

Quote:

Heh! Yeah, it really "deifies" him .

....what are you talking about? I'm saying how the media has eulogized him. In general.

Quote:

I'm talking Liberal stations. Not Conservatives. Liberals.

You're asking me if any liberal stations said he was loved by all, regardless of political affiliation?

Quote:

Animalman said:
.......good lord, it's a joke.

ROFLMAO!!

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:

The Democrats have exploited far more. Far more divisively, far more bitterly, and with far less evidence.

Then how do you know all this?

Quote:

Press Remarks with Foreign Minister of Egypt Amre Moussa

Secretary Colin L. Powell February 24, 2001

We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions — the fact that the sanctions exist — not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

Quote:

You guys post the angry baiting crap, and I try to politely
answer your points while ignoring your antagonism.

And then I'm vilified for even responding politely !

Just amazing...

ROTFLM "Anti-American, terrorist-loving" AO!!!!

Wednesday is a Boondocks fan so he's ok in my book.
And reading the next two 'toons, i'm sure most of you would agree it's funny as hell! It's just when it gets political that it starts being interpreted as "venom" by you guys on the right.

Yeah, those two are pretty good.

It's too bad that McGruder, like Michael Moore, is so obsessed with attacking Republicans that he stops being funny (at least to everyone who ISN'T a total left wing partisan).

When he does more "character driven" stuff tlike these two strips, the guy shows real talent.

I guess it's just easier to be mean than funny.

From CNN:

Quote:

REAGAN THE NEW FACE OF $10 BILL?
.
Conservatives will push for image of 40th president to grace $10 bill, $20 bill or dime.
June 11, 2004: 12:53 PM EDT
.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Ronald Reagan's face could one day
adorn the $10 bill or half the dimes minted in the
country, if fans of the late president get their way.
.

Will Reagan replace the nation's first treasury secretary
on the $10 bill?
On Tuesday Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) confirmed that he
is considering sponsoring legislation in the Senate to have Reagan's image replace that of Alexander Hamilton, the
nation's first treasury secretary, on the $10 bill.
.
Meanwhile, an effort is underway in the House of
Representatives, led by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.),
to put Reagan's face on the $20. And Rep. Jeff Miller (R-
Fla.) wants to swap Reagan for John F. Kennedy on the 50-
cent piece.

President Reagan Commemorative Coin
$29. Washington monetary authority. 999 fine silver. 1 1/2 inch diameter. A...
store.reagancoins.com
.
Ronald Reagan on ShopPBS.org
The official online store for all PBS programming. Over 4,000 specialty DVDs,...
www.shoppbs.org
.
Ronald Reagan Talking Action Figure
Keep the memory of Ronald Reagan alive with a talking action figure. Hear Ronald...
www.toypresidents.com
.
Conservative Singles Love Ronald Reagan
ConservativeMatch.com is a real community of singles who share common cultural,...
www.conservativematch.com

.
If either of the bill-changing efforts is successful, it
would represent the first change of a person on U.S.
currency since 1929, when the nation's paper money was
standardized in size and general design. Although various
anti-counterfeiting measures have altered the look of
paper notes since then, the principals depicted have not
changed.
.
The proposal has the support of Ronald Reagan Legacy
Project, which is headed by Grover Norquist, an
influential conservative activist.

Democrats in Congress may not be ready to embrace the idea,
though none has publicly declared opposition after
Reagan's death Saturday.

A change would require majority votes in both houses of
Congress.
.
In the Republican-dominated House, passage of a bill seems
achievable, according to Washington sources. In the
Senate, however, cloture rules would allow the Democratic
minority to block any legislation.
.
Proponents of Reaganized money, however, are proposing an
alternative to paper: coins.
Unlike decisions about notes, coins can be changed at the
discretion of the Treasury Secretary.

Over at the Treasury Department, however, lips are tightly
pursed on the notion of honoring the 40th president on
money.

"It's premature to get into any discussions about it,
including discussions of process or timing," said Ann
Womack Colton, a Treasury spokeswoman.
.
But GOP activist Norquist has said he has already had
discussions with treasury secretary John Snow and senior
White House staff about the idea, and found no opposition.
.
If Reagan is not put on the $10, an alternate proposal is
to have half the nation's dimes carry Reagan's face, with
the other half continuing to honor Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The idea of removing Roosevelt from the dime altogether in
favor of Reagan had enough opposition, even from Nancy
Reagan, to be dropped, USA Today reported.
.
But the Gipper's fans think giving equal time to Reagan and
FDR strikes an appropriate compromise.
.
One person opposed to removing Hamilton from the $10 bill
is Ron Chernow, author of an acclaimed biography of the
revolutionary war hero and founding father.
.
He told USA Today that he believed even Reagan would have
objected to the snub of Hamilton.
.
"Hamilton was the prophet of the capitalist system that
Ronald Reagan so admired," he was quoted as saying.

The Treasury Department is always trying to shove the Dollar Coin down everyone's ass, why not put Reagan's image on that? ZOD would hate to see Hamilton taken off the 10 dollar bill. He died in a duel!

Quote:

the G-man said:
Yeah, those two are pretty good.

It's too bad that McGruder, like Michael Moore, is so obsessed with attacking Republicans that he stops being funny (at least to everyone who ISN'T a total left wing partisan).

Well, I found the first cartoon posted(involving Reagan) to be both funny and aimed more at the media in general, rather than Republicans specifically, and I don't think I'd call myself a total left wing partisan(and the "how conservative are you?" test seems to agree). I'm not overly familiar with McGruder, though, so I don't know much about whatever agenda he may or may not be pushing.

My God!

Don't any of you watch television??

He was on "Real Time With Bill Maher", just about every other week!

He'd be described as a very soft spoken but direct and intelligent young man.

Plus I posted an interview from the Los Angeles Times Magazine a while back regarding "The Boondocks" being made into an animated cartoon, over in the media section of the boards.

I'm sure it's not that far back if you look. That interview would give you an idea of the man.

Bill Maher comes off as a dick a good deal of the time, though I did like to watch Politically Incorrect every now and then. Sometimes he would get carried away and just say something stupid, and I'd have to turn it. He was on Jay Mohr's show once, and they were discussing sports(yes, sports are what makes my world turn), and he said something to the extent that he could beat any woman at any sport with his hand behind his back. I'd just love to see him play one on one with Lisa Leslie, or try and hit a Jenny Finch fastball. Better yet, put him in the ring with Laila Ali for a few rounds. See how he comes out.

I don't get HBO, so I haven't watched any of his new show.

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:

A lot of mean ol' nasty things have been said by liberals
on these boards, and have compelled conservatives here
to make a response.
There are only about six liberals on these boards that I
have a consistent problem with, in their one-sided and
vicious attacks on conservatives. And then they have the
balls to call myself, G-man, Mr JLA and others "immature"
and "name-callers" for specifically answering the partisan
venom you, Whomod, and a few others post.

You post stuff to the effect of saying: Republicans are
assholes.

And we generally respond saying: Here are links to the
facts that disprove the slanderous spin you allege
to be true.
So based on your false liberal allegations, you jerks are
the assholes you allege us to be.

If that's immature, then you might do well to ask: who
launched the first salvo?
Whenever possible, I try to refrain from insults and just
answer the issues raised.
But once again, right here in this latest round YOU are
personalizing it and won't let it go, and forcing me into
another round of response.
I try to always respond politely, but I get tired of the
personal attacks, and my patience has limits, like
everyone else's.

Ok. Please let me know where I've posted all this slander and hate against conservatives. I post news A LOT, and I give my opinion sometimes, but where have I said mean things about conservatives?

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
So if I call you an asshole for baiting me into a flame-
war, and for then further insulting me for responding at
length to the issues that YOU RAISED, then pardon
me for calling you the raging troll asshole that you have
demonstrated yourself to be.

Again, I didn't start this flame-war, I was baited into it
by you, Jim Jackson and Whomod, which is the consistent
pattern. I try to respond minimally to it when possible,
if you'd just let it go !

Calling me a raging troll asshole is a minimal response?

Anywho, all I did is quote this...

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:

The Democrats have exploited far more. Far more divisively, far more bitterly, and with far less evidence.

And ask "Then how do you know all this?" It's not libel or an insult. It's just that this statement you posted didn't make sense to me at first. When I first read it, it looked like you were saying that Democrats leave behind less evidence, which made me wonder how you could then know that we've "exploited far more." Now I read it to mean that we have far less evidence to exploit with. If that's true, then I see your logic, though I don't think that's true. All I was doing was asking for clarification. Not "trolling."

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I find that hard to believe, considering the relentless
antagonism you provide here in response to virtually every
topic I post to.

I'm a pretty forgiving guy, but I don't treat people who
constantly misrepresent me and constantly launch personal
atrtacks on me like they're my friends.

Please post examples of this relentless antagonism. If you mean that I disagree with you, then you're basically faulting me for posting my own opinions to the same topics to which you post your opinions. If I've posted relentless antagonisms toward you, specifically, then let me know.

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I tried in my above post to just respond with the facts in
a prior link and my previous posted comments, but you
still had to further bait me with more insulting personal
remarks.

Your immaturity and insults are on display here.
I tried to take the high road, and just post facts to
disprove the "no Osama/Saddam link" you allege, without
responsing to your personal insults.

I said you guys often resort to name-calling, and that I often find it annoying. If you take that as an insult or name-calling in itself, then so be it. I think name-calling is childish and stupid. Doesn't matter who insults who first, answering name-calling with name-calling is just as bad, in my opinion.

For the record, I think good arguments have been posted by both sides on many issues. It's not the opinions I have a problem with, it's the slander that follows from both sides.

Also, where have I "alleged" that there was no Osama/Saddam link? It's not in this thread or the "Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were gay lovers" thread (I love that title, by the way). I haven't even posted to that other thread.

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:

I respond exactly as long as is required to disprove the
false allegations that YOU RAISED !

What false allegations? I asked how you could know the Democrats have exploited far more, because, at worst, I misread the statement. Where is the allegation in that?

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
As I said, I'm just responding to the points raised. If I
respond briefly, I'm accused of "not backing up" what I
say.

If I give links and detailed answers, then I'm accused
of boring you with long-winded answers.

So... I'm damned either way by your hostile partisan
liberal crap.

No venom there.

I'll give you some of that, though. I'd bet you have been accused of not backing yourself up. I don't say that because you don't, but because long posts like the one I've noted seem to have become par.

I never said you bore me. If you did, we wouldn't be having this back and forth. I said I'm not going to read something so long in the first place.

As far as it being "hostile partisan liberal crap" posting long isn't a conservatives-only trait, and I never said it was. And my earlier "hostility" pointed out whomod as well, who you've already counted as a liberal.

I think you're seeing everything I say as a liberal as broad-sweepingly anti-conservative, when that's just not the case.

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
You guys post the angry baiting crap, and I try to politely
answer your points while ignoring your antagonism.

And then I'm vilified for even responding politely !

Just amazing...

What I said doesn't villify you. It complains that your posts are too long, but it doesn't villify you. And where, exactly, do you see that I am angry? Annoyed? Yes. Angry? No.

Quote:

whomod said:

Wednesday is a Boondocks fan so he's ok in my book.

I've become a big Boondocks fan in the last year and a half. I can't wait for the animated cartoon. And it will be done by anime artists!

Quote:

whomod said:
Don't any of you watch television??

He was on "Real Time With Bill Maher", just about every other week!

He'd be described as a very soft spoken but direct and intelligent young man.

The interviews I've read with him make him look like something of a nasty wise ass.

Maybe he's more willing to spout off when he's not on TV.

In any event, my point is not whether or not he is, or can be, a nice guy in real life. He might be a swell fella.

My point is that he can be funny. But he has a tendency to get so caught up in his "all republicans are evil" spiel that he confuses attacks with humor.

It's sort of like that old "Bloom County" strip where Opus was replaced for a few days by "Ollie Funt" an angry Aussie penguin who thought that screaming "Reagan sucks" was "a wise a wistful comment on the days events."

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Wednesday and Jim Jackson, you guys obviously have your pre-conceived opinions (as well as your clear personal
vendettas against me).

Dude, nobody's above a little piss-taking-out, not even you, despite all your, ahem, piety. I'm getting tons of abuse for correcting Chewy on Freud and for being a Pete Townshend fan. And ya know what? I'm still here, and I've got no grudges against anybody and I'm not so self-centered as to think *anyone* in this forum has a vendetta against me. I'd gladly go out for a beer with just about anybody in this forum, and I'll bet we'd have a good time. I'm just a guy in Ohio who can be a wiseass now and then. Albeit an intelligent wiseass...

Jim

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:

In addition, I hasten to add that the Clinton
administration and virtually every Democrat in the House
and Senate as well, supported regime change in Iraq
since 1998

The reason for going to war in Iraq, pre-emptively, was not for regime change. Bush told us it was because Iraq had WMDs and that those WMDs posed a threat to the United States. It was only after no substantive trace of WMDs was found that Bush changed his story and decided we went in for regime change.

A failure of leadership...

Wednesday, you confuse me.

You complain that I post responses that are too long, and
then you say I've falsely labelled you "hostile", with a
very long post of your own, that solicits a 5000
word response, just to minimally answer all the questions
and requests for specific examples you raise.

And this, after you imply that my prior posts were too long
for you to bother reading in the first place.

Truly: WTF ?!?!?!?!?!?

Here's what I described as you and Jim Jackson baiting me
into a flame-war I didn't want (again, this is a Raegan
tribute, NOT a Bush/Iraq topic) here:

Quote:

Wednesday said#287534 - Fri Jun 18 2004 04:38
.
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
.
The Democrats have exploited far more. Far more divisively,
far more bitterly, and with far less evidence.

Then how do you know all this?

Quote:

Jim Jackson said:#287551 - Fri Jun 18 2004 05:41 PM
.
Quote:

Wednesday said:

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
.
The Democrats have exploited far more. Far more divisively,
far more bitterly, and with far less evidence.

.

Then how do you know all this?

.
He got it from the same intelligence that linked al-Qaida
and Iraq, pre-9/11.

--------------------
George W. Bush: born on 3rd base, thinks he hit a triple

Okay this is one that rankled my fur because:

1. Again, this is a REAGAN TRIBUTE, and Jim Jackson is
taking special pleasure in ruining it for the people who
like Reagan. You don't like Reagan?
Okay: WE GET IT ! So start your FUCK REAGAN topic
already and get out of my face. No one is shutting you
up, just take it to an appropriate place, not his eulogy,
and nostalgic reflections of those who like the guy.
And you've been doing this in the topic for
several pages. So.. take it elsewhere.

2. I just got through with an exchange that took the topic
further off Reagan than I wanted it to go, and I tried to
ignore you here, and take it back on-topic (my post about possible Reagan images on currency) but you just wouldn't let it go.

3. I've detailed "How do [I] know this", in probably
hundreds of posts ober the last year, and I feel it's
redundant and pointless to re-hash what I've said a vast
number of times, just because others want to ignore and
not read what I've already posted, chapter and verse
examples.
Just read my posts in the most recent pages of
the "It's not about oil or Iraq.. topic. I mean,
GEEZ ! I've explained myself in detail many times, and
what I see as Democrat party manipulation of the facts
is not exactly a mystery here !!

4. In retrospect, your post simply asks for a response,
Wednesday. Jim Jackson's is the snide one that really
pissed me off, and compelled me to show that there is
definite Senate intelligence that shows an Osama-Saddam
link. You're right, you didn't ask me. But it's pretty
clear that I posted in response to Jim Jackson's remark.

5. I think I'm on the record saying previously that when I
field several posters, some inquiring and some attacking
me, I find it difficult without re-reading the page to
remember who said what. Until I re-read it, I remember it
as several liberal posters jumping on me at once, and
forget which said specifically what. And it's only on re-
reading that I see one was polite and one was more
confrontational.
Initially, you were much more polite than Jim Jackson.

But in your lengthier second post, while you, deep into the
post, became more balanced in criticizing both sides,
also made some remarks I found partisan and insulting.

I'll go through the second post of yours, that
follows the opening shots on me by both you and Jim
Jackson (quoted above), and detail the examples you ask for:

Quote:

Wednesday said:

Honestly, I don't care enough to have a personal vendetta
against you or anyone else here. A lot of mean ol' nasty
things have been said on this board about liberals, but,
though I'm the most liberal guy here according to G-
man's "how conservative are you" questionnaire, I haven't
really given a gosh darn about 95% of it.

Here you imply that all the "mean ol' nasty things" are
initiated by conservatives against the liberals here on
RKMB.
When in truth, it's the reverse! Liberals attack, bait,
make snide remarks, and conservatives respond to disprove
the allegations, or at least give something resembling
equal time.
You say you're equally critical of Whomod. But your
comments here don't reflect that. They are solely
directed at conservatives on the boards here.

Quote:

Wednesday said:
.
Truth is, most of the arguments you, JLA, and G-man, have
with Whomod end in immature, overly general name-calling
geared at every person on the other side of the political
fence. Do liberals hate America?

Again, your comments here are directed solely at
conservatives. You list G-man, Me, and Mr JLA (all
conservatives) in your "immature" list. I don't see
Whomod (or the name of any other liberal posters) listed
specifically by you and criticized for their antagonistic
banter and "immature, overly general namecalling,
geared at every person on the other side of the political
fence." You say that you criticize both sides,
but your comments clearly single out only one side:
CONSERVATIVES.

Your comment clearly singles out conservatives for lashing
back at Whomod (and at other liberals, like yourself)
while giving liberals a free pass, while conservatives
here, for simply responding to liberal baiting and
condescension, are labelled as "immature"
and engaging in "overly general name-calling geared at
every person on the other side of the political fence".

This, despite the fact that I repeatedly make
it very clear, across many topics, that my comments don't
apply to more civil liberals who respectfully discuss the
issues, such as Chant and JQ. Llance has identified
himself as liberal also, and you don't see me make
comments toward him either, of the kind that I do toward
you, and Whomod, and Jim Jackson, and a few others.
Doesn't happen !
As Whomod often accuses me also, of "hating" all liberals,
that's not even true of the liberals in Washington. I've
many times said that Democrat Senator Joseph Biden and
Democrat Senator Joseph Lieberman are two whose opinions I
value, who don't lower themselves to the scorched-earth
partisan rhetoric of Kerry, Dean, Gore, Ted Kennedy,
Hilary Clinton and others.

I haven't said it before, but Clinton generally
is supportive of President Bush, and respectful in his
dissent when he voices it as well.
While Hilary Clinton is far more biting and partisan.

Again, except for the Bill Clinton part, I've said this all
many times, and across many topics. So it's a bit
annoying to have to repeat it.

But again, I'm not angry toward "all" liberal posters, or
all liberals in general. I enjoy having a friendly
exchange of ideas with liberals, when I don't have to deal with the usual "racist" "bigot" "homophobe" "blind
supporter of Bush" "Republican extremist", etc, etc.,
labels that liberals like to slap on me here to discount
my point of view.
So, like I said, Chant, JQ and others who can discuss the
issues in a more civil way, while often disagreeing with
me, still disagree respectfully, and I respond in kind.

Because they don't lower the bar like others do, and lash
out with such abrasiveness and rude condescension that I
have to respond.

Your topic "examples" appear more
directed at, possibly solely at, conservatives:

Quote:

Wednesday said:
"Do Liberals Hate America?"

That's G-man's topic, a branch off of the "Do liberals hate
the President?" topic. And that has been answered
abundantly within those two topics. The liberal venom and
prejudice toward Bush and conservatives in general by the
usual liberal partisans, is clearly on display.

Quote:

Wednesday said:
It's all about the oil!

This is what liberals constantly say about conservatives,
not the other way around. Possibly your including
it in the list is criticizing Whomod and other liberal
partisans (un-named in your comments)for sniping at
conservatives here. But it's vague, and seems directed
solely at admonishing conservatives.
Again, you name conservatives specifically, and it's
questionable whether you're criticizing liberals too, or
just solely criticizing conservatives for their part in
the topic.

Quote:

Wednesday said:

The [other side] controls the media, and uses it to
opress the people!! Stupid. No softer name for it.

Again, I've backed this up a hundred times, with statistics
that show the media is about 80% liberal, and that to
even get truly conservative opinion in this country,
you have to go to a very select group of publications and
media outlets, such as The Wall Street Journal, New York
Post, Weekly Standard and The National Review,
and arguably Fox News.

It's not "stupid". It's how you partisanly dismiss my
opinion about liberal media coverage, without any facts to
dispute it, just, "it's stupid".
See the Liberal Media topic, if you want some
statistics. In the 1984 Presidential election, every
White House correspondent voted for Mondale and ZERO
voted for Reagan. How do you think that affected
media reporting?
The existence of media bias is "stupid"?
Give me a freaking break.

And similarly issues like AIDS, homelessness, gay rights,
abortion, hyping white-on-minority crime, and downplaying
minority-on-white crime. And just generally downplaying
anything that portrays liberal-favored minorities
(gays, pro-abortionists, feminists, atheists, muslims) in
a negative light. While simultaneously hyping anthing
negative about Christian or conservative groups.

Or just more broadly blaming all social problems and the
misfortune of minorities on the Republicans.

Quote:

Wednesday said:

Sometimes it's the left that starts it, sometimes it's
the right. Sometimes it's funny, most of the time it's
kinda annoying. Whatever. I don't take it seriously. I
might snap now and then, but I won't hold any grudges.
I'm a Scorpio leaning on Libra, man. I just don't give a fuck.

This is the first fair and balanced statement you've made
in this post.

Quote:

Wednesday said:

DtWB, if I met you on the street, I'd probably offer to
shake your hand and buy you a beer. Not the expensive
stuff, though, and you're responsible for tip.

Again, I'd like to be conciliatory, but there have been
some rather harsh things said over the last year. Maybe
I'm taking things overly personal, but some of the remarks
directed at me have seemed overly harsh and
personal. I'm a pretty friendly guy generally, and I'd
really like to tone down the rhetoric here, on both
sides. As I've said, some of the things said here (not
necessarily by you, Wednesday), it's hard not to take
offense.

Quote:

Wednesday said:
Sweet Zombie Reagan, man!

?!?
I don't want to sound humorless, because I think you meant
this to be light and funny. But it's a bit ambiguous.
I felt this was a rather odd thing to say about Reagan,
in a tribute to widely admired former President who just
died.

Some here have gone out of their way to express contempt
for Reagan.

For those who feel the burning need, if it were earlier on
and the ugliness were not already here, I'd suggest you
start a "FUCK REAGAN!" topic, to get it out of your
systems. But the damage is already done, to the
attempt at an affectionate tribute to Reagan here, and
it's already somewhat tainted for those, like myself, who
admire and have affection for Reagan.

Further evidence of liberal bitterness, from my
perspective.

For God's sake, The man is dead !! Why do you
(liberals in general) have to urinate on a tribute to
him? Couldn't you (those liberals who despise Reagan)
just as easily dump on Reagan in a new topic devoted
specifially to that?

To me, that's typical of the liberal mentality I despise.
A complete lack of respect, and antagonism, toward those
who don't share liberal views. A burning, gleeful
malicious pleasure in getting in the face of someone who
doesn't share your liberal views.

A mindset for which Whomod is the poster boy.
And Jim Jackson is just a step behind.

Quote:

Wednesday said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: you people post
too long. Call me ignorant, lazy, and uneducated, but do
all of you long-winded fellows really think what you have
to say is so important that it deserves a dissertation?

Again: you solicited it, and there is no short way
to respond to the issues you raise. But I'll try and work on being more concise.

In the earlier post I responded to with the "Saddam-Osama
link" article, the issue is personalized toward me (by Jim
Jackson) implying I'm ignorant for somehow not buying the
liberal notion that Bush went to war "solely for WMD's".

Well, that liberal notion is wrong, and rather than just me
saying: "You're wrong" and go through 10 rounds of "Fuck you
Wonder Boy, you don't know what you're talking about", I
find it logical to back what I say with an article from
the New York Post, and point out what Bush actually said
(as opposed to the partisan liberal myth of
what Bush said) my documenting Bush's actual comments in his
speeches on the eve of war.

Quote:

Wednesday said:
I know most of that's quotes, but, man, I really hope you
posted all that for the benefit of the Partisan Family,
cuz I'm pretty darn sure most ain't gonna sit down and
actually read all that. Jim Jackson, grab yourself a
chair, cuz I'm sure all that's cuz of your 9/11 crack, and
it's gonna be a while.

It seems to me this is overly snide too, and directed at
conservatives only.

The "Partisan Family" remark seems squarely directed at me
and conservatives. And this is further confirmed by your
offering Jim Jackson to "grab a chair" and watch the show
that conservatives (me in particular) are obligated to
give in response.
I find this especially annoying, since Jim Jackson is among
the most partisan and insulting liberals I have the
displeasure of exchanging posts with. If you offer Jim
Jackson a chair, then there's clearly no liberal you'll
honestly criticize. Which means you've chosen partisan
sides, in giving his abrasiveness a free pass.

You say that your comments are "annoyed maybe" but "not
angry". Well, either way it's rude and insulting.

One example was on page 1 of the "Islamic Ignorance"
topic, which I believe is the first time we crossed paths
and you insulted my opinion with a flippant remark
about "using the Bible to rationalize any foolish notion"
or something to that effect. Which insulted my opinion,
without any kind of factual basis. Whether "annoyed"
or "angry", the comment, and similar ones, are
condescending and hostile, and definitely rub me the wrong
way.

Again, you asked for examples, I tried to provide them. I
apologize for the lengthy response. This is a discussion
of what I think and what you think, and how we perceive
each other's comments.
And I'm reluctant to post this, because I really don't want
to dredge up and prolong this. But neither do I want to
ignore your request for examples.
As far as I'm concerned, it's a done deal, and you don't
need to respond if you don't want to. I'm talking in this
post about my personal perceptions, and I don't want to
say or imply that you absolutely did this or that. Just
my interpretation, which could be not what you actually
intended.

And Jim Jackson, same thing. If you'll ease up, I'll do
the same.

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:

I think you and Jim Jackson, Jackson in particular, have gone out of your way to express your contempt for Reagan. I'd suggest you start a "FUCK REAGAN!" topic, but you've already done your best to destroy the affectionate tribute to him here, and taint it for those, like myself, who admire and have affection for Reagan.

Now, hold the phone here...I do not have contempt for Reagan. In fact, here's what I have said that is on point regarding Reagan...

June 6: "Iran-contra. If you're going to take note of the highs, you must also note the lows."

June 6: "Reagan had stengths and weaknesses as president. In fairness to him as a man, we should not overlook or overemphasize either."

June 7: "I was never a Reagan supporter. I did not vote for him in the one election he ran in during my adulthood. I never felt that I was someone, as a liberal, whom Reagan would have embraced despite the fact that I, too, was born in the same United States as he. I found he skated out of harm's way over Iran-contra far too easily, and I felt in far more fear of nuclear proliferation than in any time up until the election of George W. Bush. "

Nonetheless, I am saddened at his passing. Despite our undeniable differences of opinion, Reagan was a great American, and in these immediate days following his death, I mourn his loss. I misted up at images of Nancy, clearly devastated at his death, and as one who has known death too, I understand her grief and the sense of loss that appears to permeate her. Reagan was cut from a cloth similar to that of my late father-in-law. Both worked for their country, my father in law as a soldier in WWII and Reagan as 40th US President. Both are gone and represent aspects of era we will likely not see again during our lifetimes. In some ways, that's a good thing, as both men probably held beliefs whose times had come and gone. But the time for that discussion is another day.

I wish the Reagan family well."

June 10: "Despite my disdain for VP Cheney, I thought his speech at Reagan's laying-in-state last night was very good."

June 11: "From Paul Krugman, NY TIMES: 'But Reagan does hold a special place in the annals of tax policy, and not just as the patron saint of tax cuts. To his credit, he was more pragmatic and responsible than that; he followed his huge 1981 tax cut with two large tax increases.'

Reagan did raise taxes.

Go to this source to read some interesting commentary on how much of what we've heard this week deifying Reagan isn't true. http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/4820649.html

I'm not going to dwell on anything anti-Reagan until after this weekend."

Show me where anything in that even resembles "contempt." I pointed out, to dispell myths that were being touted as fact upon his death, that Reagan did increase taxes later in his tenure and that Iran-contra occurred on his watch and with his knowledge. I also noted that Reagan didn't like talking about AIDS, but nowhere did I or do I label him a homophobe, anti-gay or anything of that nature.

I think I had very nice things to say about Reagan, I shed tears over his passing; I fucking even likened him to my late father-in-law, a man whom I loved dearly!

You have just decided to pigeonhole me as a Liberal who hates everything that doesn't speak to my politics. And that is so fucking wrong. But if it's easier for you to do, and it helps you sleep better, go right ahead. Changing your opinion doesn't mean a goddamn thing to me anyway. I'm not that quixotic.

Jim

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Wednesday, you confuse me.

You complain that I post responses that are too long, and
then you allege that I've falsely accused me of labelling
you "hostile" (which you were), with a very long
post of your own, that solicits a 500 word response, just
to minimally answer all the questions and allegations, and
requests for specific examples you raise.

And this, after you imply that my prior posts were too long
for you to bother reading in the first place.

Truly: WTF ?!?!?!?!?!?

I made another post and noted the same folly here. My only excuse was that I had a lot of time last night and not much to do. End of the semester with no gas in the car. I'll try to keep my responses here short. I have to warn you, though, that just like last time, you made a lot of points. To address them all might take a lot of words.

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I'll go through the one post second post of yours, that
follows the opening shots on me by both you and Jim
Jackson, and detail the examples you ask for:

Quote:

Wednesday said:

Honestly, I don't care enough to have a personal vendetta against you or anyone else here. A lot of mean ol' nasty things have been said on this board about liberals, but, though I'm the most liberal guy here according to G-man's "how conservative are you" questionnaire, I haven't really given a gosh darn about 95% of it.

Here you imply that all the "mean ol' nasty things" are initiated by conservatives against the liberals here on RKMB.
When in truth, it's the reverse! Liberals attack, bait, make snide remarks, and conservatives respond to disprove the allegations, or at least give something resembling equal time.
You say you're equally critical of Whomod. But your comments here don't reflect that. They are solely directed at conservatives on the boards here.

Where do you see the word "initiate"? Actually, I never said conservatives initiate anything. In fact, I never implied it (I even said that sometimes one side starts it, sometimes the other). I said mean ol' nasty things have been said about liberals, and that's the truth. I don't care about most of it, and that's the truth. Mean ol' nasty things have been said about conservatives as well, but pointing out that I don't care about most of it wouldn't have helped prove my point.

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Quote:

Wednesday said:
.
Truth is, most of the arguments you, JLA, and G-man, have with whomod end in immature, overly general name-calling geared at every person on the other side of the political fence. Do liberals hate America?

Again, your comments here are directed solely at conservatives. You list G-man, Me, and Mr JLA (all conservatives) in your "immature" list. I don't see Whomod (or the name of any other liberal poster's) listed specifically by you and criticized for their antagonistic banter and "immature, overly general namecalling, geared at every person on the other side of the political fence." You allege that you criticize both sides, but your comments clearly single out only one side: CONSERVATIVES.

Your comment clearly singles out conservatives for lashing back at Whomod (and at other liberals, like yourself) while giving liberals a free pass, while conservatives here, for simply responding to your baiting and condescension, are labelled by you as "immature" and engaging in "overly general name-calling geared at every person on the other side of the political fence".

This, despite the fact that I repeatedly make it very clear, across many topics, that my comments don't apply to more civil liberals who respectfully discuss the issues, such as Chant and JQ. Llance has identified himself as liberal also, and you don't see me make comments toward him either, of the kind that I do toward you, and Whomod, and Jim Jackson, and a few others. Doesn't happen !

Because they don't lower the bar like you do, and lash out with such abrasiveness and rude condescension that I have to respond.

I bold-faced whomod's name in the quote you gave to prove my point. He was on the list, and I listed it that way because most of the arguments I watch go downhill are you vs. whomod, G-man vs. whomod, and MrJLA vs. whomod. You can read that as meaning that conservatives attack whomod, or that whomod pulls every debate down. Or you can say it takes two to tango. I listed one side, then the other, and I used the word "with" not "at." Plus, I've also stated that both sides are at fault when things get nasty.

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Your "examples" make it clear that your comments are directed solely at conservatives.

Quote:

Wednesday said:
It's all about the oil!

This is what liberals constantly say about conservatives, not the other way around.

Quote:

Wednesday said:

The [other side] controls the media, and uses it to opress the people!! Stupid. No softer name for it.

Again, I've backed this up a hundred times, with statistics that show the media is about 80% liberal, and that to even get truly conservative opinion in this country, you have to go to a very select group of publications and media outlets, such as The Wall Steet Journal, New York Post, Weekly Standard and The National Review.

It's not stupid. It's how you partisanly choose to insult and spin my opinion, with nothing factual for you to back up the insult. More of your presumtuous liberal condescension.

I'm aware of the fact "It's all about the oil" is a thing liberals say. I put that in there to show that the pointlessness doesn't come from just one side. Same goes when I said "[other side]" verses saying "liberals." Once again, I'm pointing out that it comes from both sides.

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
See the Liberal Media topic, if you want some statistics. In the 1984 Presidential election, every White House correspondent voted for Mondale and ZERO voted for Reagan. How do you think that affected media reporting?
Media bias is "stupid"? Yeah, right.
Give me a freaking break.

And similarly issues like AIDS, homelessness, gay rights, abortion, hyping white-on-minority crime, and downplaying minority-on-white crime. And just generally downplaying anything that portrays minorities in a negative light. Or blaming the misfortune of minorities on the Republicans.

That argument isn't sound because that statistic proves nothing. You simply can't derive a direct correlation between the way every newsperson votes and the they report news, all you can do is suggest. Plus, Reagan won, so either the bias really didn't show in the reporting, or it didn't make a considerable enough difference to cause worry.

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Quote:

Wednesday said:

Sometimes it's the left that starts it, sometimes it's the right. Sometimes it's funny, most of the time it's kinda annoying. Whatever. I don't take it seriously. I might snap now and then, but I won't hold any grudges. I'm a Scorpio leaning on Libra, man. I just don't give a fuck.

This is the first fair and balanced statement you've made in this post.

Okay, you've recognized one. I've proven the others. Still you say I've shown a history of contempt. That's what I'm asking you to prove.

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Quote:

Wednesday said:

DtWB, if I met you on the street, I'd probably offer to shake your hand and buy you a beer. Not the expensive stuff, though, and you're responsible for tip.

Again, I'd like to be conciliatory, but there have been some rather harsh things said over the last year.

Again, I ask to be shown these harsh things I've said.

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Quote:

Wednesday said:
Sweet Zombie Reagan, man!

?!?
I felt this was a rather unkind thing to say about Reagan, in a tribute to widely admired former President who just died. I think you and Jim Jackson, Jackson in particular, have gone out of your way to express your contempt for Reagan. I'd suggest you start a "FUCK REAGAN!" topic, but you've already done your best to destroy the affectionate tribute to him here, and taint it for those, like myself, who admire and have affection for Reagan.
Further evidence of liberal bitterness, as far as I'm concerned. For God's sake, The man is dead !! Why do you have to urinate on a tribute to him. Couldn't you have just as easily shit on Reagan in a new topic devoted to that?
To me, that's typical of the liberal mentality I despise.
A complete lack of respect, and antagonism, toward those who don't share your views. A burning, gleeful malicious pleasure in getting in the face of someone who doesn't share your liberal views.
A mindset for which Whomod is the poster boy.
And Jim Jackson is just a step behind.

I have no contempt for Reagan. If it helps, make an alt ID called 'Zombie Wednesday.'

Wanna know where it comes from? One of my favorite quotes from Futurama. One of the old doctor's favorite expressions is "Great Zombie Jesus!" Delightfully un-PC, and the price for having a recognizable name.

If it helps I've invited Zombie FDR over for dinner. He asked if he could bring along bringing Zombie Kennedy and Zombie Ray Charles along with him.

I can only hope that someone someday somewhere quips about Zombie Jason.

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Quote:

Wednesday said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: you people post too long. Call me ignorant, lazy, and uneducated, but do all of you long-winded fellows really think what you have to say is so important that it deserves a dissertation?

Again: you solicited it, and there is no short way to respond to the issues you raise.

In my earlier response, you raise the issue that I'm ignorant for somehow not realizing the liberal Gospel that Bush went to war "solely for WMD's". Well, that liberal notion is wrong, and rather than just say "you're wrong" and go through 10 rounds of "Fuck you Wonder Boy, you don't know what you're talking about", I find it logical to back what I say with an article from the New York Post, and point out what Bush actually said (as opposed to the partisan liberal myth of what Bush said) in his speeches on the eve of war.

Where did I say that you're ignorant, that you don't know what you're talking about, or say Bush went to war solely for WMD's? You're taking everything I say that questions or doesn't agree with your political beliefs as a personal shot. "Fuck you Wonder Boy, you don't know what you're talking about"? How'd you pull that line of thinking from anything I've EVER posted?

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Quote:

Wednesday said:
I know most of that's quotes, but, man, I really hope you posted all that for the benefit of the Partisan Family, cuz I'm pretty darn sure most ain't gonna sit down and actually read all that. Jim Jackson, grab yourself a chair, cuz I'm sure all that's cuz of your 9/11 crack, and it's gonna be a while.

...And I still haven't read it.

Wednesday, you might (or might not ! ) want to re-read my monster post above. I was trying to write the whole response in one post, and I had only partially written what you responded to. And tried to improve my wording, but even so, I'm not posting today with the clarity I'd like to.

Basically, I think you meant your post to be more mutually critical of sniping from both the Left and the Right here on the boards, and through either your writing or my perception, it came across more left-favoring than you wanted it to be.
And I think the further into it, the more balanced your criticism got. My apologies for remaining in defense mode while you were being conciliatory.

Again, my response is super long, and I'm half-tempted to delete the whole post, to spare you from having to respond. I'm not writing at my best today. Some days the words don't flow like you want 'em to.

The "Fuck you Wonder Boy, you don't know what you're talking about" thing is not directed at you personally.
It was an attempt at humor.
I've often said to Rob in e-mail that discussions here (where topics & posts aren't deleted for profanity or for controversial remarks), as opposed to the DC boards, tend to generally follow a pattern when they get heated up:

PERSON A: Voices heated unpopular opinion.
Person B: "Fuck you, person A !!"
PERSON A: "No FUCK YOU, harder and deeper !!!"
Person B: "Fuck you, fuck your girlfriend, fuck your mother, etc., etc."
Ad infinitum

Just a general expression of unleashed emotion on a board where nothing can be deleted.
Which I think tends to happen more when two people discuss their opinionated opinions, instead of shared facts. Which is why I tend to post long. Effectively or not, I try to lay out the facts as I understand them. But again, I see your point about brevity, and I'll work on it.

{ I updated this post too, to try and clarify ]

Seems things were misconstrued on both our parts. No problem. And if you're ever in Miami, that offer for a beer still stands.

That's a kind offer Wednesday, I appreciate that.

Quote:

That argument isn't sound because that statistic proves nothing. You simply can't derive a direct correlation between the way every newsperson votes and the they report news, all you can do is suggest. Plus, Reagan won, so either the bias really didn't show in the reporting, or it didn't make a considerable enough difference to cause worry.

Well put, and a good catch.

If there was liberal media bias, and it did make a difference, the US public wouldn't have voted for 4 Republicans as opposed to 2 Democrat presidents over the past 35 years.

Getting back to the issue, I was watching something on BBC last night about the evolution of rap music. It plainly credited Reaganomics with the feeling of anger, powerlessness and disenfranchisement felt amongst black Americans in the 80s.

Anyone got any comments on how minorities fared under Reagan?

Quote:

Dave said:
Quote:

That argument isn't sound because that statistic proves nothing. You simply can't derive a direct correlation between the way every newsperson votes and the they report news, all you can do is suggest. Plus, Reagan won, so either the bias really didn't show in the reporting, or it didn't make a considerable enough difference to cause worry.

Well put, and a good catch.

If there was liberal media bias, and it did make a difference, the US public wouldn't have voted for 4 Republicans as opposed to 2 Democrat presidents over the past 35 years.

Getting back to the issue, I was watching something on BBC last night about the evolution of rap music. It plainly credited Reaganomics with the feeling of anger, powerlessness and disenfranchisement felt amongst black Americans in the 80s.

Anyone got any comments on how minorities fared under Reagan?

Just because liberal bias hasn't been successful in turning public opinion, doesn't mean that liberal bias doesn't exist. It only means that bias hasn't been successful.

I would argue that the liberal bias is much stronger and more vindictive since November 2000, and that as close a race as this one is, that bias is strong enough to shift the balance in favor of the Democrats.

That is certainly the intention.

~

Regarding allegations of a minority persecution under Reagan, I dispute that. The first black managers I worked under were during the Reagan years.

There's a difference between subsidizing minorities and pandering to them (which Reagan did not do),

And simply treating minorities like equals and giving them the same shot at careers and success as everyone else (which Reagan did do).

I've seen a number of articles about how black immigrants from places like Africa, Jamaica, Haiti and the Bahamas achieve a much higher rate of career success and education than do American blacks. So the question is:
Is this "racism"?
Or is it, more obviously, a poisonous belief system in the American black community, that convinces many African Americans not to even try?

I feel that the perception of discrimination, and the resultant attitude of a large percentage of blacks about race, was a regressive and destructive pandering to black fears and phantoms of past racism, by black politicians trying to spread/preserve their powerbase at the expense of the country, and by black musicians and other artists manufacturing rage as a gimmick to sell albums, movies and plays.

Speaking for myself and the blacks I worked with in the early, mid and late 80's, it was a fun and optimistic period, and I felt good about having black managers and co-workers that I could bond so well with. We had a lot to talk about. We enjoyed the same music. We'd all go out and eat and drink together. And in that time, I felt good about being part of an America that had emerged from the 60's and 70's and was increasingly uniting as one nation.

I saw rap and Spike Lee and exploitative reporting as manufacturing an artificial rage that kept memories of 60's discrimination alive.
And I was saddened after a number of years (particularly 1992) to see that the liberal perception of race projected in the popular media had begun to sink in, and had fragmented America into ethnic camps. Where America remains.

But there's hope. And black Republicans.

The Cato Institute agrees with you:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html

Quote:

The poorest 20 percent of Americans experienced a 6 percent gain in real income in the 1980s and have suffered a 3 percent loss in income in the 1990s. Figure 13, which compares the income trends for the poorest fifth of Americans over the past 20 years, shows that the poor did the best during the Reagan years. Black Americans saw their incomes grow at a slightly faster pace (11.0%) than whites (9.8%) in the Reagan years (see Table 9).

This is actually an extremely interesting article, as it explodes a lot of myths about Reaganomics by looking at data, not anecdotal conjecture.

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
simply treating minorities like equals and giving them the same shot at careers and success as everyone else (which Reagan did do).

I think you would get a lot of debate over this.

He was opposed to the Civil Rights Act in 1964, and in 1980 he called the Voting Rights Act "humiliating to the South". He also opposed the extension of the Act in 1982.

Reagan also sided against the IRS when they tried to deny tax exemptions to segregated private schools like Bob Jones University(a common practice for years), prompting a lawsuit. Later, he said he didn't see it as a civil rights issue.