*Lauren

Since the thread about his death is now a remberance thread, I thought I'd start this thread to talk about his policies.

My original post

I stand by that. The man did truly reprehensible things, so I'm not shedding any tears that he's dead. For his family's sake, I'm glad, cause it would have been horrible to see the shell he'd become.

I couldn't stand the man in life, so I'm not going to become a hypocrite when he's dead and start talking about respect, and saying I'm sorry he died. I'm not.

Anabela

When people die, everybody feels obligated to say how great that person was. I can understand that. I don't feel that obligation but I understand other people do.
But when I saw people on tv calling Reagan a "movie star", that made me laugh. He was a mediocre actor with very poor acting skills.
I'm sure a lot of people think he was a great president. But a great actor? Come on... They can't be serious.

StellaSlight

I totally agree with you on his acting skills, Anabela.

sir_drinks_alot

sorry not the right thread

SuperDeluxe

Dude Win one for the Gipper!

sick little jag

I agree that people might feel obligated to say something good about Reagan now that he's dead. Thankfuly, I'm not one of them, however, I don't feel the need to bash him. I just think we need to look at him and his life for what it was and not talk about him like he was the greatest person to ever exhist.

Like, when I heard that Ronald Reagan had died, I thought, "Oh, that's sad. But it's probably for the best that he's not suffereing anymore," and that was it. I didn't start to spount on about how he was saintly or how wonderful a president he was. His terms have many blemishes on them and I don't think that he was necesarily one of the best presidents we've ever had. Compairing him to Roosevelt, as people have been, is a little off-base in my opinion. Roosevelt helped revive the US's economy after the Great Depression and developed a lot of great social services, like social security. People, in the end, felt he may have overstepped his bounds as president, and acted almost like a dictator, but there is no denying the good he did. Reagan tanked the economy, completely denied the exhistance of AIDS and figured it was God's way of dealing gays....sure, he may have shown good leadership, but what he did with it wasn't exactly great.

I'm not going to even talk about the Iran-Contra stuff because I don't know much about it and don't want to sound like an ass.

SuperDeluxe

I think you will come to see that alot of people are thankful that reagen's suffering has ended, but not necessarliy agree with his politics.

Then you have some that are glad that he died..not because it eased his suffering, but because his death actually causes them some good?

Dont know.

sick little jag

eh...people who think that him dying was doing something good for them are way messed up. reagan really didn't have much affect on anyone anymore, and to be glad he's died because you thought he was horrible is kinda effed up.

idork

I really don't think it is right to bash the man after his death. He was a human being, after all. He wasn't Hitler. Why you may not necessarily agree with his political decisions (which I don't either), he has passed on and it's our duty as moral individuals to respect that. I'm not saying you should praise him, but don't bash. At least not so soon after his death.

*Lauren

Why? Why do we have to stop saying things the momenet a person dies? What is the difference from me calling him a horrible human being a week ago, and saying it now? He may have been technically alive last week, but the man's been dead for years.

Normally I try and watch some CNN or FoxNews, but the crap that was on their was ridculious. Tradegy? A 93 year old man with Alzhimer's dying, is not a tradegy. Its almost a relief.

I do hope he rots in hell for the **** he did. Comparing him to Roosevelt is laughable. Roosevelt actully helped people who needed it. Reagen ignored their sickness, refused to spend money that was allocalted to start research, threw mentally ill people out of hospital, AND THEN criticised them for being homeless, and turned welfare into a race debate (despite more white people getting welfare). Why should I cry for that disgusting piece of filth?

I'm upset for his family, but not for him. And if you think this is harsh, wait till Bush the Second dies (hopefully, for his family, a long way away)

migamoo

Personally I don't think he needs to be memorialized on coins or even on Mt. Rushmore as a lot of people have said he needs to be. The people on coins, and Mt. Rushmore deserved that memorialization, I don't see how Reagan does.

Ashley

SuperDeluxe

May I inquire about you're age?

It appears you have alot of personal animosity with reagen? Although I would venture to say that most at fanforum would barely remember Reagen. I could be wrong about that.

Anabela

Human beings have to earn respect.
I'm not sure how much respect deserves someone who thinks aids is god's punishment to gay men. I have very little respect for that person, no matter how dead he is.

n e r b l e

Ok. History lesson children. First off Roosevelt has never actually really been totally credited for the economic recovery from the great depression. Historians definitally say it's a possibility and that he helped but many historians also argue that it was WWII that got things rolling again and had nothing to do w/ him. However Reagan pulled us out of the Carter Depression. Look up the terms "Misery Index" and "Stagflation." Both negative and both coined during the Carter administration. Take a look at the book The Seven Fat Years. Look at the horrible economy and unemployment and inflation that Reagan inherited and turned around. Do a search for Reagan and stagflation and the terms "inherited" "cured" and "alleviated" come up. If you'd like to try to disagree with the facts I can pull up all kinds of interesting figures for you.

Second I would love to see this quote or thing that Reagan said along the lines of "Kill all the gays." You know, something like that. In addition should we also blame Bill Clinton b/c of all the innocent people that died of AIDS and Cancer? Cause we don't have a cure for either yet. And he was President just as long as Reagan.

Also...

New York University's archived, hard copies of budget documents from fiscal year 1984 through FY 1989 show that Reagan proposed at least $2.79 billion for AIDS research, education, and treatment. In a Congressional Research Service study titled AIDS Funding for Federal Government Programs: FY1981-FY1999, author Judith Johnson found that overall, the federal government spent $5.727 billion on AIDS under Ronald Reagan. This higher number reflects President Reagan's proposals as well as additional expenditures approved by Congress that he later signed.
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdoc...0312030913.asp



President Reagan's February 6, 1986 State of the Union address included this specific passage where he says the word "AIDS" five times:


We will continue, as a high priority, the fight against Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). An unprecedented research effort is underway to deal with this major epidemic public health threat. The number of AIDS cases is expected to increase. While there are hopes for drugs and vaccines against AIDS, none is immediately at hand. Consequently, efforts should focus on prevention, to inform and to lower risks of further transmission of the AIDS virus. To this end, I am asking the Surgeon General to prepare a report to the American people on AIDS.

ceilirose

I'm old enough to remember the Reagan years.

Reagan gave us the second largest deficit in the history of the country. The largest one is courtesy of the current President. The high flying 80's as they were called lead us into the recession of the late 80's and early 90's. The term 'greed is good' was popular and pretty much acceptable during that decade.

The gap between the wealthy and the poor became more pronounced during his term.

During his term at least 30 of his Administration officials were convicted of various crimes. Iran-Contra happened during his watch...how much he and his VP (Bush) were involved is still a matter of discussion.

Here are two comprehensive links on Iran-Contra:

http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/icintro.htm

http://www.webcom.com/pinknoiz/covert/icsummary.html

AIDS became a health issue in the early 1980's. Five years were pretty much wasted before Reagan was even able to mention the word in public. As early as 1982 funds were being requested to help fight the disease.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...gan_detractors

IIRC there were also scandals in the Dept of Interior and HUD. His environmental record wasn't that great either.

I understand he is an icon for the Conservative movement. However TV media have been portraying this man as a grandfatherly figure who was universally beloved by the entire nation and that's really not true. He was a polarizing figure IMO.

ETA - Hussein gassed the Kurds in March of 1988 under Reagan's watch. The US Senate passed a unanimous resolution ordering sanctions against Iraq. The resolution died in the House under advice from the White House. Iraq was then an ally of the US because they were in the tail end of the war with Iran. Iraq was a secular state while Iran was fundamentalist. The US provided financial and military help to Iraq. There's a point of view that the ingredients used for the lethal gas against the Kurds came from US companies.