| Schools Out |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2007 January 2006 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2005 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November My Links Bobby Joe Daft and Demented AESav - AE's new home Joolieblog II Krazedone's Blog Irishred (aka ApplesnOranges) Andaloo Sillygrrl Crap Pix - Really Briggsy Anagamesx's Blog Susan of Pudlin and the "Puds" Fotocali on tblog Fark all day - you know you want to Lynne (aka ThingsIKnow) Big Doral Mark's Life Flaring and her Fish that were once Fry Ladyblog Tenkin - not to be forgotten Hhunter's Blog The Original Natblog Nattoons's Blog tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog 
|
posted by: Ironwolf8766 (reply) post date: 06.09.04 (7:33 am) It is sad they way they are speaking of him. I mean, he just died. Let the man lie in piece for a while before start bashing him. posted by: dangerkitty (reply) post date: 06.09.04 (7:38 am) Reply to: Ironwolf8766 What has made me sick though is the coverage of the family mourning. Can't they let them grieve privately. I remember one reporter asking a family friend to describe Mrs. Reagan's facial expression at the death of her husband and as she viewed the body. Then I turned on the radio to hear a blow by blow description of her visiting the body at the library and I could hear the flash of the cameras above anything. When someone you loves dies, the last thing you want to do is to be constantly photographed and analyzed. Wish they'd give the family space to breathe. Some people mean well and are genuinely concerned but others just want to milk this as a "top story". Makes me sick. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 06.09.04 (7:43 am) Reagan was not very popular. That's a myth spread by the Republican party. When most people use the word popular, it means that a vast majority of the people like him. Clinton was a popular president. On average, about 60% of people thought favorably of him, but for long periods of time, especially during his second term his ratings were much higher. Even during the Lewinsky scandal, he was at 63%. I don't know what his peak was, but at one point he was at 83% approval for his handling of the economy. It may have been higher at some points. Reagan, on the other hand, came into office when America was in a crisis. Even people who liked Carter saw Carter as a weak leader, but Reagan was scary. He took office and the economy tanked. He fired all the air traffic controllers, unemployment and inflation went into the double digits, and his popularity was not there. I don't know what his average popularity was, but I do know that his peak never got much above 60%. In other words, Reagan at his best was no more popular than Clinton on average. And Clinton at his best was much more popular than Reagan on average. Clinton on average was more popular than Reagan on average, but we keep hearing how Reagan was such a popular president. Even George Bush (the first one) came close to 90% approval at some points, and nobody calls him popular. It makes sense to say that Clinton was a popular president, because overall, most people liked him. But with Reagan, there were many periods where that was not the case, and his party changed the meaning of popular to "more people like him than not, and if one person more than a 50-50 split likes him, he's popular." We've had popular presidents before, but a president's legacy is based on what he did that has long term ramifications. Nobody asks what the economy was like under Rutherford B Hayes, although in fairness people do blame Hoover for the depression. Reagan's legacy may or may not include the collapse of the Soviet Union. It does include record spending because of that military build up, and a massive debt because of it. It included the largest government in history. All in all, I think Hamilton did more for the US than Reagan. Even if history shows that Reagan did cause the collapse of the USSR, it also showed that they were building up weapons not to attack us, but out of fear. We now know what went on inside the Kremlin, and ultimately, Reagan saved us from nothing. Tearing down the USSR may have helped some people in Russia, but it helped nobody in the US because they did not want to attack us; they feared that we would attack them. Don't even get me started on his social policies. Those who considered him a racist were not just grasping at straws. You can claim that policies that favor one group over another are not racist, and it's all about economics, but others will look at what groups your policies favor and won't buy into it. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 06.09.04 (7:44 am) Reply to: Ironwolf8766 People will stop bashing him when others stop lying about him and making him out to be something he wasn't. posted by: Ironwolf8766 (reply) post date: 06.09.04 (7:46 am) Reply to: mblog My point was, the man just died have some Respect. posted by: Ironwolf8766 (reply) post date: 06.09.04 (7:47 am) Reply to: dangerkitty I agree, give the family some space and respect thier grief. Unfortunately that doesnt happen anymore. posted by: Cyberpal (reply) post date: 06.09.04 (7:54 am) Reagan was far from a saint, but he wasn't the big bad wolf people are making him out to be. We have a lot to thx him for... his stubborness and sheer power or will helped in bringing down the curtain on the cold war as well as helping us in the UK during the falklands war.... not a bad chap... as for the $10 bill thingy.. that might just be too much! posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 06.09.04 (10:33 am) Reply to: Ironwolf8766 If I didn't respect him before, I'm not about to start now. I didn't see him respecting a lot of people. Anybody who refused to meet with the Congressional Black Caucus for his entire eight years in office does not deserve my respect. posted by: Ironwolf8766 (reply) post date: 06.09.04 (10:37 am) Reply to: mblog Are you dense or just dont understand. Im talking about having respect for the dead. Not his political beliefs. Big deal he didnt meet with them. I dont really care. I am not talkign about politics now. Im talking having human decency for the dead. If you cant do that, then you are just as bad as that which you are complaining about. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 06.09.04 (10:53 am) Reply to: Ironwolf8766 I disagree. I think it's far more important to have respect for the living. Judging by your rude and nasty comments, it's clear that you don't understand that concept. Reagan had no respect for the living. You can visit fotocali's blog for a piece that explains that. You are not very big in the respect department either. If you be so boorish, then I don't respect you and would not start to do so just because you die. Get it? posted by: Ironwolf8766 (reply) post date: 06.09.04 (11:36 am) Reply to: mblog I would like you to read a post I just put on my own blog. Its my opinion of course but there are some quotes in it that I feel are important. But of course this is up to you. |
 Ayn Rant: AESav.net  Daft and Demented: Mal Uncensored  Captain Jack Sparrow Shop DangerKitty on Zazzle.com  |
The Powers that be at the University are closing down the place on Friday to acknowledge the National Day of Mourning for the death of Ronald Reagan. Not sure how I feel about this. I mean, I'm glad for the day off and all but...