NationStates Jolt Archive

Did the man really expect for the center of attention to be on him again?
Crticize the report, not the source. I don't care about Drudge's left- or right-leanings.

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX TUE JUNE 08, 2004 11:02:52 ET XXXXX

CLINTON DISAPPOINTMENT: LEFT OFF FUNERAL SPEAKERS LIST

Former President Bill Clinton has privately expressed anger he has apparently been left off the speakers list of Friday's Reagan State Funeral, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

"President Clinton really held out all hope the funeral would be a nonpartisan event, like Nixon's was," a top Clinton source said on Tuesday morning. "He's angry and disappointed neither he nor President Carter have been asked to speak, as of yet."

The top source says Clinton has been critical that both Bush presidents will address the crowd gathered at National Cathedral.

Nixon's vice president Gerald Ford did not speak at Nixon's funeral.

Clinton's inner circle is convinced Nancy Reagan has personally shut out Clinton from any high-profile participation.

"It is a state funeral, using tax dollars," the top Clinton insider explained.

Former President George H.W. Bush, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney will join President Bush in eulogizing Ronald Reagan, Reagan's office announced. Presiding over the service will be former Sen. John Danforth of Missouri, who is an ordained Episcopal priest. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the Rabbi Harold Kusher will give readings, while Irish tenor Ronan Tynan will sing.

The eulogy is being prepared by President Bush's chief speechwriter, Michael Gerson, who also wrote the president's moving speech for a memorial service in the same cathedral after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Developing...

If I were the guy who showed the world that reagans "Voodoo" econmics doesnt work, even though its being used by Bush today.....

I wouldnt be expected there either.

Can't say as that happened, but the guy is a not the type of person that Reagan would have ever associated himself with, ever.

Can't say as that happened, but the guy is a not the type of person that Reagan would have ever associated himself with, ever.

A leader of the free world?

The man is one of a few people that has held the same job as Reagan had.
Like his policies or not...having a President speak at your funeral is a damn honor.

Can't say as that happened, but the guy is a not the type of person that Reagan would have ever associated himself with, ever.

A leader of the free world?

The man is one of a few people that has held the same job as Reagan had.
Like his policies or not...having a President speak at your funeral is a damn honor.Having Bill Clinton speak at his funeral would not have been an honor to Ronald Reagan, the man diminshed the office, and he tarninshed the reputaion of the American Presidency forever.

Um, yes, because having a president who suffers from Alzheimers is something to be proud of? Thank goodness for Nancy and his very supportive white house staff those last few years.

And lay off Clinton for the extra-marital sex, will you? It's not like he was the first one to get a little on the side, and he won't be the last.

What does a president's sex life have to do with their presidency?

Can't say as that happened, but the guy is a not the type of person that Reagan would have ever associated himself with, ever.

A leader of the free world?

The man is one of a few people that has held the same job as Reagan had.
Like his policies or not...having a President speak at your funeral is a damn honor.Having Bill Clinton speak at his funeral would not have been an honor to Ronald Reagan, the man diminshed the office, and he tarninshed the reputaion of the American Presidency forever.
what? he had sex?

Can't say as that happened, but the guy is a not the type of person that Reagan would have ever associated himself with, ever.

A leader of the free world?

The man is one of a few people that has held the same job as Reagan had.
Like his policies or not...having a President speak at your funeral is a damn honor.Having Bill Clinton speak at his funeral would not have been an honor to Ronald Reagan, the man diminshed the office, and he tarninshed the reputaion of the American Presidency forever.

By doing what?

Being one of the most succsessful Presidents of the 20th century?

Can't say as that happened, but the guy is a not the type of person that Reagan would have ever associated himself with, ever.

A leader of the free world?

The man is one of a few people that has held the same job as Reagan had.
Like his policies or not...having a President speak at your funeral is a damn honor.

Yes, a President at anyone else's funeral would be a honor, but Reagan held that office and any "honor" is diminished. On another note, would you have your arch rival speak at your funeral? Though I liked both Clinton and Reagan, they represent two distinct viewpoints. As for Clinton, he should get over lossing a chance in the spotlight and get on with selling his book.

P.S. By the way, I really wished Bush Jr. wasn't there either. Seriously, I don't want the occasion turned into a political rally.

If Clinton wanted to speak at Reagan's funeral, he shouldn't have been gettin no blowjobs.

Can't say as that happened, but the guy is a not the type of person that Reagan would have ever associated himself with, ever.

A leader of the free world?

The man is one of a few people that has held the same job as Reagan had.
Like his policies or not...having a President speak at your funeral is a damn honor.

Yes, a President at anyone else's funeral would be a honor, but Reagan held that office and any "honor" is diminished. On another note, would you have your arch rival speak at your funeral? Though I liked both Clinton and Reagan, they represent two distinct viewpoints. As for Clinton, he should get over lossing a chance in the spotlight and get on with selling his book.

P.S. By the way, I really wished Bush Jr. wasn't there either. Seriously, I don't want the occasion turned into a political rally.

The problem is that your line of thinking is way off...

Clinton was Reagans "Arch Rival"....

Its more like Batman and Superman....same goals....different viewpoints and methods.

They were both presidents of the country they loved.

Having Bill Clinton speak at his funeral would not have been an honor to Ronald Reagan, the man diminshed the office, and he tarninshed the reputaion of the American Presidency forever.

Why would that be? Because he committed the thoughtcrime of expressing an opinion to the left of Torquemada? Or because he gave us eight years of peace and prosperity?

P.S. By the way, I really wished Bush Jr. wasn't there either. Seriously, I don't want the occasion turned into a political rally.

Of course,if anyone calls them on that,they'll repeat the big lie about Wellstone's funeral.

If Clinton wanted to speak at Reagan's funeral, he shouldn't have been gettin no blowjobs.

and Reagan sold arms to the Contras......whos gonna pick nits?

P.S. By the way, I really wished Bush Jr. wasn't there either. Seriously, I don't want the occasion turned into a political rally.

Of course,if anyone calls them on that,they'll repeat the big lie about Wellstone's funeral.
It was no lie, I listened to the tape of that Funeral.

If Clinton died, do you think they'd want Bush Sr. or Jr. speaking at his Funeral? Uh.... no.

P.S. By the way, I really wished Bush Jr. wasn't there either. Seriously, I don't want the occasion turned into a political rally.

Of course,if anyone calls them on that,they'll repeat the big lie about Wellstone's funeral.
It was no lie, I listened to the tape of that Funeral.

If Clinton died, do you think they'd want Bush Sr. or Jr. speaking at his Funeral? Uh.... no.

You listened to the tape huh?

How much of it?

Ever think that those world leaders are there because they were in power while Reagan was? Bush Sr was his VP, so that makes sense. And judging by the way Reagan and the Bush's act, I wouldn't be suprised if Reagan personally knew Dubya while his dad was VP to Reagan. Quit bitching about possible political reasoning, it's a waste of time.

Anyway, I'd think that Reagan trusted his wife enough to see his funeral done the way he would've liked it done.

P.S. By the way, I really wished Bush Jr. wasn't there either. Seriously, I don't want the occasion turned into a political rally.

Of course,if anyone calls them on that,they'll repeat the big lie about Wellstone's funeral.
It was no lie, I listened to the tape of that Funeral.

If Clinton died, do you think they'd want Bush Sr. or Jr. speaking at his Funeral? Uh.... no.

You listened to the tape huh?

How much of it?
A total of around two and a half hours, I kept it in the car and listened to portions on the way to school for a week and a half.

Excuse me, but who was Wellstone, what was the big lie, and what's the big deal about his funeral?

If I were the guy who showed the world that reagans "Voodoo" econmics doesnt work, even though its being used by Bush today.....

I wouldnt be expected there either.

Ah, but they were working.

But I believe Clinton's plans worked better, I am a democrat becuase of him, I support higher taxes, we need the money, has anyone looked at the national debt lately? It is going up because of Bush's tax cuts and interest rate slashes, we need to pay off that money, under Clinton's plans were would have had the deby payed off in ten years (Defense budget slashed, which was the opposite of Reagan's plans). But then again, after we paid off the debt, which the interest alone takes away 1/3 of our budget each year, our defense spending could go up even higher than it was before, since we no longer have to pay interest on our debt.

And we should realy try to keep politics out of the funeral for a dead President, who cares about their policies, they are dead now, they deserved to be honored, they were given power by the American people to do what they felt was right for the country, we are just as much to blame for any short fallings of the President since we were the ones who put them into power.

Excuse me, but who was Wellstone, what was the big lie, and what's the big deal about his funeral?
He was a Liberal Poltician who died in a plane crash. His funeral was used shamelessly by the Democrats as a political rally, lots of anti-Bush/anti-Republican rhetoric.

Worst part? He was a devout Jew, and there was no Rabbi there. No incantation for the dead, nothing.

Liberals claim this is not what happened. They call this fact about a funeral being ruined a "lie".

Excuse me, but who was Wellstone, what was the big lie, and what's the big deal about his funeral?

He was a senator from Minnesota, he died in a plane crash, his funeral was attended my ten thousand Democrats, it quickly turned into a political rally for the Democratic Party. Jesse Ventura, the former Independant Governer of Minnesota was very upset by this, the thing I thought odd was that it was Wellstone's own son who turned it into a rally, rather than a funeral.

A total of around two and a half hours, I kept it in the car and listened to portions on the way to school for a week and a half.Then you listened with your mind made up ahead of time because only about five minutes of that ceremony could be considered over the top. Just because people decided to celebrate Wellstone's life instead of mourn his death doesn't mean it was a political rally.

And as to the original topic--look, Nancy Reagan is well within her right to decide who speaks at her husband's funeral, and I don't imagine Clinton begrudges her that. My bet is he wanted to speak at Reagan's funeral to honor the man that he'll be forever linked with in historical terms--the only other two full term president in the last 40 years of the 20th century. When historians talk about the major figures of the last 40 years, will they talk about Gerald Ford? Poppy Bush? Nope--it'll be Reagan and Clinton and the disgrace of Nixon.

It's obvious that Clinton respected Reagan--he dedicated the Reagan building in Washington DC while he was President and offered an extremely classy public statement of condolences when Reagan died, not to mention his full on support of stem cell research while he was President. So don't read too much into this--that's all I'm saying.

(Defense budget slashed, which was the opposite of Reagan's plans).

thats acually a myth.
remember, th current President uses the military that the former President built.

So..Bush is using the military that Clinton built, in Iraq, and Afghanistan.

(Defense budget slashed, which was the opposite of Reagan's plans).

thats acually a myth.
remember, th current President uses the military that the former President built.

So..Bush is using the military that Clinton built, in Iraq, and Afghanistan.And the only reason it's stretched beyond capacity is because it's been misused and asked to do too much.

It was no lie, I listened to the tape of that Funeral.

Do yourself a favor. Listen to the part where Trent Lott is booed. Then go and listen to the part where Clinton and others are cheered. Notice a difference in decibel levels?

There are other things that point to the Wellstone funeral as little more than an ordinary funeral for an extraordinary individual,but as usual,the right wing echo chamber refused to look at what was glaringly obvious.

BTW,when Hillary was booed at a 9/11 memorial benefitting the firefighters who lost their lives,Rush Limbaugh had the guy who led the booing on the next day as his "Dittohead Hero of the Day." Were you outraged at that?

Not to mention that essentially the only segment, spoken by the deceased's son, was essentially a call for bi-partisanship.

Right wing media hears it..and gets going.....

(Defense budget slashed, which was the opposite of Reagan's plans).

thats acually a myth.
remember, th current President uses the military that the former President built.

So..Bush is using the military that Clinton built, in Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Half the Army Bush is using is the National Guard. We only have 900,000 troops, I am sure Clinton had more.

The fact is that I am not expecting to see either of the Bushes at Clinton's funeral. In fact, I hope Clinton doesn't die during an election year, because it will be an entire day of speech-making no matter who the incumbent is.

I agree with not having Clinton or Pelosi speak. Clinton would grandstand and Pelosi would make a Kerry campaign speach. Neither are appropriate.

That said, I will be extremely upset if Bush makes any sort of reference to his current campaign. He is gaining in the polls again (back to a statistical tie according to the recent Zogby poll) and stands to do nothing but benefit as long as his eulogy sticks to the achievements of President Reagan. If Bush tries to turn it into a campaign speach he will find quite a few Republicans staying home come November, and right now his re-election depends on who actually shows up to vote.

What is the worst offence;
Arms for hostages or
Sex with interns and denials of same

If I were the guy who showed the world that reagans "Voodoo" econmics doesnt work, even though its being used by Bush today.....

I wouldnt be expected there either.

Ah, but they were working.

But I believe Clinton's plans worked better, I am a democrat becuase of him, I support higher taxes, we need the money, has anyone looked at the national debt lately? It is going up because of Bush's tax cuts and interest rate slashes, we need to pay off that money, under Clinton's plans were would have had the deby payed off in ten years (Defense budget slashed, which was the opposite of Reagan's plans). But then again, after we paid off the debt, which the interest alone takes away 1/3 of our budget each year, our defense spending could go up even higher than it was before, since we no longer have to pay interest on our debt.

And we should realy try to keep politics out of the funeral for a dead President, who cares about their policies, they are dead now, they deserved to be honored, they were given power by the American people to do what they felt was right for the country, we are just as much to blame for any short fallings of the President since we were the ones who put them into power.

Oh yes..slash the Defense Budget instead of superflous social programs for which there is no Constitutional Mandate....yep..that makes sense..

Now..as that was off-topic..Clinton should be just shut the hell up, it's been pretty much tradition for former Presidents to stay out of the limelight, Clinton is the first one to break that tradition. He's got his book, and his wife has his testicles. Nancy if nothing else should have the power to determine who the hell spoke at her husband's funeral, and its no secret she didn't like Clinton..so there ya have it..the wife of the deceased has determined that an individual shouldnt be at her husband's funeral.

Now..as that was off-topic..Clinton should be just shut the hell up, it's been pretty much tradition for former Presidents to stay out of the limelight, Clinton is the first one to break that tradition. He's got his book, and his wife has his testicles. Nancy if nothing else should have the power to determine who the hell spoke at her husband's funeral, and its no secret she didn't like Clinton..so there ya have it..the wife of the deceased has determined that an individual shouldnt be at her husband's funeral.

What a crock!

Sorry, but pretty much EVERY ex-president has stayed active and in the limelight after retirement - if they were able. The get trotted out at conventions, write articles and books, give interviews, and some even continue work for the government as policy advisors or negotiators. Bush Senior is an exception in that regard, but he has probably only toned it down during his son's tenure because of how any slight misstatement might harm his son.

Let's go back shall we?

clinton? Stayed Active.
Reagan? Had Alzheimers - so no he didn't
Carter? Became a very effective statesman used as an envoy for many negotiations in the Middle East and elsewhere. Stayed in the limelight to promote things that mattered to him - like Habitat For Humanity.
Ford? Still writes articles, still gets' interviewed. Also an elder statesman trotted out to do things from time to time.
Nixon? Helll - even NIXON was treated with respect by the end.
Johnston? Died shortly after leaving office - still remained active in brokering the peace treaties he had been working on before he left.
KEnnedy? There was no "after office"
Ike? Went back to the army. Stayed in the limelight.
Truman? OK - he was fairly quiet.
FDR? No "after office"
Hoover? Both Presidents Truman and Eisenhower had him head up commissions to do major government re-orgs. Also stayed int he public by writing many articles and books, hell - he was still working on another book when he died at age 90.

How far back do I have to go? you think that Jefferson and Washington weren't the types to stay in the limelight of American Politics? Puhleease! It was in their blood!


Fine. You don't like Clinton. We get it.


Just try and stick to the facts shall we?

:roll:

Clinton rocks.

Clinton rocks.

The words "Clinton" and "rocks" must be used very carefully in the same sentance....

Clinton rocks.

The words "Clinton" and "rocks" must be used very carefully in the same sentance....

I think I used them fine in that "sentance." Sentence I should say.

Clinton is a good guy.

Keeping in mind of course that "DRUDGE REPORT " is also the same people who lied outright about Kerry having an affair with an intern. Nice try.. but no cigar. "DRUDGE REPORT " can't be trusted. Their opinions are vile at best.

Who cares if Clinton had an affair. Really. Everyone makes mistakes. Besides, if I was with Hilary, I'd go insane.

But the real reason is because that's his personal life. Not his political life.

Reagan was never implicated in the Iranian arms for hostages affair, except in the small minds of liberal democrats.
Clinton, however, did lie to a grand jury.
See how "denials of same" does not do justice to the ACTUAL events that
got Clinton impeached?
And notice how the statement "Arms for hostages" implies that Reagan
most definitely was not only aware, but in charge of the scandal he inherited?
This is non-factual, liberal crap.









What is the worst offence;
Arms for hostages or
Sex with interns and denials of same

Reagan was never implicated in the Iranian arms for hostages affair, except in the small minds of liberal democrats.
Clinton, however, did lie to a grand jury.
See how "denials of same" does not do justice to the ACTUAL events that
got Clinton impeached?
And notice how the statement "Arms for hostages" implies that Reagan
most definitely was not only aware, but in charge of the scandal he inherited?
This is non-factual, liberal crap

The operations (I'm not sure you're old enough to remember when Reagan was in office) could not of been carried out by the CIA without the President knowing about it. The operations were quite extensive. I believe the general thinking at the time was "of course Reagan knew about it" but he had Ollie North take the fall for every thing. This is not un-common. Sort of like how now in America they're going to try and pin every thing on George Tenet. Bullsh*t. If Tenet knew, the president knew.

The Reagan Administration's policies nearly killed hundreds of millions of people.

Reagan was never implicated in the Iranian arms for hostages affair, except in the small minds of liberal democrats.
Clinton, however, did lie to a grand jury.
See how "denials of same" does not do justice to the ACTUAL events that
got Clinton impeached?
And notice how the statement "Arms for hostages" implies that Reagan
most definitely was not only aware, but in charge of the scandal he inherited?
This is non-factual, liberal crap.




So, what you are saying is that if it's a President you like, you don't care what went on under his administration a long as he just says "Gosh - I don't remember that ...." when asked?


I guess the real question then is - do you LIKE stupid people running your country? Or just people who act that way? Or is it just people who are titularly "running the country" while expressing a complete lack of knowledge of what the country is actually doing in their name? i.e incompetent rather than stupid?

Liberal crap?

You really think somebody would work out a deal like that without approval? The very best possible scenario is Reagan saying "get them out no matter what!" and not doing the due dilligence to find out what the "what" entailed. That still implies recklessness of action by the CinC of willfull blindness to what his subordinates were up to.


-Z-

The Reagan Administration's policies nearly killed hundreds of millions of people.

And helped lead to the freedom of hundreds of millions more in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union....if it had not been his conviction that the Communist way of life, however perverted or corrupted (just for you socialists/leftists/communists/anarchists who insist that they weren't really communist) was something that had to be destroyed. how many of those countries in the Soviet sphere of influence might have still been in that iron grip not even including the USSR itself.

Certainly, I remember, and even believe myself that Reagan knew.
I am sure you remember that not only Ollie, but also the Secretary of State and others shouldered the blame for the affair. Do you recall that
Reagan used to field lots of questions about the matter, at least until the
USSR began to fall, and rescued his legacy? He never once made a statement which would contradict the idea that he had delegated enough authority for the "scandal" to occur without his expressed consent. Sort of unlikely that he could keep all the lies that straight, give that most liberals believe Reagan to be a dim-wit. The truth is that Reagan committed no crime!
Lying to a grand jury, be it about sex or otherwise, is a crime, a felony
in fact.

I am not sure of your implication regarding Bush and Tenet, but if it is that there was a blatant failure to prevent 9/11, you can attribute that to the firewall established between FBI and CIA by the Clinton Administration, Jamie Gorelick in particular. Why was it done? To protect Clinton's sorry ass from being exposed as an habitaul liar/predator. Remember Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick.etc......?











quote="Stephistan"]Reagan was never implicated in the Iranian arms for hostages affair, except in the small minds of liberal democrats.
Clinton, however, did lie to a grand jury.
See how "denials of same" does not do justice to the ACTUAL events that
got Clinton impeached?
And notice how the statement "Arms for hostages" implies that Reagan
most definitely was not only aware, but in charge of the scandal he inherited?
This is non-factual, liberal crap

The operations (I'm not sure you're old enough to remember when Reagan was in office) could not of been carried out by the CIA without the President knowing about it. The operations were quite extensive. I believe the general thinking at the time was "of course Reagan knew about it" but he had Ollie North take the fall for every thing. This is not un-common. Sort of like how now in America they're going to try and pin every thing on George Tenet. Bullsh*t. If Tenet knew, the president knew.[/quote]

The Reagan Administration's policies nearly killed hundreds of millions of people.

And helped lead to the freedom of hundreds of millions more in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union....if it had not been his conviction that the Communist way of life, however perverted or corrupted (just for you socialists/leftists/communists/anarchists who insist that they weren't really communist) was something that had to be destroyed. how many of those countries in the Soviet sphere of influence might have still been in that iron grip not even including the USSR itself.

There is no possible outcome of not launching the missles that is worse than launching them. That's the point of having nuclear weapons.

Clinton lied about a bj. Clinton lied about a bj. Clinton lied about a bj. Clinton lied about a bj. Clinton lied about a bj. Clinton lied about a bj. Clinton lied about a bj. Clinton lied about a bj. Clinton lied about a bj.

Can't you come up with anything else?

lol, get over it! It was a Bj. don't you get it? It doesnt come close to murder or foreign innocents. Something the Republicans seem to be very fond of.

The Reagan Administration's policies nearly killed hundreds of millions of people.

And helped lead to the freedom of hundreds of millions more in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union....if it had not been his conviction that the Communist way of life, however perverted or corrupted (just for you socialists/leftists/communists/anarchists who insist that they weren't really communist) was something that had to be destroyed. how many of those countries in the Soviet sphere of influence might have still been in that iron grip not even including the USSR itself.

There is no possible outcome of not launching the missles that is worse than launching them. That's the point of having nuclear weapons.

Better a bluff and rest assured, both sides were bluffing..MAD was a very real scenario on both sides of the Iron Curtain..then appeasement and allow for the Soviet Sphere and it's influence to remain.....let's see...possible outcomes...Eastern Europe now members of NATO and free, former enemies in China and Vietnam adopting western style economic models..no more soviet influence in Africa and South America, the only real shadow left is Castro and when he dies..I give Cuba a generation before they too are free.

Certainly, I remember, and even believe myself that Reagan knew.
I am sure you remember that not only Ollie, but also the Secretary of State and others shouldered the blame for the affair. Do you recall that
Reagan used to field lots of questions about the matter, at least until the
USSR began to fall, and rescued his legacy? He never once made a statement which would contradict the idea that he had delegated enough authority for the "scandal" to occur without his expressed consent. Sort of unlikely that he could keep all the lies that straight, give that most liberals believe Reagan to be a dim-wit. The truth is that Reagan committed no crime!
Lying to a grand jury, be it about sex or otherwise, is a crime, a felony
in fact.



Well, you seem to be contradicting yourself big-time here.

You also believe that Reagan knew. You also know that Reagan stated to the investigation that "he didn't remember". Which would then also be a lie and an impeachable defense.

So the only hair that you are splitting is that Clinton lied and got caught, but Reagan lied and got away with it. Thanks, in large part, to the fact that Ollie North actually broke his shredder disposing of documentation of the meetings leading up to the sale.

Well I guess that makes it all OK then.....

And it still didn't change the fact that Reagan had approved (and admitted doing so) an arms sale specifically forbidden by a Congressional ruling banning support of the Contras.

He should have been impeached.

So - you can point to Clinton getting caught and get all self-righteous about it if you like. But as long as you believe that Reagan lied too, but that he was just more successfull at it, then you are being hypocritical about how you treat the actual offense.

Umm, Clinton didn't lie, he merely decieved the public. He said he didn't have sexual contact with Monica, he doesn't consider Oral to be sexual contact, so he didn't lie, he just didn't tell the whole truth.

And I don't think politics really had anything to do with Clinton not being invited.

He actually didn't lie to a grand jury--that's something the Republicans proffer as the truth--but it isn't. He fully admitted the affair, and furthermore admitted sexual contact. The point of dispute is WHERE he touched Lewinsky. He said "There", and she said, "Here". Big wooping deal.

Can't say as that happened, but the guy is a not the type of person that Reagan would have ever associated himself with, ever.

A leader of the free world?

The man is one of a few people that has held the same job as Reagan had.
Like his policies or not...having a President speak at your funeral is a damn honor.Having Bill Clinton speak at his funeral would not have been an honor to Ronald Reagan, the man diminshed the office, and he tarninshed the reputaion of the American Presidency forever.

Well buddy.

You need to study the history of the Presidency to make that claim. Many Presidents have had affairs while in office. Many have done particularly uncooth things as well. Would it be honorable to the position to have a President get into bar fights? ;)

Clinton was rather tame when compared to others....

Reagan was never implicated in the Iranian arms for hostages affair,
Reagan got other to pay for his wrongdoing...

Umm, Clinton didn't lie, he merely decieved the public. He said he didn't have sexual contact with Monica, he doesn't consider Oral to be sexual contact, so he didn't lie, he just didn't tell the whole truth.

Why does the public need to know who the President is bonking?

For all that family value crap; they sure seem to have a perverse desire to know things that people don't normally talk about in public.

As for Clinton...well, he stretched the military to its breaking point with his reckless humanitarian missions. Then, he had an affair with an intern, and later stood up in front of 270 million Americans, and lied about it. That just sealed it.

As for Reagan, well...I'm only saying this once. The man is deceased. This is not the time to continue criticizing him.

The man is deceased. This is not the time to continue criticizing him.
YEAH i think we should wait 24 hours after his dead....for anybody...Hitler...Stalin...Osama...Reagan...

We should keep the silence for at least 24 hours.

Umm, Clinton didn't lie, he merely decieved the public. He said he didn't have sexual contact with Monica, he doesn't consider Oral to be sexual contact, so he didn't lie, he just didn't tell the whole truth.

So if I understand correctly, putting my c**k in someone's mouth would not be sexual contact? If you can reason that oral sex is not sex, can you then reason that anal sex is not sex?

And also, if he had done this off the clock and not in my house (Yes I pay taxes, MY HOUSE), I wouldn't care. He did this on my dime, and until he can hook me up on the job, I'll continue to think this way.

As for Clinton...well, he stretched the military to its breaking point with his reckless humanitarian missions. Then, he had an affair with an intern, and later stood up in front of 270 million Americans, and lied about it. That just sealed it.

As for Reagan, well...I'm only saying this once. The man is deceased. This is not the time to continue criticizing him.

Ive said this before, and I'll say it again.

A President uses the military, that the PREVIOUS administration builds.
So, in effect, Bush is using the military that CLINTON built.

You know.....the greatest military on the planet.......yah..that one.

Umm, Clinton didn't lie, he merely decieved the public. He said he didn't have sexual contact with Monica, he doesn't consider Oral to be sexual contact, so he didn't lie, he just didn't tell the whole truth.

So if I understand correctly, putting my c**k in someone's mouth would not be sexual contact? If you can reason that oral sex is not sex, can you then reason that anal sex is not sex?

And also, if he had done this off the clock and not in my house (Yes I pay taxes, MY HOUSE), I wouldn't care. He did this on my dime, and until he can hook me up on the job, I'll continue to think this way.
He's making fun of Clinton. :wink:

If I were the guy who showed the world that reagans "Voodoo" econmics doesnt work, even though its being used by Bush today.....

I wouldnt be expected there either.

Funny he reduced the misery index...

http://www.everythingiknowiswrong.com/2004/04/wictory_wednesd_1.html

http://www.poorandstupid.com/2004_04_11_chronArchive.asp

http://www.icmarc.org/xp/vl/marketview/chart/

If I were the guy who showed the world that reagans "Voodoo" econmics doesnt work, even though its being used by Bush today.....

I wouldnt be expected there either.

Funny he reduced the misery index...

http://www.everythingiknowiswrong.com/2004/04/wictory_wednesd_1.html

http://www.poorandstupid.com/2004_04_11_chronArchive.asp

http://www.icmarc.org/xp/vl/marketview/chart/

and The Bush/reagan plan TRIPLED the national debt.

If I were the guy who showed the world that reagans "Voodoo" econmics doesnt work, even though its being used by Bush today.....

I wouldnt be expected there either.

Funny he reduced the misery index...

http://www.everythingiknowiswrong.com/2004/04/wictory_wednesd_1.html

http://www.poorandstupid.com/2004_04_11_chronArchive.asp

http://www.icmarc.org/xp/vl/marketview/chart/

and The Bush/reagan plan TRIPLED the national debt.

Yup. But Reagonomics did work in the ways that administration wanted it to. They were concerned with stagflation, not the deficit and so...

If I were the guy who showed the world that reagans "Voodoo" econmics doesnt work, even though its being used by Bush today.....

I wouldnt be expected there either.

Funny he reduced the misery index...

http://www.everythingiknowiswrong.com/2004/04/wictory_wednesd_1.html

http://www.poorandstupid.com/2004_04_11_chronArchive.asp

http://www.icmarc.org/xp/vl/marketview/chart/

and The Bush/reagan plan TRIPLED the national debt.

Yup. But Reagonomics did work in the ways that administration wanted it to. They were concerned with stagflation, not the deficit and so...

I would have to disagree with you there.
The idea was not to tripled the national debt, nor be crushed under inflation.
the idea was to stimulate the economy by giving the tax cuts to the top end, and thereby stimulate the economy that way.
The idea wss, that if the top end earners /business owners are given tax cuts, then they have more money to hire employees, who are rabid consumers like everyone else....and this helps the economy boom.
The trouble was..and still is...that the plan also inceases the national debt, and inflates the cost of living...and thus.....no jobs.no economic boom.

Clinton did the opposite...gave the tax cuts to the lower end..and they turned around and had more money to spend back into the system.

Quick quiz for you...

Wich plan worked better?

Reagan didn't really care about the deficit. He claimed that it was big enough to look after itself.

Reagan went form a misery index of 20.6 (Carter) to a 11.8 (first 4 years).
Clinton went form a 10.5 to an 8.4. Verdict for Reagan. Where is your numbers?

Reagan didn't really care about the deficit. He claimed that it was big enough to look after itself.

Reagan went form a misery index of 20.6 (Carter) to a 11.8 (first 4 years).
Clinton went form a 10.5 to an 8.4. Verdict for Reagan. Where is your numbers?

The proof is in the pudding.

The U.S experienced its greatest period of economic growth, under the Clinton Administration.

Greatest period ever.

If I were the guy who showed the world that reagans "Voodoo" econmics doesnt work, even though its being used by Bush today.....

I wouldnt be expected there either.

Lol. Good point. Although I think Bush claims the Margaret Thatcher crap that's long since been disporved by the rest of the Enlighened omniverse.

Under Clinton, the share of wages paid for both income and payroll taxes was 0% (200)In 2002, it was -6.9%. There wasn't huge economic growth during that time, although now in the past few months there has been huge job growth.

Reagan didn't really care about the deficit. He claimed that it was big enough to look after itself.

Reagan went form a misery index of 20.6 (Carter) to a 11.8 (first 4 years).
Clinton went form a 10.5 to an 8.4. Verdict for Reagan. Where is your numbers?

The proof is in the pudding.

The U.S experienced its greatest period of economic growth, under the Clinton Administration.

Check out rate of growth. Reagan improved the economy 8.8 points, Clinton only 2.1 points. Clinton while decent doesn't hold a candle to Reagan.

Reagan didn't really care about the deficit. He claimed that it was big enough to look after itself.

Reagan went form a misery index of 20.6 (Carter) to a 11.8 (first 4 years).
Clinton went form a 10.5 to an 8.4. Verdict for Reagan. Where is your numbers?

The proof is in the pudding.

The U.S experienced its greatest period of economic growth, under the Clinton Administration.

Check out rate of growth. Reagan increased 8.8 points, Clinton only 2.1 points. Clinton while decent doesn't hold a candle to Reagan.

Your only looking at part of the package.
You have to look at the total growth.

When you do that.....like I said....its a proven fact that the US experienced its greatest period of econmic growth in its entire history.

Reagan wasnt bad.....he had a good idea, but just didnt have quite the results he wanted.

Reagan didn't really care about the deficit. He claimed that it was big enough to look after itself.

Reagan went form a misery index of 20.6 (Carter) to a 11.8 (first 4 years).
Clinton went form a 10.5 to an 8.4. Verdict for Reagan. Where is your numbers?

The proof is in the pudding.

The U.S experienced its greatest period of economic growth, under the Clinton Administration.

Check out rate of growth. Reagan increased 8.8 points, Clinton only 2.1 points. Clinton while decent doesn't hold a candle to Reagan.

Your only looking at part of the package.
You have to look at the total growth.

When you do that.....like I said....its a proven fact that the US experienced its greatest period of econmic growth in its entire history.

Reagan wasnt bad.....he had a good idea, but just didnt have quite the results he wanted.

Oh all right Reagon beat Clinton on the GDP growth rate as well.

Can't we just agree that Bush is a fiendish civil rights - quelling Nazi and be done with it?

Under Clinton, the share of wages paid for both income and payroll taxes was 0% (200)In 2002, it was -6.9%. There wasn't huge economic growth during that time, although now in the past few months there has been huge job growth.
Clinton has the 3rd highest economic growth rate in the past 50 years. Who had higher growth rates? Only Kennedy (1st) and Johnson (2nd).

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_gdp50.gif

I was talking about between 2000 and 2002. To discredit the theory of "More money for poor people = more growth".

Reagan didn't really care about the deficit. He claimed that it was big enough to look after itself.

Reagan went form a misery index of 20.6 (Carter) to a 11.8 (first 4 years).
Clinton went form a 10.5 to an 8.4. Verdict for Reagan. Where is your numbers?

The proof is in the pudding.

The U.S experienced its greatest period of economic growth, under the Clinton Administration.

Greatest period ever.


So are you saying it was because of Clinton's economic policies? Yes, the economy grew a good deal. But the Internet boom was going to happen no matter who was in the White House.


Also, why do you liberals whine so much about the national debt? Hello, we were in a recession. In a recession, you have to stimulate the economy somehow. Lowering taxes has proven to be a pretty good way of doing that, and the strength of the economy's rebound has shown it. And before you try to blame the recession on Bush, remember: In 2000, Bush campaigned that the country was headed for recession. He knew about it as it was happening and wasn't going to lie about it to the American people.

So there was a recession Bush inherited, which he's fixed handily by lowering taxes. Which has caused there to be a federal deficit. It had to happen, or we'd still be stuck in recession. So the whining is pointless and misleading.

GDP Clinton, Misery Index Reagan. I choose to fight Misery.

I was talking about between 2000 and 2002. To discredit the theory of "More money for poor people = more growth".
Well it is a well known FACT that if you give poor people more money, they will spend ALL of it. How is it that poverty has increased under Bush?


although now in the past few months there has been huge job growth.
Yet the unemployment figure is the same as it was in December 2003??

The latest on job growth...

Gains for March at 337,000 in new jobs.

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_jobspict_20040507

The latest on job growth...

Gains for March at 337,000 in new jobs.

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_jobspict_20040507
This is June and the figures are out for May:

Unemployment (Household Survey Data)

The number of unemployed persons was essentially unchanged at 8.2 million in May, and the unemployment rate held at 5.6 percent. The unemployment rate has been either 5.6 or 5.7 percent in each month since December 2003.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

So, although jobs are being created, they are barely outstripping the net new jobs that are required for people joining the workforce.

The latest on job growth...

Gains for March at 337,000 in new jobs.

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_jobspict_20040507
This is June and the figures are out for May:

Unemployment (Household Survey Data)

The number of unemployed persons was essentially unchanged at 8.2 million in May, and the unemployment rate held at 5.6 percent. The unemployment rate has been either 5.6 or 5.7 percent in each month since December 2003.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

So, although jobs are being created, they are barely outstripping the net new jobs that are required for people joining the workforce.

I agree, and the rate of growth seems to be accelerating.

Something all you armchair economists seem to be forgetting when comparing Clinton and Reagan is that Reagan had more to work with--the economy was bottomed out thanks in part to oil prices that in today's dollars would be somewhere around $88 a barrel, and it had nowhere to go but up.

Reagan deserves this credit--in '81 he slashed taxes. In '82, when it became obvious that his budget was unsustainable, he raised taxes. He raised them again in '83, '84 and '85, before cutting them again in '86. He gets credit for being a pragmatist--when it was obvious that the lower taxes weren't bringing in needed revenues, he raised taxes. But an economic rebound was almost inevitable under Reagan, simply because we were in such a deep hole that a climb was bound to happen.

The amazing thing about the Clinton economy--and let's be fair, if you're going to give Reagan credit, you have to give Clinton credit--is that he managed such great growth from a position of relative strength (compared to the position Reagan inherited) and managed to continue that growth without triggering inflation and interest rate hikes.

Clinton lied about a bj. Clinton lied about a bj. Clinton lied about a bj. Clinton lied about a bj. Clinton lied about a bj. Clinton lied about a bj. Clinton lied about a bj. Clinton lied about a bj. Clinton lied about a bj.

Can't you come up with anything else?

lol, get over it! It was a Bj. don't you get it? It doesnt come close to murder or foreign innocents. Something the Republicans seem to be very fond of.

If Clinton wanted to speak at Reagan's funeral, he shouldn't have been gettin no blowjobs.

and Reagan sold arms to the Contras......whos gonna pick nits?

My thoughts exactly.

Something all you armchair economists seem to be forgetting when comparing Clinton and Reagan is that Reagan had more to work with--the economy was bottomed out thanks in part to oil prices that in today's dollars would be somewhere around $88 a barrel, and it had nowhere to go but up.

Reagan deserves this credit--in '81 he slashed taxes. In '82, when it became obvious that his budget was unsustainable, he raised taxes. He raised them again in '83, '84 and '85, before cutting them again in '86. He gets credit for being a pragmatist--when it was obvious that the lower taxes weren't bringing in needed revenues, he raised taxes. But an economic rebound was almost inevitable under Reagan, simply because we were in such a deep hole that a climb was bound to happen.

The amazing thing about the Clinton economy--and let's be fair, if you're going to give Reagan credit, you have to give Clinton credit--is that he managed such great growth from a position of relative strength (compared to the position Reagan inherited) and managed to continue that growth without triggering inflation and interest rate hikes.

I guess this is why I don't really give Reagan or Clinton full credit for the economic growth during their administrations. Sure, I'll give them credit with their actions in fiscal policy: Reagan lowered taxes to stimulate the economy while Clinton raised them to keep inflation in check. I still believe, however, that technological advances and the Fed's monetary policies deserve more credit than either President. Of course, if the economy tanks, we all know who gets the blame...

Um, yes, because having a president who suffers from Alzheimers is something to be proud of? Thank goodness for Nancy and his very supportive white house staff those last few years.

And lay off Clinton for the extra-marital sex, will you? It's not like he was the first one to get a little on the side, and he won't be the last.

What does a president's sex life have to do with their presidency?

This may have been said already but the letters which were published in a book awhile back show that Reagan was fully aware in his last years as President. Alzheimers did not show up until 1991-92. Unless you wish to says the letters a conspiracy theory and blah blah blah..

This may have been said already but the letters which were published in a book awhile back show that Reagan was fully aware in his last years as President. Alzheimers did not show up until 1991-92. Unless you wish to says the letters a conspiracy theory and blah blah blah..Let me say this as a person whose father is in the early years of Alzheimers and who has been for the last 3 years. My dad has long periods of lucidity to this day, and if you didn't know him, until about a year ago, you might nver have even suspected that he had Alzheimers. It's not like the disease debilitates the sufferer in a week--it's a long and drawn out process. To this day--and he has more bad days than good ones these days--my dad can still write letters of the quality he did when I was a kid. Not often, but he can do it.

All I'm saying is that a selection of letters from the end of Reagan's presidency is not proof positive that he wasn't already affected. It's not proof he was either. The truth is that the only people who know for certain whether or not he was affected by Alzheimers at the end of his term are the people most dedicated to preserving Reagan's legacy--his family and his closest advisors. And if they're covering for him in order to protect that, I don't blame them. I would do the same for my father.

This may have been said already but the letters which were published in a book awhile back show that Reagan was fully aware in his last years as President. Alzheimers did not show up until 1991-92. Unless you wish to says the letters a conspiracy theory and blah blah blah..Let me say this as a person whose father is in the early years of Alzheimers and who has been for the last 3 years. My dad has long periods of lucidity to this day, and if you didn't know him, until about a year ago, you might nver have even suspected that he had Alzheimers. It's not like the disease debilitates the sufferer in a week--it's a long and drawn out process. To this day--and he has more bad days than good ones these days--my dad can still write letters of the quality he did when I was a kid. Not often, but he can do it.

All I'm saying is that a selection of letters from the end of Reagan's presidency is not proof positive that he wasn't already affected. It's not proof he was either. The truth is that the only people who know for certain whether or not he was affected by Alzheimers at the end of his term are the people most dedicated to preserving Reagan's legacy--his family and his closest advisors. And if they're covering for him in order to protect that, I don't blame them. I would do the same for my father.

Reagan was in office until 88. If you track the progression of his Alzheimers from his death backwards it'd first start showing up in the early 90s. Its a sad fact, but people afflicted with the disease only have about 10-12 years left after that. However, if Reagan was in the early stages of the disease when he was in office then it wouldnt have been as noticable or dangerous to the government as some would want to make it seem. Frankly it'd seem odd but nothing like after 3-4 years of its progression.

The thing about Alzheimers is that depending on the overall health of the sufferer, the sufferer can survive anywhere from 10 to 25 years after initial onset. After 3 to 4, you're right, it's usually painfully noticeable.

Again--I'm not saying that Reagan had it when he was in office, just that your evidence doesn't necessarily make that case. If we had every bit of correspondence, perhaps, but a selection is by definition selective and so is a poor piece of evidence.

As for Reagan, well...I'm only saying this once. The man is deceased. This is not the time to continue criticizing him.

So,does this mean we shouldn't criticize any president after they're dead?

As for Reagan, well...I'm only saying this once. The man is deceased. This is not the time to continue criticizing him.

So,does this mean we shouldn't criticize any president after they're dead?

No one is saying that. He probably means the recently deceased should be given some leeway. Frankly the generalites have been rather nasty when it comes to this kind of respect.

As for Reagan, well...I'm only saying this once. The man is deceased. This is not the time to continue criticizing him.

So,does this mean we shouldn't criticize any president after they're dead?

No one is saying that. He probably means the recently deceased should be given some leeway. Frankly the generalites have been rather nasty when it comes to this kind of respect.

Gotcha. Just checking.