Reptile & Amphibian Forums

The oldest president in our country's history has died.

Ronald Reagan inhertited a Untited States presidency that was of a nation that had been shamed by our defeat in Vietnam and economically endangered by his predesessors.

Those of us who remember him know him as "the great communicator" and a gentleman. His biggest impact to this country was to usher in a return to the pride we had lost in the preceeding years. He never backed down when it came to our defence.

He is critisized today by people who only think of Iran-contra (which he denied involvement in ...but publicly took responsibilty for,) and Star Wars...a defense plan that seemed outlandish, but which actually stimulated the financial downfall of the Soviet Union; by drawing them into an arms race that they could not afford. In Russia today...they remember him as a liberator of their country from Communisim.

The Reagan years were prosperous for this country (inspite of the bashing of so called Reaganomics you hear today).

Reagan was an actor as well staring in over 50 movies.

It seems fashionable today to bash our leaders (and many deserve it) But Reagan belonged to an older America....one that was simpler...and better than today. It is wrong to judge him by today's standards.

Like him or not, our country is poorer for the loss of him.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Ronald Reagans policy was a significant contribution to make the re-unification of Germany possible.
In my opinion he was one of the most straightforward and best leaders the U.S. ever had. It is a pity that the U.S. constitution does not allow a third period in office for such a great presidents.

A great loss for the U.S. and the western world! The loss is even more palpably when you take a look at those who followed him in his office.
-----
The #1 Boa constrictor site in the world wide web

One of the most important aspects of our governance is the limited 2 terms - we grew out of, and in reaction to, the life long kings of Europe. Our founding fathers saw first hand what these long terms resulted in. Our 2 term system developed from it. Lets trust the founding fathers and follow their guidelines. Lets not pretend that anyone of us are smarter and could devise a better system, OK?

Reagan was great in a number of ways. But he was elected on a "smaller government", lower taxes platform. He left office with a much, much larger gov't and a defecit that caused real problems for many years. They say he was a great communicator, but almost every one of his great lines were written for him. He may have been a good communicator, but he may have also been a good reader of lines - ie, a good actor.

Reagan was in office when the USSR dissolved and the wall came down. But to pretend that those who came before him didn't play an equally important role is disingenuous. We lost 200,000 fighting communism after WWII - it wasn't all fought and won in the 80s! Reagan started Star Wars, which was delusional from a technological perspective, but may have scared the Russians into believing we were closer to it than we were. I had a good friend who worked on Star Wars as a theoretical physicist and he said they all did crosswords every day because there was simply no science to do. Still, it may have helped persuade Gorbachev to throw in the towel.

Reagan was for small gov't but he built a bigger one. Even so, he broke with some cultural traditions that made economic growth difficult. He fired the air traffic controllers which demonstrated an impatients with unions and workers rights. Unions and workers rights since then have been in a steady decline. As a result, poor are getting poorer, rich getting richer.

Iran-Conra would have brought a lesser president down - it was both illegal and immoral. But Reagan deflected the criticism in part because he was willing to step up and take responsibility for it - something Bush absolutely refuses to do under any circumstances. Next to Reagan, Bush Jr looks mealy mouthed, weak and self serving - not a leader at all.

After Nixon, the Republican party desperately needed a leader. Reagan was a good leader. He had conviction and a vision he was willing to defend. Our current leader has embarrassed the Republican party and the people who supported him initially. Lets hope both parties can find real leaders that are good for our country, and if not, lets hope both party supporters are willing to vote against those that are truley damaging to our country and our long term interests.

One of Reagan's particular talents was an ability to pop out unrehearsed one liners at the drop of a hat. When he was shot for example, he was cracking jokes on the way to the operating room. no prepared speeches there.

He did read his prepared speeches well....and he had the charm of being like everybody's grandpa, which made people trust him...an excellent actor...and an excellent skill for a leader to have.

But don't sell short the great wit and intellegence behind the act. He knew how to play politics and manipulate his opponents well. It was hard for even his political enemies to dislike him. That is why he is so warmly remembered even by those who opposed him.

I would gladly have voted for that third term

AND FOR THE RECORD, Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to serve;

FOUR terms(1932-45. He died in office). Our founding fathers did not limit the amount of terms a president could serve, that limit (2 terms)was placed after FDR's death.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

I knew that too. Thanks for the correction. But I think the term limits are important. We saw, for example, how Bush had to start campaigning, raising money, etc 2/3rds the way into his term - With a 2 year term limit presidents can act more freely and more honestly in their second term. Just look at how freely Clinton acted with Monica

But seriously. Looking at Bush today, we see how he has to play politics. He has limited stem cell research in order to appeal to his radical right fundamentalist segment. Think of that. Here's a guy (Bush) watching his hero die an unimaginably miserable death for a decade, and because his campaign advisor says so, he has to vote against the very research that could help his friend. Thats pretty cowardly of Bush, and something we don't want to promote by extending term limits.

Clinton would have easily won a third term too. But again, probably not a good thing. He had an opportunity to do some good things - some bold things in his second term that he might not have had the guts to do if he was angling for a third term.

Reagan was a good president in many ways - Bush is an embarassment to our country. Look at him back in France trying to beg the French to help us out in Iraq after we acted in defiance of international advice - its humiliating really.

This country deserves great leaders - our current one needs to go.

You are right on-on that "Stem Cell" issue...

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

But Washington did somewhat set a precedent by stepping down after 2.
-----
Andy Maddox
AIM: SurfAndSkimTx04
MSN: Poloboy32486@hotmail.com
Yahoo:surfandskimtx04
Houston Herp Key
The Reptizone

And the sign says "No long hair freaky people need not apply." So I put my hair under my hat and I went in to ask him why. He said you look like a fine outstanding young man I think you'll do. So I took off my hat I said "Imagine that Huh Me working for you."

Thank you for your interesting statement as to Reagan. It is always interesting to hear opinions from someone who is living in the corresponding country because of the better insight.

Personally I see no problem in unlimited terms in office because of the elections that take place regulary. If the voters are not satisfied with the president he will not be elected again.

On the other hand there are great and intelligent people (it's probably a minoriti within the politicians, but they exist). It may be a loss for the country when they have to leave because of the limited terms.

It's too bad that he and his family had to suffer from his "Alzheimer's" symptoms for years prior to his death. Its better to live long, and die quick, than to die very slowly. He was a great president.

Rodney

And its too bad our current president has denied scientists access to stem cells in order to pander to his right wing fundamentalists.

Thats down right immoral.

Bush's policy on embryonic stem cell research is to only allow federal funding for the various strains of stem cells that were already in existence prior to the bill.

Private industry is still able to obtain other strains of stem cells, if they want, but federal tax dollars will not be allowed to be used to subsidize the research on these newer, recently "harvested" strains. This is more of a philosophical argument than a "right wing" argument. Is it ethical to kill more babies, to harvest different strains of embryonic stem cells, so you can possibly save someone with the research that comes from this, when you already have many established strains of stem cells from which you can already work? Is it ethical for the tax payers of this country to continually foot the bill for this research, when biotech corporations will benefit financially from any discoveries?

And, most importantly, scientists are not being prevented access to stem cells! They are only being prevented from getting federal funding (our tax monies) for experimentation on new strains of embryonic stem cells. States can still provide funding, corporations can still provide funding, individuals can still provide funding, federal funding is still available for non-embryonic stem cells and preexisting embryonic stem cell lines. Though I don't think any "tax" funds should be used for this purpose, this point is debatable. If this research is so promising, many corporations would be happy to invest their money in this research. And guess what? They are! So don't misrepresent Bush's plan as preventing scientists access to stem cells, because this clearly is not the case. (Have you been brainwashed by listening only to the liberal media again?)

Rodney

Thats where I disagree with this. There should be no limits on stem cell research.

Just my opinion,

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

I have a differing opinion, and that's fine, but at least we don't misrepresent the facts!

That would be nice, if money was unlimited, but it's not. Every dime the govt. spends, it gets from us. On the other hand, when a corporation is spending its own money on research and development, that's when you get the most bang for the buck. People are very careful with their own money, but not so careful when spending someone else's. The only thing the government is really efficient at is creating red tape and wasting money. With everything else, the private sector is much, much better. I'd much rather see a private corporation spend 10 million of its own dollars (stock holders money) to achieve the same results that 100 million in tax dollars would achieve. --Not to mention, I think that that corporation would then be entitled to it's advances, and the profits from them. This would bring the most medical advances into reality the quickest and the cheapest. I really don't like tax dollars being used in a way that will only benefit certain industries, and then those industries will also make a profit off the tax payers investment. Why should they profit from our investment? Why should we cut their costs, by funding R&D, and them have them benefit from that R&D? Let those companies pay for their own R&D!

It's funny, but one of the criticisms of Bush that I have heard, that is genuine, is his spending. Then, when there is finally something he doesn't fund, many people think he should, and that it sould be unlimited. No wonder there is a deficit.

Rodney

I'm not looking at it from the money angle. When I was 14, I watched my great grandmother vegitate after spending her last years in a lttle room where she had been "put out of harms way". That's what they did in the old days to people with Alzheimers. My grandmother who recently died at 97 also had the disease.

It's not a pretty thing to witness. When I hear people saying we should not study a possible cure for such a disease because of the "right to life issue", I think of them.

Do I care who's money? NO. It's just something that needs to be done alot more than wasting our money on rebuilding a country that is super rich in oil.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Rodney sayz:

"Is it ethical to kill more babies, to harvest different strains of embryonic stem cells, so you can possibly save someone with the research that comes from this..."

People are killing babies in order to harvest stem cells? Hmmmm. Lies are coming fast and easy to you these days rodney ol' boy.

Joe

Please tell me you ar not headed down that old nausiating anti abortion road again....

In a world where over population is a growing problem and thousands are born to die of starvation daily...In a world where the largest Christian Church in the world keeps it's head buried in the ground and refuses to teach sensible birth control...but instead encourages over breeding....

Sorry, but I stopped having any sympathy for Right to Lifer's when they decided murder was justified to "Save the Babies". Total Hypocracy there.

Stem cell research is turning up vital information for the treatment of a variety of diseases, especially Alzheimers. Of course this means nothing to the RTF'ers who could care less for those allready born.

I would like take all of you that so piously denounce this research and have you sit by and watch someone you love mentally rot to death, knowing that the cure is possible-but denied by people who do not respect life after it is born.

That's my opinion.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

I could not have said it better myself! I agree wholeheartedly with ya!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Billy

-----
Genesis 1:1

` Ronald Reagan's domestic policies were masses of contradictions. The S&L scandals were proof of big business run amok.
` His foreign policy was audacious, and an incredible gamble, which he, and we, won. He scared the HELL out of me, in the 80's.
` Ronald Reagan though, was a nice guy. He was an old fashioned gentleman, and a decent human being. He has a GREAT sense of humor, and he didn't mind turning it on himself. He could dish it out, and he could take it, with grace. He really wasn't a politician, and that was part of his charm. He had old fashioned enthusiasm and optimism, for the United States, and he believed a better world could come about. And, damn if he didn't contribute a great deal toward that goal. It is hard to pan a man who was as sincere as he was. He even made a geriatric love affair delightful to see.
` I hated seeing him, and his loved ones suffer so from that awful disease. He was good for the country, and the world. I hope that soon, we get another president as much like him as possible. He actually got me to vote Republican, damn!
-----

It amazes me how people worship him and call him a national hero.
The economy was terrible and the Bush babies followed in his foot steps. He didn't do a damn thing for most of the country ( at least black America) accept toss around one liners. The things they are most recognized for are wars and selling weapons and then lieing about it. That's some legacy.

Like most republicans Reagon was against stem cell harvesting but now his wife wants to open that box now that he suffered from a disease that could possibly be cured.
Your president apparently doesn't care as he said he is sticking to his guns (still being a cowboy).
I can't wait for the elections so this idiot bush can go back to his farm.
And please Florida learn how to punch a card it's really not that hard.
-----
1 chihuahua/terrier

Those of us who honored Reagan didn't do it for "Hype". We lived through his presidency...unlike the Johny-come-lately detractors who think they know better. We are not blind to what happened in his term in office. But we can see it thru the perspective of that time. We didn't say what we did because of HYPE.

Frankly...the racial card is still being played and still will be for generations as new peoples come into this country and meet the same prejudice and distain that the Blacks, the Irish, the Italians...etc...have gone thru. Blaming Reagan for this is wrong. The laws neccessary were/are in place. What you need to change is the hearts of the people. And no New Laws will do that.

Try paying attention to fixing problems in your own backyard. Do what I do. I have friends of all races...Straight or Gay are welcome in my home. Open your door and your heart before using the president as a scapegoat ...I really get tired of all that whinning.....

Frank

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Where was the economy terrible during Reagan's terms??????

If you are refering to black America as "Most of the country", then your perspective is twisted and racist....Pity.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

In FLORIDA we don't use paper ballets anymore. If you are so well informed you would allready know that.

Now-a-days we mess up with electic ballets!!!!

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Pullatus...

You arent lieing.It is amazeing to me that people wax nostalgia about someone that caused so much harm to so many. Read my post above under Ray Charles post..it chronicles Reagans "Legacy" or at least the parts that we DONT WANT to remember.

Keep thinking and stay off the cliff....

Fred Albury

Show me a better president and you might make an impression...

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Frank,

Here was a better president: F.D.R. (Franlklin Delonore Roosevelt)

Do the homework and find out why. Its pretty simple actually.

Fred Albury

I don't need to read history (been there-done that)....It was an easy question. Throw in Teddy Roosevelt try reading about him...To make it easy: He established the National Park system (saving our natural treasures) and he established the US as a dominant world power.

and Possibly Lincoln (though his motives are definitly suspect)..

FDR was great. However (as they all have warts) he was soft on communism, and also questionably responsible for Pearl Harbor (the jury is still out on that one).

I'm not surprised you chose a Liberal democrat. At least you had the good sense not to name Kennedy or Johnson....

No president is perfect...No man is perfect...

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."