Morning in America, and there's a homeless man on my doorstep

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Tom57, Jun 10, 2004.

Loading...
  1. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Re: Re: Oh Boy

    Yes, they are. I read somewhere that former President Clinton was mad that he wasn't invited to speak. If any Democrat present should have spoken, that honor should have been given to former President Carter, who knows all too well about Reagan's popularity.

    It looked to me that at one point, former President Clinton fell asleep during the service.
     
  2. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    Re: Oh Boy

    Not true. UC Berkeley (as well as the city of Berkeley) is pretty well divided between liberal and conservatives. There was enormous conflict among faculty in the 60's. Many were accused of being Communists by conservative faculty within their own ranks.

    The local paper (Berkeley Gazette), of which my father was the managing editor for most of the 60's, was known as very conservative. My dad was a moderate conservative.

    All in all, Berkeley probably votes mostly Democratic, but believe me, there is a strong and vocal conservative segment as well.
     
  3. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    Yes, I agree. Bruce seems to want to impose his rather arbitrary restrictions on critical comments. I'm not sure what "respect for the presidency" means exactly.

    Reagan passed a week ago. His funeral has gone on the entire week. If we were still living in the days of Lincoln, and the funeral procession lasted weeks by train, would we have to suspend any critical comments for that time?

    Pick up any newspaper and read the letters to the editor. There are positive and negative opinions expressed. Reagan's passing compels people of all opinions to express those opinions.

    Contrary to Bruce's personal standards, it has nothing to do with class or lack of it. It has to do with people being motivated to express their opinions, and feeling free enough to do so. If the conservatives want to laud Reagan as the conqueror of Communism, then they should also admit that, because we don't live in the Soviet Union, we are free to express our opinions whenever, and however we like.

    Leave it up to each of us to do decide whether it is in good taste or not. If Bruce wants to brand my postings in bad taste that's fine - for him. I don't agree at all. I suspect that Mr. Reagan doesn't mind either. That is, after all, one of the values that he apparently held dear.

    Ironically, the dynamic between Bruce and me is vaguely reminiscent of the dialogue between Reagan and the UC protesters – with Bruce saying, essentially, shut up and show respect for the establishment, and me saying, wait, there are important things that need to be said. Everyone has their own opinion about which side is the more important. Needless to say, I have my own opinion about that, which is why I continue to express it.

    Bruce as administrator could effectively tear gas my posts and take away my power, but I suspect he won’t.
     
  4. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Re: Re: Oh Boy

    Yes, but does the strong and vocal conservative segment effect policy?

    Actually Tom, you and I, who never agree politically, agree on Reagan. The difference is that you are in my opinion, away too acerbic and vitriolic.

    As an aside, I felt so sorry for Mrs. Reagan last evening at the private service. It literally brought tears. I was also very upset the newshounds appeared disrespectful clicking their cameras (very loud) during her time at the casket, laying her head on it, saying some words to "Ronnie," and pressing her lips upon it.

    I think the media should have let her have some time alone.
     
  5. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    Re: Re: Re: Oh Boy

    You obviously missed his intent as an homage to Reagan. :D
     
  6. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    Re: Re: Re: Oh Boy

    Good question. I would say the conservatives in Berkeley are affecting policy less and less, mainly because they are generally older and shrinking in population. Nevertheless, it's a myth that UC Berkeley and the city of Berkely are ruled by wild liberals. Venture into the Berkeley hills, where the affluent live, and you will find a lot of Reagan supporters. Many of the same are connected with the university. During the 80's, much to the chagrin of liberals, there was a huge faction of "Reagan Republican" students on campus.

    Even people within the Bay Area like to brand Berkeley as filled with "kooks" and "Communists". My sister-in-law once told me "they should put a fence around Berkeley and charge admission." That same sister-in-law speaks with unmistakable pride that her nephew is a student at UC Berkeley (not my kid; mine are just 10 and 8).

    If my views on Reagan are too vitriolic for you, then we probably don't agree on him exactly. Nevertheless, it's interesting that we agree at least in part.

    I tend to agree with you about the tv coverage. However, I would offer two points. One, the "liberal media" that the conservatives are always bemoaning, has shown Reagan an enormous amount of respect and deference, with nearly round-the-clock coverage. Second, this spectacle was scripted by the man himself. This was the send-off he wanted, and I suspect he is loving every minute of it.
     
  7. DesElms

    DesElms New Member

    Re: Timing... and more importantly, CENSOSHIP

    Bruce, you seem to spend a lot of time on these forums prescribing for others what kind of dissent is appropriate, and when it is in good taste to express it. I'm sure the British thought it was disrespectful when Samuel Adams and 59 of his Sons of Liberty gang dared to dump 342 crates of tea into the harbor off Griffin's Wharf in 1773, but had they worried as much about Great Britain's tender sensibilities back then as you seem to be asking us to worry about yours, you'd be a bobby today instead of a cop... and not allowed to carry a gun on your hip, to boot!

    Somewhere in the middle of all that criminal justice education that you wear on your sleeve, you somehow seem to have missed the the lessons about truly free speech, the right to (and importance of) dissent, and the necessity for diversity in the marketplace of ideas.

    I'm new to these forums, but in the short time I've been here I, for one, have just about had it with your arrogance and willingness to impose upon others your sense of right and wrong -- and, worse, to enforce it like the cop you are using your forum administrative powers to simply dissapear posts with which you do not agree or which you feel are inappropriate...

    ...as you did with one of my Reagan-critical (but in no way name-calling or inordinately disrespectful) posts in an earlier thread about Reagan on the day of his death which you decided out of the blue and after said thread had matured into reasonable and fair-minded discourse that it (the thread) should, instead, be some kind of memorial to the dead president into which you would not allow anything to be posted that was negative.

    Instead of publicly railing against that unforgivable act of censorship (as I now realize I probably should have done... at least that would have gotten your attention), I sent you a private email almost a week ago in which I expressed my understanding and empathy for your position and your interest in not seeing the memory besmirched of a president whom you clearly loved; in which I expressed my trust in and appreciation of your good intentions; but in which I also made clear the importance of not using your power in these forums to censor the opinions of others with whom you do not agree and whose words you have the power to eradicate without a trace with a single click and, therefore, which power you should treat as a sacred trust and not employ to your own ends even when it's difficult for you to allow to co-exist in these august forums both words with which you do and with which you do not agree.

    To my astonishment, you didn't even bother to reply to my heartfelt message. I was a non-person when you deleted my post, and apparently I was a non-person when I reached out to you with kindness and good faith to implore you to re-examine your actions.

    Now, in this thread almost a week later, I see that you're still trying to make people love and respect a man whom it is simply not reasonable to expect everyone to love and respect as you do. It is the employ of revisionist history to lionize Reagan in the ways that you clearly wish. He was an amazing man, to be sure. I forced myself to watch every moment of his funeral and burial services -- and to listen to all the right-winged, pro-Reagan, often-revisionist commentator diatribe that accompanied it -- on TV yesterday just so I could get a viewpoint opposite my own strongly anti-Reagan sentiments.

    No matter where one stands on Reagan, one would have to be a monster not to be moved by the eulogy of Margaret Thatcher; by the sincerity of the choked-up emotion of former-president Bush in his eulogy; by the loving eulogies of his once-estranged children who are to be applauded for finding ways to make peace with their father before he died and who are now, clearly, such loving comfort to his wife, Nancy; and, finally, by Nancy Reagan herself and the dignity with which she has comported herself during the past week and the deep and abiding sense of loss she must be experiencing. If nothing else were clear, that she loved her husband more than breathing should be evident above all. It brought a tear even to my eye.

    But touching as all that was, none of it changes the fact that Ronald Reagan was not a compassionate man. His own, hand-picked, authorized biographer, Edmund Morris, who was allowed to be with the President during his most intimate and familial as well as his most powerful and presidential moments, said as much this very week in an interview on CBS television. Reagan pulled himself up by his own bootstaps in life and made something very special out of himself to be sure. He believed that it was not just a good idea but, rather, his solemn responsibility to carve-out a place for himself in this world -- a philosophy which, by his having put it into painful action in the raising of his own children, soundly alienated them because, in largest measure, of its attendant fundamental (though almost certainly unintended) indifference.

    Though he called it "compassionate conservatism," Ronald Reagan employed the same sort of indifference -- be it intentional or not -- toward the nation's downtrodden while he was president. According to Morris, Reagan viewed as weak and unworthy those for whom life had become overwhelming or who needed a little help to get by (even if through no fault of their own). That attitude, when combined with Reagan's rigid biblical beliefs, directly contributed to the deaths of more than 23,000 HIV-positive men and women in the United States in the early '80s who didn't need to die -- and who might not have -- had Reagan been courageous enough in the beginning of his presidency to do what he finally did near its end when, in 1987, he declared that he would see to it that AIDS would go the way of polio. Prior to that moment, he refused to even utter the word, and he believed that AIDS was God's punishment for homosexuality. So he callously allowed thousands of good men and women -- many of them God-fearing, just like him -- to become emaciated and, their bodies covered with Kaposi's Sarcoma lesions, to quietly slip into merciful death in what Reagan clearly believed was biblically-sanctioned disgrace.

    I knew some of those men and women. I watched as they slowly walked the streets of The Castro in San Francisco with their parents who had flown-in from more conservative parts of the country to visit their adult children in the final weeks of their lives... and to say good-bye. It was hell, Bruce. You weren't there. Remember that I don't know how old you are so forgive me if you're older than this sentence presumes, but if you were even born yet at that time you were probably in Boston, no doubt dreaming of becoming a cop, and blissfully unaware of the carnage on the opposite coast of your country. I wish there had been a way for you to witness it. I believe if you had it might have softened that edge of yours, better informed your sensibilities, and helped impose upon you today a little more compassion for, and tolerance of, viewpoints which you do not share or, more likely, which appall or frighten you.

    I realize that this forum is routinely attacked by degree mill operators and, as they're frequently called here, "mill shills." I realize that, in order to keep these forums from becoming the chaotic mess that the distance learning newsgroup from which these forums were derived, you and the other administrators must keep a never-ending vigil and must have the courage to simply delete the posts and/or threads of these degree mill troublemakers. I get that. And since their motives are commercial in nature and their words are little more than huckster propaganda which any reasonable person must agree have no inherent worth or merit and only serve to misguide and harm unwary distance degree seekers, I applaud such deletions... even though I suppose they, too, are censorship.

    But to employ those same powerful deletion and editing tools upon the sort of rational discourse about the relative merits and probable legacy of the Reagan presidency as appears in this and other threads in these forums -- and especially at this highly appropriate time of his death -- is contrary to everything that is American! It is oppression in it's clearest and most unambiguous form. And, moreover, it's just wrong.

    Please, Bruce... stop telling us what we should or should not be saying about Ronald Reagan or anyone else whom you idolize. Don't get me wrong: It isn't that you, too, don't have the right to tell others that they're full-o-crap for believing what they believe. You have the same rights of free speech as anyone else here. The problem, in your case, is that you also hold the keys to the castle. As a forum administrator, you have the power to not only criticize words you find objectionable, but to also disappear them (as you did mine, earlier) and, in so doing, to shape the very nature and tenor of the discourse to your own personal ends.

    That's what dictators do, my friend; what fascists do... and communists, too. It's not what Americans do! And though I do not know you, I'll bet a year's pay that you are a patriot and an American who loves his country as Nancy Reagan loved her husband: More than breathing.

    I implore you, please re-think your admittedly good-intentioned but nevertheless misguided actions. Take the high road. What's right is often what's most difficult. Be the kind of administrator who understands the need for diversity of opinion in all places and at all times. Please.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 12, 2004
  8. gkillion

    gkillion New Member

    This is just another example of the Left’s frustration with the Conservative movement that began in 1980. The Left has been getting their heads handed to them ever since Reagan took office. Now they are just beside themselves at the fact that this man was so loved and respected by so many people.

    During the Carter administration, America was a dismal place to live. There was a so-called energy crisis, during which the government told the American people when they could and could not buy gas. Carter told America to turn down the heat and put on sweaters. We had to turn down the heat just to afford the interest on our mortgages. Not to mention getting kicked around by Iran. Oh yeah, the metric system. Great idea Jimmy. In true leftist fashion, he thought America was wrong and should conform to the rest of the world. That’s OK though, we showed’em. We boycotted the Olympics.

    The greatest thing Ronald Reagan did for this country was restore our self-respect and give us hope again. America regained a since of self-responsibility. People were proud to be Americans when Reagan was president. The Left will nitpick and whine about any shortcoming they can find. They will even create bogus issues to try and demean the Right. Much the same as they are doing today. They are sick with anger that this man is so loved.

    When Reagan was president, Americans began to figure it out. They realized that the country is not the evil, overindulging, bully of the world that the Left makes us out to be. We’re the good guys! Since Reagan’s presidency Republicans have been gaining ground in every public office throughout the country. The best the Democrats can run out are Gore, who can’t win his home state, Kerry, who can’t remember what position he’s supposed to take on which day, and Clinton, whose most famous presidential quote was “I did not have sex with that woman”. Let’s see…”Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall”... “I did not have sex with that woman”. No wonder they’re so frustrated.
     
  9. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Pretty good post with some minor disagreements on my part.

    In all fairness to Carter, the economy was beginning to sour under the Ford (great man, great morals, ineffective leader) Administration.

    Remember how the inflation rate was rising? Ford's solution? Everyone wear WIN (Whip Inflation Now) buttons.

    As an aside, I just read that Ford said his greatest political mistake was dumping Rockefeller from the ticket in 1976. I voted for Carter but might have gone Ford had he kept Rocky.

    Very interesting post, gkillion, very interesting and very civil and respectful of different viewpoints.

    I cannot wait until the 2008 elections.

    No incumbents (Pres. or VP). My pick now is a Romney-Rockefeller ticket.

    I don't think Condelezza Rice will run although she would be an excellent choice.

    I really believe the Dems will select Senator Clinton as their nominee. Clinton-Edwards, that's my guess as of now.


     
  10. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    That was a good line. :D

    And no, I won't. I've never used my moderation power to settle an argument.
     
  11. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Re: Re: Timing... and more importantly, CENSOSHIP

    By your own admission, you haven't been here that long, so you know nothing about me. Ask any of the veteran members here, and they will tell you that, if anything, I let things get a little too out-of-hand before I step-in and take any moderation action. If you don't like my moderation style, you don't have to read the board. Very simple.

    Know what you're talking about before you shoot your mouth off. Everytime I log-in here, I get an average of 3-5 PM's and about a half-dozen reported posting messages to wade through. That's before I can even read the forum itself. I try to respond to every PM, but sometimes I can't. Contrary to what some people might think, I do have a life outside this forum. My roles as husband/father/provider takes priority over any PM, regardless of how heartfelt it is.

    I'm doing nothing of the sort. I was (past tense, since Reagan is now buried) expressing my opinion that taking shots at a dead former President while he was lying in state was in poor taste. I still believe that, even if it were Bill Clinton. It's called respect and manners.

    You can't seem to grasp the concept that this has nothing to do with Ronald Reagan. I'd be just as forceful for any other prominent political figure.

    Now I'm a Nazi?? :rolleyes:

    Once again, Gregg, you don't know what you're talking about. If I were as close-minded as you seem to think I am, I would have simply pressed a few keys and banned Tom57 or anyone else that disagreed with me. Check the old posts, I've had some epic battles in the Off-topic forum, but I have never used my moderation power to silence my opponents.
     
  12. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Timing... and more importantly, CENSOSHIP

    Absolutely true, the criticism directed towards Bruce in this thread because of his position of moderator is born out of paranoia rather than fact, IMHO.
     
  13. Han

    Han New Member

    Bruce -

    To throw out another similar issue, back over a year ago, there was a vulgar posting about Jewish people and the holocaust. I e-mailed you about it, as well as posting my thoughts that vulgarity (acutaly it was horrible humor and sarcasm) should not be tolerated) – though the posting was an obvious way to get a reaction, non the less it worked.

    You said, you rarely will chime in when there is an issue of free speech, but will if it relates to degree mills. I disagreed at the time, but understood your stance. I am not sure if that post would be tolerated these days, as you closed the thread about Reagan. It is not that I disagree with your ideas, I too thought it was a bit strange anybody would debates the issues of decades ago on the day of a mans death, but I thought the posting way back then should have been closed too. Anyway, interesting evolution.
     
  14. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    You may have missed it, but a few months ago, the dynamics of this board made me change my standard to erring on the side of civility. I don't consider taking cheap shots at a dead former President, while he lies in state, to be civil.
     
  15. Mr. Engineer

    Mr. Engineer member

    Interesting read on all of the opinions regarding Ronnie. As a public figure, he placed himself in the limelight. In doing so, everything goes. Both praise and criticism. I am sure he understood this; I am surprised that others do not. I think an editorial in the Mercury got it right when it related a story regarding some misguided employees who cut out someone’s negative remarks about Ronnie from a memorial book in San Jose. The point was this was not a memorial book in Nancy’s front room; it was a public remembrance book. Whether you remembered Ronnie as a great President or a putz is all the same. You have the right to voice your opinion. No one, especially a civil servant, has the right to squash the free speech of another.

    With that said, I would like to add my two cents about Ronnie’s presidency:

    Good

    1. With Gorbachov, was instrumental in the collapse of the Soviet Union.
    2. Brought the national together at a time where they were a lot of discontent.
    3. Policies brought down inflation near the middle of his term.
    4. Straight shooter didn’t sugar coat things.
    5. Was able to assemble an excellent team of advisers who were allowed to do their jobs.
    6. Was a big picture person. Delegated the small pictures things to underlings (as all good managers do)
    7. Was not a micromanager (see above)
    8. Had charisma.
    9. Who could hate your grandfather?
    10. Helped put into motion the expansion of the 1990's

    Bad

    1. Increased the national debt 4 fold
    2. Brought back the battleship (why?)
    3. SDI (Star Wars) -- why? Won’t work with even our current technology. (And yes, I am an engineer and understand these things)
    4. Iran Contra. The constitution applies to the executive branch too.
     
  16. Mr. Engineer

    Mr. Engineer member

    One more thought:

    I forgot the biggest minus to the Reagan years:

    He allowed the rise and gave credibilty to crap vendors such as Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, and a list of demogogues that would normally be ignored.
     
  17. Mr. Engineer

    Mr. Engineer member

    First lady rankings

    1. Jackie Kennedy
    2. Pat Nixon
    3. Hilary Clinton
    4. Nancy Reagan
    5. Barbara Bush
    6. Laura Bush
    7. Betty Ford
    8. Roselyn Carter
    9. Lady Bird Johnson

    Jackie & Nancy brought class and grace. Pat was there while Nixon flushed his Presidency down the toilet. Hilary was among the most intelligent first ladies. I think a lot of hard core conservatives still want the first lady to be a homebody like Barbara or Laura Bush. (I call it the small penis syndrom, they can't stand it when a woman is smarter and can weild as much political influence as they can)
     
  18. Mr. Engineer

    Mr. Engineer member

    Re: Re: Re: Oh Boy

    He wasn't sleep, he appeared to be praying. Your hate and distain for Clinton is showing.

    All speakers, with the exception of GW, were handpicked by Reagan 10 years ago.
     
  19. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh Boy

    It isn't exactly breaking news that I hate Clinton. I've stated that numerous times here. That still doesn't change my opinion that he was asleep, although that man sure needs all the praying he can get.

    Even more than 10 years ago. That makes Clinton an even bigger jackass, if that's possible.
     

    Attached Files:

  20. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    No, he was trying (and failing) to stay awake, and was neither smirking (as he often does) nor praying. There is longitudinal tension in his face and jaw from trying to suppress a yawn and shake off the immediate onset of sleep. His wife, however, was having a nice nap. It was during one of the speeches, not during the prayers or some music. Trust me. I've been watching congregations sleep for many many years. Unless the Clintons were ill, it was disrespectful.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 13, 2004

Share This Page