This Guy is so graceless its just not funny...

[Finch]

Since his stupidity over Pat Tilman, this guy is just horrible. For once Hannity is dead right! As is Colmes… here’s the link

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player.html?9774&Hannity_and_Colmes&Poor%20Timing%3F&acc&wvx-300

…its of little consequence really, but man this guy is just an idiot and a tasteless one at that.

This is just gold for those on the right and beyond that its just horrible... "hope he's turing a crispy brown"... really disgusting.

[Skittles]

1. stupid, horrible, idiotic, tasteless

that pretty much describes FOX NEWS.

[Finch]

2. Come now...

I think Fox is as bad as the next person but this guy is disgusting for the first time I agree with Hannity totally... that said Hannity did disagree with the Vatican over contraception so i agree with him there to... but Rall is an idiot and just without grace or class... if our party was made up of people like him (which it is not) we would deserve to lose...

[Leprechan29]

3. Here's some more agreement

That was just sick - Both Hannity and Colmes had excellent points here: disagree with the man - just don't be a bastard about it

(edit: spelling and spacing)

[Finch]

11. "disagree with the man - just don't be a bastard about it"

I agree totally... and by god i will disagree with some of what Reagan did, but its the manner in how you articulate it thats important.

[TheWizardOfMudd]

14. If you think you can sit in judgment of Rall . . .

. . . then you should have no problem with Rall sitting in judgment of Reagan.

[Finch]

21. Your piont suggests that...

a person is not permitted to hold their fellows to a level of decent conduct that is universal, left and right if you are a human being you should be a decent one and try as hard as you can to be a good and decent person… Rall is not, these comments are disgusting and yes I will make a judgement, I am happy for people to debate a person’s achievements but Rall consistently attacks with baseless and hurtful personal attacks calling Tillman Stupid and talking about Reagan “roasting in hell” any decent human being would not stoop to such levels… The fact is much as it is tempting to dehumanise and demonise those you disagree with, they are not demons in reality the vast majority of people Democrat, Republican and Independent care about their nation very deeply they differ on policy and yes some can be corrupted but just because you disagree with someone does not mean that they have to be evil and was in effect what Rall was saying and he has done it before for no reason what’s so ever… IMHO he is a contemptible little man.

[TheWizardOfMudd]

102. How's this for a decent level of universal conduct?

How about a president not illegally funding a war that resulted in the deaths of thousands in El Salvador and Honduras? Would that be a decent level of universal conduct?

How about if a president engages in such behavior he is a fucking clown and should rot in hell?

Sounds good to me!

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fob]

109. You must be german

Ein Stein meaning One Glass(mug), because with a question like that you certainly couldn't have meant to imply a connection between yourself and Albert Einstein.

google 'reagun illegally funds war' and you get a bonus link to the current bush*s illegally funding Irag war scam!

[TheWizardOfMudd]

113. Read This

FINAL REPORT OF THE
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL FOR
IRAN/CONTRA MATTERS
Volume I:
Investigations and Prosecutions
Lawrence E. Walsh
Independent Counsel
August 4, 1993
Washington, D.C.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/

Be sure and get back to me if you have any more questions, ya hear?

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ms. Clio]

121. You're "dead," too, and good riddance

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RoyGBiv]

15. Bull...

Rall was disagreeing with the man, was disagreeing with his self-proclaimed Christianity. And he stated the obvious.

Reagan opened the door to this kind of criticism. If he had wanted to avoid such criticisms, he should not have proved so thoroughly that he had not a Christian bone in his body.

[Leprechan29]

18. He can disagree that the man was a christian

and so on, but like I said - he needn't be a bastard about it

[RoyGBiv]

22. Define "bastard"

Christians of the variety Reagan claimed to be have a pretty specific set of rules. Defy those rules, and you are, according to their philosophy, going to burn in hell.

I grew up in the kind of religious environment in which the preacher at a funeral would not hold back from stating that the deceased was "unfortunately" feeling the flames of hellfire. The kind of religion Reagan claimed for himself when he was a public figure agreed with that kind of philosophy. He bought the cow. He gets to milk it.

[Leprechan29]

24. I chose the word mostly for effect -

But what I mean is acting pretentious and (like a lot of conservative christians) high and mighty, where your opinion is unquestionable. And mean..can't forget that one

[RoyGBiv]

26. Well, that's the point...

I was raised in a Christian family. I have largely discarded those views, in large part because all I saw in them throughout my life was hypocrisy. They said one thing, did another, and expected their "great reward" merely because of their lip service. Their version of Christianity is not nice. Why should anyone hold them to a lesser standard than they set for others?

The point is that if you hold people to a certain standard, you should be prepared yourself to be held to that standard. Reagan did not live up to the standard he set for others. Homosexuality was a sin, and so it was okay for people to die. Homelessness, which he defined as a being a product of the sin of sloth, was defined by his administration as something that made it okay ignore their plight. Yet a fundamental tenant of most forms of Christianity is to the hate the sin and love the sinner. Reagan did not show that love and so violated the very philosophy which he claimed gave him the moral right to his policies.

Be consistent. Reagan Christians would have no problem condemning a person to hell, saying he deserved it, and celebrating the fact he was there, because he was a homosexual, or "homeless by choice," or any of his other definitions of people who did not fulfill his definition of Christianity. Yet he did not fulfill his own definition.

That was Ted Rall's point, and he made it brilliantly and accurately.

[wildwww2]

44. Reagan was a bastard about alot of things. He`s reaping his harvest

And the real people who hate our freedoms. Are whining. It`s what they do best. Reagan was a pompous ass. And the world would be a better place to live. If more of his kind. Would also drop dead. But in a more timely fashion.
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

[RoyGBiv]

7. Hannity is an idiot...

And has no right to critique the morals of others.

Hannity is entirely wrong on this matter, as are you.

[CatWoman]

101. I thought he was talking about Bush*

:shrug:

[TheWizardOfMudd]

4. It was real fucking graceful of Reagan to violate the Constitution . . .

. . ., illegally divert funds and send fucking death squads into Central America.

And Hannity is never, never, right about anything.

[Finch]

9. Normally I would agree..

...But I'm with Colmes, You can debate the man's polices but as with all presidents he did care and he did a little good... however while a family is morning to firstly call a guy who gave up a very lavish lifestyle to fight for what he saw as American liberty an idiot and then to talk about an old man who was always civil to everybody (including his most implacable foes like Tip O'Neil who it got on really well with) and say he is in hell... its horrible and beneath anybody to do such things.

Also generally Reagan was very hands off in his presidency he gave broad directives and themes but the likes of Schulz, Haig, Baker etc…implemented them and that’s what lead to Iran-Contra…

[RoyGBiv]

12. Rall was called on that show to dissect Reagan's Presidency...

In fact, Hannity wanted him there, knowing full well what he would say, just so he could make an attempt to discredit the left. Hannity should have thought of that before inviting Rall. Hannity is the one you should be criticizing.

In any case, I fail to see that Reagan cared, and I can not think of a single thing he did good. Please enlighten me.

[Forkboy]

5. Fuck that

Hannity is an asshat that's NEVER right.

I worry about anyone who would agree with him,but upon seeing your av it's understandable.

[Leprechan29]

8. If that is the case,

Then if this is true: "Hannity did disagree with the Vatican over contraception", I guess you would support the Vatican's position on contraception?

[Finch]

10. No I think Family Planning is good...

...I was putting it up as a case where he had actually been right..

[Leprechan29]

13. I agree

But I too was using that as one instance in which he had been right - thus meaning he isn't always wrong

[RoyGBiv]

6. I completely disagree...

And I'm one of those people who got into trouble for suggesting all the "piss on his grave" comments were out of place.

Read Ted Rall's blog. The "crispy brown" comment has a purpose and is dead-on accurate.

As I said then, and as I will say now, there is no need to idolize this man, and there is no need to feel pity for him. But when it comes to criticizing his administration and him personally, all bets are off. He said he was a Christian. A true Christian would not ignore the deaths of thousands of people because he didn't happen to like their lifestyle. He would not write-off people as "homeless by choice." I have trouble even conceiving of the thought of a Christian entertaining the idea of trickle down economics.

Ted Rall said it plain. He is not an idiot, and if he is tasteless, he has a reasonable justification for it.

[Skittles]

16. AMEN

nt

[progdonkey]

17. Rall went a little overboard, but he's not an idiot nor is he tastless

While I do understand your sentiments, I have to disagree with your take on the subject. As Rall said in the interview, this is the time to be discussing Reagan's record publicly--we weren't discussing it two weeks ago, and we're not going to be discussing it two weeks from now--and the fact of the matter is that he was a vile wretch of a human being and one of the worst presidents this country has had the misfortune of having (Nixon and Dubya being worse, of course, but not by much).

I do think Rall went a little far with the "brown and crispy" line, but he is after all a cartoonist and satirist. Satire often requires a bit of tongue-in-cheek debasement.

Reagan's policies--which he promoted with those wonderful B-movie acting chops--resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and the casting of millions of the same into abject poverty, all under the banner of freeing the world from the "Evil Empire." (Sounds strangely familiar....)

We shouldn't gloat that Reagan is dead, but neither should there be this orgasm of hagiographic reverence that is being presented to us by the media. He was the POTUS, and therefore deserves all of the pomp and circumstance that accompanies such status. He was, however, an awful POTUS and an awful human being, and therefore deserves our contempt and disgust as well.

I'm not overrun by joy at his death, but I sure as hell ain't sad.

[Leprechan29]

19. Fair enough

I agree - this is the time to discuss the issues with Reagans presidency, however, I think he was being over the top, even for a satirist

[Jose Diablo]

28. Reasonable men could disagree

progdonkey wrote:

"He was the POTUS, and therefore deserves all of the pomp and circumstance that accompanies such status. He was, however, an awful POTUS and an awful human being, and therefore deserves our contempt and disgust as well."

On entering office, every President of the USA takes a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution of the USA. There is a reason every 'officer' of the government is forced to take this oath.

There is a fine line which separates humans from 'decorum and civility' and a decent into the 'jungle'. That fine line is defined in the Constitution as the relationship between the government and the people that established the government.

Reagan did not follow true in his oath to the office. In a single example only, his administration circumvented the constitutional obligation to obtain money for all executive actions from Congress, "We the People". Because of this action, he cause the death of many, many people in Central America, contrary to the orders from "We the People".

Based on the single example above, Reagan should have been impeached, thus all this pomp is undeserved.

The uber right wing currently in power, wishes to shred what is left of the Constitution. To lament the lack of decorum and civility in Reagan's death is to ignore the dangerous situation his legacy has placed on our country.

When people, either side, abandons the principles in that single document, then there are no alternatives but an all out, no holds barred civil war. To ignore this reality, is to invite the thugs and hoodlums to march any opponent to the gas chambers.

I do not hold Reagan and his RW thugs in as much contempt as I do those individuals that should be stopping the shredding of the Constitution. Those individuals are the 535 people in our Congress. It is only these individuals that are in a position to stop the inevitable civil war that will happen, when everybody wakes-up to the danger we are in.

Reagan may be your ex-POTUS, but he is not mine. He gave-up that honor when he dishonored his solemn oath.

He and his will not receive any decorum nor civility from me until the Constitution is restored to its place.

[fdr_hst_fan]

111. Hear, hear!

Speak for America!

[TheWizardOfMudd]

20. Did you read Rall's article? (Link)

REAGAN'S SHAMEFUL LEGACY

Mourn for Us, Not the Proto-Bush

NEW YORK--For a few weeks, it became routine. I heard them dragging luggage down the hall. They paused in a little lounge near the dormitory elevator to bid farewell to people they'd met during their single semester. Those I knew knocked on my door. "What are you going to do?" I asked. "Where are you going to go?" A shrug. They were eighteen years old and their bright futures had evaporated. They had worked hard in junior and senior high school, harder than most, but none of that mattered now. President Reagan, explained the form letters from the Office of Financial Aid, had slashed the federal education budget. Which is why the same grim tableau of shattered hopes and dreams was playing itself out across the country. Colleges and universities were evicting their best and brightest, straight A students, stripping them of scholarships. Some transferred to less-expensive community colleges; others dropped into the low-wage workforce. Now, nearly a quarter century later, they are still less financially secure and less educated than they should have been. Our nation is poorer for having denied them their potential.

They were by no means the hardest-hit victims of Reaganism. Reagan's quack economists trashed scholarships and turned welfare recipients into homeless people and refused to do anything about the AIDS epidemic, all so they could fund extravagant tax cuts for a tiny sliver of the ultra rich. Their supply-side sales pitch, that the rich would buy so much stuff from everybody else that the economy would boom and government coffers would fill up, never panned out. The Reagan boom lasted just three years and created only low-wage jobs. When the '80s were over, we were buried in the depths of recession and a trillion bucks in debt. Poverty grew, cities decayed, crime rose. It took over a decade to dig out.

Reagan's defenders, people who don't know the facts or choose to ignore them, claim that "everybody" admired Reagan's ebullient personality even if some disagreed with his politics. That, like the Gipper's tall tales about welfare queens and "homeless by choice" urban campers, is a lie. Millions of Americans cringed at Reagan's simplistic rhetoric, were terrified that his anti-Soviet "evil empire" posturing would provoke World War III, and thought that his appeal to selfishness and greed--a bastardized blend of Adam Smith and Ayn Rand--brought out the worst in us. We rolled our eyes when Reagan quipped "There you go again"; what the hell did that mean? Given that he made flying a living hell (by firing the air traffic controllers and regulating the airlines), I'm not the only one who refuses to call Washington National Airport by its new name. His clown-like dyed hair and rouged cheeks disgusted us. We hated him during the dark days he made so hideous, and, with all due respect, we hate him still. (More)

http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/

[Finch]

23. Sorry but...

...My criticism still stands. And still his graceless performance on Fox is still there and it must be said that his article at times borders on the fancifully melodramatic in its representation of the Reagan years... much as it pains me to say it he would not have won the biggest landslide in history if the picture Rall paints had been true.

[RoyGBiv]

27. Still waiting...

What about Reagan was good, and what evidence is there that he cared?

[Finch]

29. Reagan's achievements

Dealing skillfully with Congress, Reagan obtained legislation to stimulate economic growth, curb inflation, increase employment, and strengthen national defense. He embarked upon a course of cutting taxes and Government expenditures, refusing to deviate from it when the strengthening of defense forces led to a large deficit.
A renewal of national self-confidence by 1984 helped Reagan and Bush win a second term with an unprecedented number of electoral votes. Their victory turned away Democratic challengers Walter F. Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro.
In 1986 Reagan obtained an overhaul of the income tax code, which eliminated many deductions and exempted millions of people with low incomes. At the end of his administration, the Nation was enjoying its longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without recession or depression.
In foreign policy, Reagan sought to achieve "peace through strength." During his two terms he increased defense spending 35 percent, but sought to improve relations with the Soviet Union. In dramatic meetings with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, he negotiated a treaty that would eliminate intermediate-range nuclear missiles. Reagan declared war against international terrorism, sending American bombers against Libya after evidence came out that Libya was involved in an attack on American soldiers in a West Berlin nightclub.
By ordering naval escorts in the Persian Gulf, he maintained the free flow of oil during the Iran-Iraq war. In keeping with the Reagan Doctrine, he gave support to anti-Communist insurgencies in Central America, Asia, and Africa.

Further more Reagan’s motivation (rather than handing the country over the Chrisofascists, which is clearly the aim of the GOP… LOL) was to make people’s lives better and to restore American self confidence and strength. For the poor taxes where massively reduced, what people on the left saw as harmful cuts he saw as giving people back their money and encouraging them to work, he made sure that he contacted the man who shot him’s parents and he made sure that they where alright and that there son was also. He allowed gay people to live private lives he was the first president to invite an openly gay couple to sleep over at the white house, he did put money into aids research, he saw communism as evil (which it was) and a force that beat people down, he took a tough stance but once the USSR began to ask for negotiations he was very keen to permit dramatic cuts in arms. Yes there was less of a safety net for the worst of and most unlucky but this was not done because Reagan hated these people it was done because Reagan thought they should be encouraged to work and prosper and for that he made sure that they could keep more of their money so that social mobility was easier. Yes not everything worked but he was motivated by good intentions just as most politicians in America are. Reagan had more class and compassion (even if you disagree with how he thought best to express it) in one of his died hairs, than Rall will ever have in his entire body…

PS: If Rall where to die would I condone people being so despicable towards him? No, I would hope that he might have become a less hatful and bile-filled person.

[fujiyama]

30. Wow

You really seem to have bought the right wing talking points regarding Reagan.

Reagan was a terrible president...One of the worst of the last century, if not the worst.

I don't even care for Ted Rall but after reading your defense of some of Reagan's wretched policies, I'm going to rethink my opinion on him.

Oh, and BTW Hannity is fascist scum...

What's with the defense of Reagan's policies? For God's sake I saw another thread where someone said he was the second best president of the last century...It was fit more as a freeper post...

[Blue Wally]

61. If you thought the Reagan years were so bad...

You must not have lived through the seventies. Everything was going down hill domestically and internationally. It was bad under Nixon, it was worse under Ford, and it all came to a head under Jimmy Carter. Like Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter was a good, decent, and compassionate man, who took control of the ship of state at a very unfortunate time. Like Hoover, he was unable to rally the nation. In that sense, Reagan was like Roosevelt (and I am not saying he was his equal) in that he did turn things around (ever so slowly). The depression didn't end when Roosevelt took office and there was a steep downturn again in 1938, but he laid the groundwork for prosperity beyond his time in office. While many of Reagan's policies did not work out, his tax cuts (and our Democratic congressmen's fingers are all over those tax bills) laid the groundwork for the prosperity of the 90s. Supply side economics did cure the deficits until the Dot-Bomb crash ruined the federal and state budgets.

[IrateCitizen]

88. There were very real reasons for the economy of the 70's

First, from the Vietnam War and LBJ's "guns and butter" policies, the United States was literally hemmoraging money. After WWII, world currencies were directly tied to the US currency, which I believe was still based on the gold standard. This prevented speculation in global currencies, and also prohibited easy transfer of capital from one nation to another. Nixon abandoned the Bretton-Woods system, and opened up the floodgates to currency speculation.

Second, the oil embargos of the 1970's were certainly a pain on the US economy.

Third, the US had enjoyed status as the producer of over 1/2 of the world's manufacturing output after WWII. This had declined significantly by the 1970's, due to the emergence of Japan and re-emergence of Europe. As such, there was no way that the US economy could have continued as it had from 1945-1965, and a contraction was inevitable.

Fourth, I would assume that you were not a person from a lower economic class living in the inner city during the Reagan years. I would bet that if you were, your picture of the effects of his years would be quite different. Although gains for inner-city people of color were made in fits and starts, they were made throughout the 1970's. Reagan's economic policies pulled the rug out from under them, with aftershocks still being felt to this day.

[redqueen]

99. "Supply side economics did cure the deficits "

Oh really?

LMAO

[cosmicdot]

31. sounds like what a DLCer would say

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=252688

[fujiyama]

34. The DLC

probably has more in agreement with Reagan than they did with either Carter or Mondale.

[Jose Diablo]

32. Did you write this or is this from someplace else

If you wrote this then the response to this tripe will directed at you. If you copied this from someplace else, then supply the link so we can judge its source.

[Finch]

36. Its from the whitehouse Site...

The final paragraph is my own..

[trumad]

40. Oh now that you're busted you hop on and tell us where you got it.

ROTF

[Jose Diablo]

42. OK, I will be gentle because I think you mean well

Each of the talking points in the beginning of your posts comes from whitehouse. OK, I will leave to others to show how claims are bogus.

The last paragraph.

I will be the first to admit that I am not able to look into another's heart to see the motivation. All I can do is look at another's actions and try to understand another motives based on their actions.

Reviewing Reagan's stand on AIDS I would have to conclude he had a deep hatred for homosexuals. It took 6 years, 6 fucking years, before this government spent any resources trying to figure out what was causing the 'skinny' disease. However we may feel about homosexuals, they are still humans and deserve better than this.

As for seeing communism as evil, maybe, maybe not. In either event, to 'fight' communism at the expense of other peoples right for self-determination on what economic system they wanted to establish in their own country, works right into a neo-colonial corporate theft of third world resources. I say, Reagan was more interested in putting money into the pockets of his cockroach friends in corporate America than he was in the wellbeing of those he was 'helping.

But I do understand where you are coming from. We all want to think of America in a positive light. Sometimes though, we must take-off those rose colored glasses and see things as they really are. Reagan was one evil fuck.

[trumad]

35. Dude ...We here frown at plagiarism

and we really frown on plagiarism when it's taken directly off the biography of a fucking repuke. Next time you post this type of shit and least have the ball to tell us where you got it and the link you got it from:

BTW: My fellow DU'ers...He cut and paste this crap from The White House Web Page and it's Ronald Reagan Biography!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html

[Finch]

37. Yes?

The White House is hardly a pro-Republican site it lists the positves of all the presidents and the final paragraph (1/2 the post)is my own.

The best obituary for Reagan is on Politics one and he's a self confessed "Dean Democrat"... http://www.politics1.com/ ... it about halfway down the page now...

[trumad]

39. The White House is hardly a pro-Republican site ?

You fucking plagiarized a section of Ronald Reagan's BIO as provided on a very pro-Republican web site! And then you defend your actions by saying the last paragraph was yours.

Thanks for the laugh.

BTW: Here's Dubya's Bio: But it's not biased or anything:

President George W. Bush

George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn into office January 20, 2001, after a campaign in which he outlined sweeping proposals to reform America's public schools, transform our national defense, provide tax relief, modernize Social Security and Medicare, and encourage faith-based and community organizations to work with government to help Americans in need. President Bush served for six years as the 46th Governor of the State of Texas, where he earned a reputation as a compassionate conservative who shaped public policy based on the principles of limited government, personal responsibility, strong families, and local control.

President Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut, and he grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas. He received a bachelor's degree from Yale University in 1968, then served as an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. President Bush received a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School in 1975. After graduating, he moved back to Midland and began a career in the energy business. After working on his father's successful 1988 presidential campaign, he assembled the group of partners that purchased the Texas Rangers baseball franchise in 1989.

He served as managing general partner of the Texas Rangers until he was elected Governor on November 8, 1994, with 53.5 percent of the vote. He became the first Governor in Texas history to be elected to consecutive four-year terms when he was re-elected on November 3, 1998, with 68.6 percent of the vote.

Since taking office, President Bush has signed into law bold initiatives to improve public schools by raising standards, requiring accountability, and strengthening local control. He has signed tax relief that provided rebate checks and lower tax rates for everyone who pays income taxes in America. He has increased pay and benefits for America's military and is working to save and strengthen Social Security and Medicare. He is also committed to ushering in a responsibility era in America, and has called on all Americans to be "citizens, not spectators; citizens, not subjects; responsible citizens building communities of service and a Nation of character."


The attacks of September 11th changed America - and in President Bush's words, "in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment." President Bush declared war against terror and has made victory in the war on terrorism and the advance of human freedom the priorities of his Administration. Already, the United States military and a great coalition of nations have liberated the people of Afghanistan from the brutal Taliban regime and denied al Qaeda its safe haven of operations. Thousands of terrorists have been captured or killed and operations have been disrupted in many countries around the world. In the President's words, "our Nation - this generation - will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail."

President Bush is married to Laura Welch Bush, a former teacher and librarian, and they have twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna. The Bush family also includes their dog Barney and their cat India.

Oh and here's the link:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html

[Finch]

43. Here's LBJ... not exactly the GOP favorite Dem...

Lyndon B. Johnson

"A Great Society" for the American people and their fellow men elsewhere was the vision of Lyndon B. Johnson. In his first years of office he obtained passage of one of the most extensive legislative programs in the Nation's history. Maintaining collective security, he carried on the rapidly growing struggle to restrain Communist encroachment in Viet Nam.

Johnson was born on August 27, 1908, in central Texas, not far from Johnson City, which his family had helped settle. He felt the pinch of rural poverty as he grew up, working his way through Southwest Texas State Teachers College; he learned compassion for the poverty of others when he taught students of Mexican descent.

In 1937 he campaigned successfully for the House of Representatives on a New Deal platform, effectively aided by his wife, the former Claudia "Lady Bird" Taylor, whom he had married in 1934.




During World War II he served briefly in the Navy as a lieutenant commander, winning a Silver Star in the South Pacific. After six terms in the House, Johnson was elected to the Senate in 1948. In 1953, he became the youngest Minority Leader in Senate history, and the following year, when the Democrats won control, Majority Leader. With rare skill he obtained passage of a number of key Eisenhower measures.

In the 1960 campaign, Johnson, as John F. Kennedy's running mate, was elected Vice President. On November 22, 1963, when Kennedy was assassinated, Johnson was sworn in as President.

First he obtained enactment of the measures President Kennedy had been urging at the time of his death--a new civil rights bill and a tax cut. Next he urged the Nation "to build a great society, a place where the meaning of man's life matches the marvels of man's labor." In 1964, Johnson won the Presidency with 61 percent of the vote and had the widest popular margin in American history--more than 15,000,000 votes.

The Great Society program became Johnson's agenda for Congress in January 1965: aid to education, attack on disease, Medicare, urban renewal, beautification, conservation, development of depressed regions, a wide-scale fight against poverty, control and prevention of crime and delinquency, removal of obstacles to the right to vote. Congress, at times augmenting or amending, rapidly enacted Johnson's recommendations. Millions of elderly people found succor through the 1965 Medicare amendment to the Social Security Act.

Under Johnson, the country made spectacular explorations of space in a program he had championed since its start. When three astronauts successfully orbited the moon in December 1968, Johnson congratulated them: "You've taken ... all of us, all over the world, into a new era. . . . "

Nevertheless, two overriding crises had been gaining momentum since 1965. Despite the beginning of new antipoverty and anti-discrimination programs, unrest and rioting in black ghettos troubled the Nation. President Johnson steadily exerted his influence against segregation and on behalf of law and order, but there was no early solution.

The other crisis arose from Viet Nam. Despite Johnson's efforts to end Communist aggression and achieve a settlement, fighting continued. Controversy over the war had become acute by the end of March 1968, when he limited the bombing of North Viet Nam in order to initiate negotiations. At the same time, he startled the world by withdrawing as a candidate for re-election so that he might devote his full efforts, unimpeded by politics, to the quest for peace.

When he left office, peace talks were under way; he did not live to see them successful, but died suddenly of a heart attack at his Texas ranch on January 22, 1973.

[trumad]

52. You're cracking me up.

Again... To make your point you cut and paste from the White House web page a biography of Reagan that is absolutely bogus. It's almost like a Freeper over at Free Republic cutting and pasting Clinton's Bio from that site to prop up his argument that Clinton was a good President.

And then you claim that the White House web site isn't pro-Repuke...LOL

Go to the front page and read everything great about GW and then come back and tell me that it ain't pro-repuke!

[Finch]

58. It was the same when Clinton was president...

...it is the office it promotes and as a result the individual and his VP are lionized but IT IS NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE REPUBLICANS! Get a Grip!

[trumad]

62. It's not because they're repukes...

what the hell does that mean. You plagiarized a flattering Bio from the White House web site to prop up your silly ass argument that Reagan was a good pres and that we should respect him... You got caught....

[redqueen]

103. Why are there negatives mentioned in the LBJ bio but not in RR's?

If it's not biased, why are there two paragraphs devoted to negative situations that occurred during LBJ's five years, yet NOTHING about the negative situations under St. Ronnie?

Care to hazard a guess? Maybe the author just somehow forgot about Iran Contra?

:eyes:

[Finch]

46. Very Republican...

..Christ, every news source is really an outlet for the GOP, poisoning every ear that it touches (LOL)... has it occurred to you hat maybe the site is trying to be flattering to every president?

No Because they couldn't be... I mean every Republican president was a scoundrel and a person who hated democracy and didn't give a damn about the people who elected and then (in some cases) re-elected them... nah... Democrats have to be the only people motivated by good intentions and even then the "wets" like Bayh and Lieberman are also secretly hoping that they'll be able to help the GOP and usher in a ChrisoFascist agenda... wow you’re out there... LOL

[TahitiNut]

48. "The White House is hardly a pro-Republican site"??? (Bullshit!)

In what alternate universe?

How do you explain nary a single mention of Iran-Contra in Reagan's short bio, a criminal conspiracy in Reagan's adminstration that resulted in many felony convictions, and the prominent focus on the Jones/Lewinsky scandal in Clinton's short bio, a scandal that resulted in not a single felony conviction?

The White House web site is now virtually nothing but Reichbot spin and revisionist history!

Sheesh!
:puke:
:puke:
:puke:
:puke:

In fact, here's an outright lie on the White House website: Clinton "bombed Iraq when Saddam Hussein stopped United Nations inspections"

That's just a fucking lie! That's outrageous revisionist history. The UN inspectors were pulled out by the demand of the US, not Hussein!

[Finch]

60. "bombed Iraq when Saddam Hussein stopped United Nations inspections"

...well if anything thats Dem bias... as it makes Clinton's actions look even better, how would saying that "Clinton withdrew the inspectors" instead of "Saddam kicked the inspectors out" make Clinton look bad, it makes him look better its a bogus point you've made.

[TahitiNut]

66. Nonsense. It's the sodomization of Saddam by Busholini reichbots.

Hugh Sydey is a notorious right-wing sycophant and the presidential bios reflect this blind bias. Try reading Warren harding's bio and reconcile it with the unanimous judgment of the greatest failure of a President (prior to DimSon) in this nation's history. Harding was a total crony - deeply corrupt beyond precedent.

Try finding a reference to Teapot Dome in Harding's bio, just one of the scandals of the directly-complicit Harding administration, from which we got:
U.S. v. Pan American Petroleum
U.S. v. Mammoth Oil Company
U.S. v. Sinclair
U.S. v. Doheny, Doheny, and Fall
U.S. v. Fall and Sinclair
U.S. v. Sinclair
U.S. v. Fall
U.S. v. Doheny and Doheny

... just to name a few.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

107. I love how you conviently ignored

the comments about the non-scandal of Clinton's affair with Lewinski being included, but the MASSIVE scandal - Iran Contra - being left off.

Please address this discrepancy, or retract your statement that the site is not biased.

[redqueen]

100. How unsurprising

I thought it sounded about as glowing as it could possibly be.

How lovely to share this gem of a propoganda piece with us here. And uncredited, to boot.

:eyes:

[redqueen]

98. *sigh*

:wtf:

:puke:

[Cheswick2.0]

41. Well not all of us are from the appeasement wing of the democratic party

So we are happy that someone has the guts to tell the truth.

[Finch]

50. Don't You Dare impinge upon my loyaty...

...it amazes me that the ever petulant left has the temerity to talk of loyal Moderate and Conservative Democrats as at the least "1/2 Democrats" and at the worst "Zell Miller's" or just out and out "DINO's", I am afraid that the moderate, reasonable Dems have been the most loyal supporters of the party and have lead it to its greatest victories... while the left have been the most disloyal, the least willing to change and adapt, the most obstinate and have lead this party to disaster on a number of occasions... so read some history , and don't you dare suggest such stupid things again!

It started back in 1972 the radicals took over the party for a brief period and have been trying to get it back ever since, while the Real Democrats the heirs of FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Clinton fight tooth and nail for the party they love... I'm sorry I believe in civility and decency as well as tolerance and respect... But I speak as a person who has given a lot to the party they love and will fight to prevent radicals and extremist taking it over and destroying the great legacy of the real democrats.

So to but the record straight, I am the real Democrat (yes a moderate one), I belive in a braod Party, you are nothing more than an extremist and not worthy of the great men and women who built this party and strengthened it over the years…

[Blue Wally]

67. Well said, Mr Finch

I have just come to this board and it would seem that the far out left would prefer a train wreck like 1972 rather than have a centrist Democrat win the nomination. It is only their hatred which motivates them. If they continue to have their way, we will be in the permanent minority forever even though there are more registered Democrats than Republicans.

Let's take an example, school vouchers. We fulminate against them as a great evil, yet they become more and more attractive to many people. I ahve always said that when you see a parade starting, you have three choices:

1. Stand at the curb and wave as they set off.

2. Run out in front and yell "stop" and get flattened as the parade marches over you.

3. Run out in front with your baton and lead the parade in the direction you want it to go.

We should choose the third choice on school vouchers (and a lot of other issues). Let us craft our alternatives so that we stand for something other than just getting rid of George W. Bush.

[Jose Diablo]

73. It will be the repubs and DLC working hand in hand

if the democratic party is marginalized.

[Finch]

76. No...

...it will be the far left who care more about their ideological purity than practicality and what works best for most Americans that will be the cause of the fall of our party... and i will fight, fight and fight again to save the party i love from a "hostile takeover" from radicals who are blinded by their own self righteousness.

[Jose Diablo]

97. Well, so much for the 'big tent' democrats

The DLC admits they hold the left in contempt. At least we know each other well.

As for "hostile takeover", its the corporate lackeys that have compromised the "ideals" of the Democratic Party selling out civil rights, womens rights, union members to name a few, for just a few dollars more.

Lets be careful who we call 'ideologues' here.

As for purity, I think its more important to stand for something more than obtaining campaign funds.

You really need to look at the origins of the DLC and PPI before you start claiming someone else is for "ideological purity".

[Finch]

79. Very Good Post...

...The Democratic Party is more than a belief that polices that where right in 1964 are right for America now, we must move on, we must develop for not only do people's aspirations and values change but the circumstances change and with them the path which should be adopted changes from situation to situation from time to time.

I think is actually hurtful to ordinary Americans if Democrats simply sit on the sidelines and say that there is one “set-in-stone” set of polices which are always going to be right and have to be right.

Ordinary Americans do not deserve nor should they have to put up with a party that is extremist and dogmatic, They deserve a Democratic Party true to its belief in community and the role of government but also more than prepared to attempt new and innovative polices that can really help ordinary Americans and make theirs and everybody’s life better, All Americans deserve this and some Liberals just don’t get this.

[IrateCitizen]

95. Simplistic claptrap

The embrace by some on the supposed center-left of vouchers is really just another prime example of the ability of the right wing to set the terms of the debate.

One of the main problems with vouchers is the complete lack of accountability. Another is the way in which they are funded -- each student is given a block grant that actually takes funds away from the physical upkeep of the public school he/she is leaving.

The problem with public schools isn't the fact that they exist, and that private schools are somehow better. The problems lie in grossly unequal funding between affluent suburbs and poorer areas, meddling by politicians and demagogues who know nothing about education but pretend they have the answers, replacing teaching with testing, and lack of public will to ensure a good education for all of our children.

Adopting the rhetoric of vouchers isn't taking some kind of "third way" -- it's taking the way of least resistance rather than offering forth a truly alternative vision and fighting like hell to get it implemented.

[fdr_hst_fan]

114. School vouchers

is just another way of making the poor subsidize the rich, the way Dubya's tax cuts do. If you want to send you child to a private school, that's OK with me-it's your right. Just don't ask ME to pay for it, because I'll tell you right quick which part of my anatomy you can kiss! I didn't like the idea when Ray-gun first proposed it, and it sucks NOW, 20 years later!

[KissMyAsscroft]

25. Once again Rall shows he has guts...

By not bowing before the annoited one Reagan.

Fuck Reagan. Rall is the man. I would piss on Reagan's grave if I could.

Maybe if the naysayers hear had any concept of what Reagan did they would understand. The kid gloves are off. Fuck em.

[Gore1FL]

33. Reagan was an awful POTUS

his policies were bad. He lied to congress. He should have been impeached and removed from office. I think damning him to eternal hellfire is well beyond the scope of any crime -- and even if it were, it is neither my nor anyone else on this earth's judgement to make.

As i have said eslwhere, we have new problems now. There are much much bigger fish to fry than 16 year old Reagan policy.

[wildwww2]

47. This is smoke and mirrors. For Dim Son. Pre-stolen election 2.

Reagan will have talked to God in heaven. By the time November rolls around. And all the Christian Corporate Pundits will tell us how to follow the Christian path. By voting for "Usurper Boy". Ray Guns and God. Said so.
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

54. Unfortunately, we are very much still dealing with those 16 year

old policies. The most all-encompassing being trickle-down. The single most damaging thing that Reagan did was move the top tax bracket from the 70th percentile to the 30th percentile, thereby beginning the massive shift of wealth from out of the hands of the average folk into the pockets of the elite. There are many more horrendous policies that I could enumerate.

If you think that the fish we are frying today wasn't spawned in the Reagan era, I humbly disagree.


Edit to add: Rall is right on the money. Just because it's not sugarcoated, doesn't mean that it's not quality medicine.

[Blue Wally]

84. Partially Our Own Fault

We (meaning the Democratically-controlled congress) had a two-tier top rate, 50% for "earned income" and 70% for "unearned income". If you were a baseballplayer or a rock star making millions, you were taxed at 50% as you "earned" your income while if you were a small business owner making slightly over $100K a year, you were taxed at 70% because your income was "unearned".

We also refused to index the tax brackets for inflation (thus getting a stealth tax increase every year) and inflation plus the growth of two income families placed ordinary Americans in tax brackets which had been conceived as pertaining only to the obscenely rich.

We thus pissed away a forty year consesnsus in support of a progressive income tax. By not being flexible in the seventies and fixing those aspects of the Roosevelt Revolution which were not working in the way they were originaly intended, we unwittingly ushered in the Reagan years.

[Vickers]

38. I agree with Rall's points, and Sean was unprofessional

Any time a "journalist" (sic) calls a guest an idiot, and calls him hateful, I realize he does not have any decent challenges, but rather is just attacking the guy and not his ideas.

Kinda like what we see here day in and day out!

[Finch]

56. So lets say…

…You’r father was the presidents and had died and people where upset and there was a national day of morning and some very radical conservative (and believe me Rall is as radical and abrasive as they come) came on a show and started saying you father was in hell, he was ridiculous and he hated him and further more that everything he stood for everything he achieved had been out of a desire to help himself and those who agreed with him with no thought for ordinary Americans and in short that he was an evil and unlikable man who was burning in hell for eternity and deserved it...

...then Al Franken or Randy Rhodes jumps in and basically says the guy is way outa of line and is acting like a horrible person and then Robert Novak (conservative stand in for Colmes) says the same in more muted terms, would that be justified? Or would it be unprofessional?

[Vickers]

65. Dude, sorry, you can't use that argument with me

My dad was a violent alcoholic. He probably greeted Ronnie at the gates of Hell with a highball.

When folks ask how my dad was, I tell them the truth. That would be a refreshing change in this country, especially in regards to Ronnie.

Hey, nice try, though! Your argument has been used about a gazillion times on here already, so better luck next time.

[Finch]

71. `Well someone you love then...

...if someone you love had really been an evil bastard than fine... but Reagan wasn't, he did care as many conservatives do, yes there was some "realpolitik" by him and especially the likes of Haig, Baker and Schultz (but the same was true of Albright and Christopher to an extent), He cared but he believed differently to those of us on the left he introduced tax cuts and spending cuts because he honestly believed that was the best thing to do to help Americans, those of us on the left might do things that would be the complete opposite to this but that would also be because we care.... he was not a saint much as the right would like but the radical left is stupid if it thinks he was an evil monster.

[Vickers]

72. I love my dad, but I also admit his faults without mincing words

Big difference.

"radical left"

Oops! Your true colors are showing.

[progressivebydesign]

94. "admitting faults"

Okay. Admitting faults of recently deceased person: He was always late. He yelled too much. He was mean to his dog. He punched a guy in a bar for no reason.

Attacking a recently deceased person: Hope he rots in hell. I'm gonna piss on his grave. Glad he's dead. He's turning a crispy brown.

See the difference?

[Vickers]

96. Yes, but detailing the faults of Ronnie has BECOME grave-pissing

See the difference?

The "I piss on his grave!" posts started AFTER folks equated fault-listing and anti-worship with desecration of the corpse.

I was here over the weekend, I saw it all unfold!

[charlie]

74. "if someone you love had really been an evil bastard than fine"

Well, there it is. This thread isn't about decorum then, but about conflicting opinions of Reagan. You don't think Reagan was such a bad guy. Those reviling him think he was an evil prick. C'est la vie.

[IrateCitizen]

81. You'd better check your shoes, because I think you just stepped in it

Lemme get this straight -- you're actually DEFENDING Reagan's economic policies? Please enlighten me as to which part you are defending:

- Cutting federal student loans and grants that resulted in thousands of kids not being able to continue their college education? I mean, the effects of lots of working-class kids being able to attend college in the post-WWII years were certainly negative, don't you think?

- Cutting free lunches for poor kids and classifying ketchup as a vegetable? I mean, why on earth should those poor kids get free lunches -- it's not as if being hungry affects a kid's ability to learn.

- Funding right-wing militaries and paramilitaries in Central American proxy wars? I think Reagan's justification for the contras was that Nicaragua was "only a few hundred miles from Texas" -- like they could have given a shit about Texas anyway. BTW -- Nicaragua is now the poorest nation in Central America, largely due to the US stranglehold on them during the time the Sandinistas were in power, and neoliberal policies forced on them after 1990.

He didn't introduce all of these policies because he "cared" -- he introduced them because he was a rigid ideologue, and helped usher in an era in which greed became not only acceptable again, but outright laudable. In fact, a former economic advisor to the Reagan administration, David Stockman, admitted to journalist William Greider that the main goal for implementing all of these tax cuts was to "starve the beast" with the goal being the justification of the outright elimination of many social programs, consequences for the people affected be damned.

[Finch]

83. Not Defending them

...parse but saying that it is understandable why Reagan thought they could be a good thing. As he saw it he was giving money back to the worse off while yeah at the same time helping the wealthy for him it left everyone better-off and more in control of their lives. I don’t agree but I am just saying…that a person could in all innocence believe such polices to be helping all Americans, I think Reagan was wrong on his economics but it should be remembered (especially in the light of Bush's tax cuts) that "real tax cuts" for the middle and lower income groups can help the economy and leave people better off.

As for the Realpolitk with Nicaragua and Iran, every President has had something of that magnitude if it got attention of not… and to a large extent it was shown that Reagan relied on Baker, Schulz and early on Haig for his support in this kind of foreign policy. Olie North over stepped his bounds and acted irresponsibly and Reagan was given unwise assurances that it was all “above board”… that is not to excuse his administration, it was wrong dead wrong and members of the administration should have paid but Reagan himself was just gullible... and should have know better, it was a lamentable failure on his part, but not motivated by malice.

[IrateCitizen]

85. If not motivated by malice, the certainly by irrationality

Reagan's attitudes toward communism bordered on insanity. He was a guy who stabbed people in the back by "naming names" during the McCarthy witch hunts. He was literally convinced that there was a communist under every bed.

Furthermore, he was a guy who violated the Constitution in his circumvention of Congress to support the Contras. Now, either he knew full well what was going on, in which case he should have been impeached, indicted, tried and imprisoned -- or he had no clue because Alzheimer's had already taken hold of him, in which case he had no basis for remaining in office (I tend to believe the latter).

Reagan's policies were designed around what he saw as being the embodiment of America -- the rich. He could have cared less about what happened to the poor, because they weren't important -- only the rich were. So, in that view, you're right in saying that he was doing what he felt was best for America, because from his perspective America was defined by the rich, and everything would be better if the poor just didn't exist.

My biggest hatred (yes, I mean the word hatred here) of the Reagan legacy was the legitimization of greed, along with the re-glorification of militarism. Every single problem we face as a nation, IMHO, can be traced back to these two phenomena. He helped shift the values of our society, from one in which people recognized the need to "promote the general welfare", to one characterized by the IGMFU (I got mine, fuck you) attitude.

[charlie]

87. Baker and Schultz

both advised Reagan not to pursue funding the Contras from third country sources, Schultz warning him it was an "impeachable offense." Reagan was not the happy deluded idiot you like to think.

[fdr_hst_fan]

119. Ray-gun's tax cuts didn't

benefit me THEN; Dubya's tax cuts don't benefit me NOW. Where am I ahead in any of this? Here's a clue: I'M NOT, AND NEVER HAVE BEEN, RICH!

[Cat Atomic]

92. Were you an adult in the 80's?

Seriously- I'm seeing lots of concilliatory bullshit from people who weren't actually conscious to feel the sting of Reagan's policies.

Reagan fucking ASSAULTED the poor in this country. He waged war on them. If you were poor in the 80's, there's no fucking way you'd ever say he "cared".

If that makes me part of the "radical left" in your eyes, then I assume you're either too young to remember him, or you were munching caviar on a yacht in the bay.

[redqueen]

108. He had no love for minorities, either

He didn't just declare war on the poor, he also helped racism to flourish.

I heard this morning that the evil prick gave his first campaign speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi.

Anyone defending the respectful treatment of this monster should ask themselves why Reagan gave a speech in that little town, and why he asserted that he 'supports states' rights' in that speech.

:puke:

[ibegurpard]

45. Hannity and Colmes didn't like it?

Good indicator that it was right on the money.

[BigMcLargehuge]

49. Rall is right, Reagan was a scumbag, and the right is

falling over themselves to inflate the man's accomplishments. Don't like Ted Rall's stuff? Don't read it.

[quinnox]

51. After listening to that I think Ann Coulter has met her match...

Both of them are extreme lunatics, but probably doing it to get noticed and for the money and attention.

[trumad]

53. Comparing Ted Rall to AnnCoulter is bullshit.

Rall basically said he hopes RayGun burns in Hell... What's so wrong with that? Rall's arguments are based on fact... Coulters is based on lies...Big Diff!

[charlie]

57. Actually

he said he was "sure he's turning crispy brown right about now." Here's the blog entry they're frothing about:

How Sad...

...that Ronald Reagan didn't die in prison, where he belonged for starting an illegal, laughably unjustifiable war against Grenada under false pretenses (the "besieged" medical students later said they were nothing of the sort) and funneling arms to hostages during Iran-Contra.

Oh, and 9/11? That was his. Osama bin Laden and his fellow Afghan "freedom fighters" got their funding, and nasty weapons, from Reagan.

A real piece of work, Reagan ruined the federal budget, trashed education, alienated our friends and allies and made us a laughing stock around the world.

Hmmmm...sounds familiar.

Anyway, I'm sure he's turning crispy brown right about now.

http://www.tedrall.com/2004_06_01_archive.html#108676106545368399

Pretty mild stuff for Ted...

[Finch]

59. Rall is a liar and a hatful person just as Coulter is….

…But even Coulter can be a good debater (strange how such absurd positions can be argued quite well… but some Liberals would match her)… Rall is just pathetic on TV all he has is bile and hatred… its horrible and unworthy.

[trumad]

64. Geez Finch

On one thread you're propping up RayGun with cut and pastes from his flattering Bio, and on this one you're propping up Ann Coulter but blasting a guy who speaks the truth about RayGun...

[Finch]

69. I Called her hateful and a lier?

[are_we_united_yet]

55. Colmes and Hannity are right?!?!?!?!?!

Give me a F##king Break!!

[jonnyblitz]

63. Rall rocks. He pisses off the patriotically correct

and for that reason he is one of my favorites out there. Of course I don't expect somebody with a DLC avatar to like him .*snicker*

[Finch]

68. Indeed…

…Well my my he’s a regular Jonathan Swift of our generation with his razor sharp wit and cutting satire (LOL)… He doesn’t cut through the crap he’s just offensive like Coulter, only I would hazard that this article at this time is the kinda thing even “Crazy Ann” wouldn’t do… Moore is refreshingly frank, but Rall Level of attack is basically “your evil, your horrible, your burning in hell and I hate you” “Why?” “Because we disagree and so there can’t be any good in you if you don’t except my views”… oh and even better, this great crusader! For all that’s “Good and True” attacks a guy who gives up millions of dollars a plush lifestyle and goes to fight and die in fucking Afghanistan!… well bravo, giving up wealth and fame to fightyou’re your country is a stupid thing to do kids! Write that one down because once again Rall with his quick, savy wit has exposed how fighting and dieing for you nation is “stupid”… well I wish he’d been at the D-Day memorial, bet those old boys there in Normandy felt pretty stupid…


Get a Grip, Find a decent satirist not this hateful man.

[IrateCitizen]

78. Dissecting your emotionally-charged post...

He doesn’t cut through the crap he’s just offensive like Coulter, only I would hazard that this article at this time is the kinda thing even “Crazy Ann” wouldn’t do…

No, Ann Coulter would certainly do something like this. Remember, this is the woman who said, "We need to execute John Walker Lindh, to put liberals on notice that we're coming for you next," along with the gem, "We need to invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."

Moore is refreshingly frank, but Rall Level of attack is basically “your evil, your horrible, your burning in hell and I hate you” “Why?” “Because we disagree and so there can’t be any good in you if you don’t except my views”…

I agree that Rall is over-the-top, and it has been shown by the fact that many people actually on the left have been put off by his remarks. That being said, I tend to agree more with the frankness of Greg Palast's piece on Reagan, pointing out the many horrible things that his administration saw over.

oh and even better, this great crusader! For all that’s “Good and True” attacks a guy who gives up millions of dollars a plush lifestyle and goes to fight and die in fucking Afghanistan!… well bravo, giving up wealth and fame to fightyou’re your country is a stupid thing to do kids! Write that one down because once again Rall with his quick, savy wit has exposed how fighting and dieing for you nation is “stupid”…

I found Rall's statement on Tillman to be utterly distasteful, but for much more measured reasons than you put forth here. Pat Tillman was a unique person because of the character he demonstrated in giving up his comfortable life to do something he believed in on principle. Whether or not the cause is noble, however, is in the eye of the beholder. For example, I don't believe that Pat Tillman's death was in any way "fighting for his country". Sadly, I believe that his death was a waste of a unique and outstanding person, and had nothing to do with "fighting for his country". But that doesn't diminish the fact that he gave his life for something that he, personally, believed was a worthy cause, and worthy of personal sacrifice.

Personally, I'd feel a lot better if we taught our kids about the senselessness of war, and how to work for a day in which disputes will be solved by other-than-violent means. The idea that serving one's country (or fellow man) necessitates taking up arms and killing others is what I, personally, consider to be stupid.

well I wish he’d been at the D-Day memorial, bet those old boys there in Normandy felt pretty stupid…

The current "war" being fought in Afghanistan and Iraq has little in common with the Normandy invasion. That's the province of George W. Bush to try and draw a parallel between the two. Don't do his work for him.

[Finch]

82. Thank You for your post…

…we disagree my friend, but I respect you very well argued post.

Coulter is for me just as contemptible as Rall. I really dislike the man, as you can probably tell :) …but in relation to his comments on Reagan and Tillman I just think it was horrible to say such things. I will argue on Reagan’s polices (most of them) all the live-long day, But I do not doubt that just as Liberals love this nation, just as Moderates care about the ideals of this nation, Conservatives like Reagan and millions of other are also concerned about the people of this nation and want to do what’s best. There are zealots on both sides but Rall’s remarks where horrible IMHO.


On D-Day and the War on Terror I think this nation will always be hated by those who hate freedom and liberty. Bush and Co try to exploit this sentiment that I and many Americans share, and do not worry he never won me over on the idea that he was the best president to face Al-Quida. But I believe (here again we disagree) that there are times when you must fight WW2 was a prime example, furthermore I believe that America has a duty to defend democracy across the globe, but to be fair no president has not been at least someone supportive to some despot for political gain, I hope I have the sense of duty that many of the men who where in that Army which landed in Europe during WW2 had a reserve to do the job and risk your life because the cause was good but not to think it was exceptional, it is a standard I wish we could all be held to, In fact because I hope that I could be held to that standard (and I admit I have never been tested) that I admire Pacifist a great deal, I do not have that kind of strength and faith, so if the issue is ever pressed if we are asked to again defend that which is good and fight for this nation and the desires it uphold I hope that all of us will retain that sense of duty that saw us through Yorktown, the Alamo, Mexico City, Manassas (both north and south), Gettysburg, Meuse-Argonne, the Ardennes and Iwo Jima (yes they where not all great battle, but hey I was emotial in my first post why stop now :) , but really I do hope with feel duty bound to defend freedom and democracy in a way that I think Tillman certainly did even if he was misguided.


Once again thank you for your post, well argued , Rall could never have mustered anything on a par with it.

[Mandate My Ass]

115. "this nation will always be hated by those who hate freedom"

Where have I heard this before? :silly:

[MadHound]

70. Have to call BS on this one friend

Having a week long Reagan lovefest is what is tasteless and disgusting.

Reagan's own actions were tasteless and disgusting. He cost hundreds of thousands of innocents their lives due to his actions while in office. Do you really think that we should glorify a man who, in essence, was a mass murderer?

Right now, this very week, history is being rewritten in order to deify Reagan and bolster support for Republicans and Bush in particular. The neo-cons are cynically and coldly using Reagan's death as a means with which to further their own agenda. It is good that somebody, anybody, gets out there and tries to stem the tide of bullshit flooding Americas' living rooms. I applaud Rall for doing this.

And yes, I too hope that Reagan is somewhere down there, turning a nice crispy brown. His actions led directly to the death of three friends of mine, and for that, and the hundreds of thousands of other lives he took, Reagan deserves to fry.

Get over it friend, Reagan was no saint, all he was was a murderer masking the ugliness of his soul behind a goofy grin and glib phrases.

[stanwyck]

116. well said

I totally agree. Reagan is a symbol. Much of what people admire about Reagan isn't even real. He's a family values guy who didn't even meet Michael's son until the child was two years old. And only then because of the media's exposure of how estranged the Reagans were. Yet, people embrace the folksy, warm good guy image. He never saw his son Ron's ballet performances. He was an integral part of selling arms to terrorists in the MidEast and South America. He suckered the religious right about their agenda while winking to his cronies who, like him, never attended church while claiming a spirituality which was purely political.
He's a hero for the blinkered. The desperate. Those who don't want reality. They want the Hollywood cardboard cut-out. Coomplete with the (gasp) slightly pregnant girlfriend, then wife. Don't dwell, or even acknowledge, Reagan's fellow traveler credentials. His pro-union stance of his earlier days. He was tofu. He became whatever the director, wife, or party dictated. Now, he's playing a saint. He wasn't one. Not even close. But the sheeple need their golden idol. Watch for his image to appear everywhere. He's the golden calf.

[bicentennial_baby]

77. Rall is my hero!

I love the ire he provokes in people such as you...hehe :evilgrin:

Rall rules, DLC shills drool, as usual. :thumbsup:

[newsguyatl]

80. umm, i like the guy

:shrug:

[Mandate My Ass]

86. Ted Rall on AAR NOW!!

Ted rawks.

[Oddman]

89. This is what freedom of speech is all about . . .

Ted Rall is one man with an opinion, nothing more nothing less. Why would Faux News put him on if they didn't want to stir up trouble and get a ratings bump? Rall has every right to state his ideas at any time. Whoever subscribes to a "mourning period" can respect that self instituted practice and not write or read anything adverse. But Rall has every right to write what he feels, especially after all the damage this "optimistic" minor President did to our country and all the people this "great communicator" turned his back on. Reagan's smile reveals steel teeth.

[progressivebydesign]

90. You're barking up the wrong tree..

Though I agree with what you're saying.. I think the left is hurt by people like Rall. I have enjoyed some of his cartoons, but sometimes he is just completely crass. The "crispy brown" comment is just beyond disgusting and uncalled for. I can only guess that our Party is being infiltrated with some people with the maturity and grace of a 13 year old boy with anger issues.

You'll get little agreement on DU about Rall, or about not speaking so vilely (is that word?) about the recently dead. I think there are lots of people on DU that don't seem to have good social skills... They decry the right for their attacks, yet use them as a defense when their attacks are just as vile.

[alarcojon]

91. In narrow agreement with you

only because I feel Rall's approach is counterproductive politically. He's too easy for the right to caricature. I agree with those who suggest that Hannity is the one who wanted him on, because he knew Rall would provide him with plenty of fodder.

I only wish the last few seconds of the clip could have been expanded upon. Hannity went right down the checklist of all the "great" things Reagan did, and Rall called each one a lie. I assume he wasn't allowed to expand on WHY each one was a lie. That is what we need - a person to, without vitriol, go down the checklist and refute each point calmly and thoroughly. Won't happen on "Hannity and Colmes", but someone needs to do it in themainstream.

[Fear]

93. Tad Rall is dead right

[redqueen]

110. He's short on tact and does damage our image, yes

but he seems to have a much better grip on reality than you.

Also, considering how successful the reich wing has been despite the ugliness and hatefulness of many of its defenders, I really don't waste my time getting worked up about Rall's gracelessness.

[noiretextatique]

112. colmes is a boot-licking PUNK...an embarrassment

typical conventional "liberal" :eyes:

hey "decorum and respect" folks: remember THE 1ST AMENDMENT?!?!

WHO in the hell decides when it's appropriate to speak the truth about reagan? and WHEN is "the right time?" :grr: etiquette...it's always more important than TRUTH in america.

[bobbyboucher]

117. Rall was right, Reagan was a fraud, a delusion, the record

speaks for itself.

Go fishing from some other pier, senor.

You agree with Hannity? What a rube.

[Shredr]

118. Yes, he's crass

Hateful, attention-hungry. He's also dim-witted and not very quick on his feet. Hannity just railed into him and he didn't have a quick comeback, he just stuttered out a few "that's not true"s.

[Neshanic]

120. He's our Rush. The difference, he tells the truth. You go Rall!