CBS cancels The Reagans

RE: Reagan's legacy through an adult's eyes, looking ba...

>I fully understand that Reagan was not perfect. I am well

>aware of the accusations that the Reagan team offered iran

>arms in exchange for delaying the release of the hostages. If

>there's proof, present it.

I haven't put any time into vetting this site, but it was one of many that came up in a quick search: http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/coupreaganbush.htm There's a book on the subject, October Surprise, and mention in other books as well.

>...Let's not forget that Jimmy

>Carter, great man and humanitarian that he is, was unable to

>bring those people home.

You know, I've always wondered how the military could fail so spectacularly, and how the blame for it attached to Carter. Then with Reagan negotiating behind the scenes to keep the hostiges captive... Not sure Presiden Carter so much failed as was fucked over.

>If The Reagans had been critical of Ronnie and Nancy, AND it

>was based on legitimate points and facts, I'd have no problem

>with it. However, it was a smear job pure and simple. That's

>not fair whether you liked Reagan or not. I'll say it again,

>despite his faults, Ronald Reagan made people be proud to be

>Americans, and he restored a sense of honor and pride that had

>been missing since that cold day in Novemeber, 1963 when it

>was stolen from us.

I'm not talking about the miniseries, anybody that hasn't learned there's no accurate, non-sensationalized news (or anything like it) available on the major TV networks...

I agree he was presidential, though I think Carter didn't get a fair shake. Reagan was also a liar, as was 41, and now 43 (who took it to a new level, lying to a joint session of congress while performing one of the only duties constitutionally required of him...). I prefer presidents lying about sexual habits and cigar storage to presidents lying about selling arms to both sides (and chemical/biological weapons to one of the sides...) during a war and keeping it from both congress and the American people...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/peopleevents/pande08.html

RE: Reagan's legacy through an adult's eyes, looking ba...

>>I fully understand that Reagan was not perfect. I am well

>>aware of the accusations that the Reagan team offered iran

>>arms in exchange for delaying the release of the hostages.

>If

>>there's proof, present it.

I know of no proof of that accusation. It has, of course, been demonstrated that Reagan condoned the selling of American missiles to Iran in return for money that could be used to fund the civil war in Nicaragua after Congress had passed (and Reagan had signed) a ban on the use of federal funds for that purpose.

Considering how many lies Reagan told during his presidency it amazes me that his supporters would have the brass-plated nerve to accuse CBS or anyone else of dishonesty. It just goes to show what hypocrites they are.

>>...Let's not forget that Jimmy

>>Carter, great man and humanitarian that he is, was unable to

>>bring those people home.

I've heard a number of right-wing cheerleaders (including Bill O'Reilly) claim that it was Reagan's image of "toughness" that made it possible to solve the Iran hostage crisis. But the truth is that during his presidency Hezbollah and other terrorist groups sponsored by Iran took and held a number of Americans hostage. Somehow his "tough" image didn't prevent that.

>>If The Reagans had been critical of Ronnie and Nancy, AND it

>>was based on legitimate points and facts, I'd have no

>problem

>>with it. However, it was a smear job pure and simple.

So what? Reagan and his people smeared political opponents on many occasions. Why should anyone have any sympathy for him simply because he gets a taste of his own medicine?

>That's

>>not fair whether you liked Reagan or not. I'll say it

>again,

>>despite his faults, Ronald Reagan made people be proud to be

>>Americans, and he restored a sense of honor and pride that

>had

>>been missing since that cold day in Novemeber, 1963 when it

>>was stolen from us.

Speak for yourself. When it was revealed that his administration had been selling arms to Iran while at the very same time urging other countries to respect an arms embargo of Iran, America was held up to embarrassment and derision before the world community in a way that had not happened since Vietnam. He could have and should have been impeached for that alone.

RE: Reagan's legacy through an adult's eyes, looking ba...

>I know of no proof of that accusation. It has, of course,

>been demonstrated that Reagan condoned the selling of American

>missiles to Iran in return for money that could be used to

>fund the civil war in Nicaragua after Congress had passed (and

>Reagan had signed) a ban on the use of federal funds for that

>purpose.

The Joint Congressional Committee appointed to investigate this matter did not conclude that Reagan knew about the transactions of Oliver North and John Poindexter. Do you have evidence that they didn't find?

>Considering how many lies Reagan told during his presidency it

>amazes me that his supporters would have the brass-plated

>nerve to accuse CBS or anyone else of dishonesty. It just

>goes to show what hypocrites they are.

That's brilliant - if a President tells lies while in office, then it's okay for media outlets to lie about his Presidency, distort history, and attribute thoughts and ideas to him that he never expressed. After all, he did it first.

>I've heard a number of right-wing cheerleaders (including Bill

>O'Reilly) claim that it was Reagan's image of "toughness" that

>made it possible to solve the Iran hostage crisis.

If it wasn't his "toughness," why were the hostages released so soon after he took office, when Carter tried forever to get them released and failed? Did the Islamic fundamentalists like Reagan and wanted to make him look good - is that what you think?

>>>However, it was a smear job pure and simple.

>

>So what? Reagan and his people smeared political opponents on

>many occasions. Why should anyone have any sympathy for him

>simply because he gets a taste of his own medicine?

LOL!!! The Reagan White House, according to Woodlawn, engaged in political smear tactics. So what's the big deal if a major television network broadcasts movies falsely depicting historical events and disparaging a President's reputation based on events that never occurred. To describe this argument is to demonstrate its lunacy.

>

>>That's

>>>not fair whether you liked Reagan or not. I'll say it

>>again,

>>>despite his faults, Ronald Reagan made people be proud to

>be

>>>Americans, and he restored a sense of honor and pride that

>>had

>>>been missing since that cold day in Novemeber, 1963 when it

>>>was stolen from us.

>

>Speak for yourself.

The fact that Reagan made huge numbers of people proud to be American cannot be disputed. He was re-elected in one of the most lopsided landslides ever. The country was in a self-hating, miserable funk under Carter - Reagan's presidency transformed that climate into one of optimism and renewed faith in America. Sure, there are a handful of malcontents who stayed bitter and miserable, but the vast majority of American citizens responded with extraordinary passion to Reagan's presdiency.

When it was revealed that his

>administration had been selling arms to Iran while at the very

>same time urging other countries to respect an arms embargo of

>Iran, America was held up to embarrassment and derision before

>the world community in a way that had not happened since

>Vietnam.

Is that what happened? There was enormous cooperation among America and its allies during the entire Administration. Bush Sr. was able to assemble one of the largest and most cohesive alliances ever in ejecting Iraq from Kuwait. The isolation and embarrassment which you claim Reagan caused is a figment of your imagination.

> He could have and should have been impeached for

>that alone.

What crime did Reagan - as opposed to Oliver North and John Poindexter - commit?

RE: Funniest thing ever

Here's what Barbra had to say today abou the cancellation of the Reagans:

<<I don't believe Democrats often, if ever, try to muscle the First Amendment like this.>>

That is the all-time funniest comment ever!

In the last couple years alone, "Democrats" have successfully forced the removal from the airways of Dr. Laura, Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh. Conservative speakers on college campuses are frequently cancelled or, if not cancelled, shouted down. Any public figure who violates liberal speech codes is the target of attacks so severe that it makes the protests over this movie look like a tea party.

It never ceases to amaze that some people are so ideologically rabid that they are willing to blind themselves to such glaring reality in order to pretend that their side is all good.

Liberals as free speech lovers - funniest thing ever!!

RE: Funniest thing ever

>Here's what Barbra had to say today

You really are fixated on Streisand, aren't you? I hope the Scaasi pantsuit is in your size. :7

>In the last couple years alone, "Democrats" have successfully

>forced the removal from the airways of Dr. Laura, Michael

>Savage and Rush Limbaugh.

Now I understand the title of your post; what you just said is "the funniest thing ever." The Democratic Party had nothing to do with any of those performers losing their jobs, whereas the Republican National Committee was directly involved in the bullying of CBS. Wasn't it gay groups who protested Dr. Laura's show and Savage's "sodomite" comment? I believe this message board should be proof enough to you that every gay person isn't a Democrat. And how did Democrats force Limbaugh's resignation? Did they form a boycott against ESPN like the successful CBS boycott?

RE: Funniest thing ever

>Here's what Barbra had to say today about

>the cancellation of the Reagans:

"I am deeply disappointed that CBS, the network that in 1964 gave me complete artistic control in creating television specials, now caved in to right wing Republican pressure to cancel the network broadcast of the movie The Reagans. (And I say MOVIE - because this is NOT a documentary - it's a television drama.) The movie will now be aired on Showtime, where the difference in viewership is in the millions.

"One can only imagine the kind of pressure that would compel CBS to take such an extraordinary action. This was an organized Republican spin machine at work. Remember the Dixie Chicks controversy? It wasn't the larger general public that called in to radio stations and burned CDs, it was a small group of right wing activists. In fact, now the band is more popular than ever, with a sold out summer tour.

"I don't believe Democrats often, if ever, try to muscle the First Amendment like this. For example, in 1983, no one stopped NBC from airing Kennedy, a biopic that portrayed President Kennedy and other members of his family and administration as deeply flawed, even though the movie could have potentially been hurtful to Jackie Kennedy, who was still alive to see it, as well as to her children.

"This is censorship, pure and simple. Well, maybe not all that pure. Censorship never is. Due to their experience with the restrictive English government, the framers of our constitution specifically included a ban on prior restraint in the First Amendment, which is an attempt to stop information from getting out there before the public has a chance to see it at all - exactly what is going on in this case. Of course, CBS as a company has the legal right to make decisions about what they do and do not air. However, these important decisions should be based on artistic integrity rather than an attempt to appease a small group of vocal dissidents. Indeed, today marks a sad day for artistic freedom - one of the most important elements of an open and democratic society."

RE: Reagan's legacy through an adult's eyes, looking ba...

>If it wasn't his "toughness," why were the hostages released

>so soon after he took office, when Carter tried forever to get

>them released and failed? Did the Islamic fundamentalists

>like Reagan and wanted to make him look good - is that what

>you think?

We've been over that, with corroboration. Do you read what others write? You think the image of an actor, governor of California and former president of the Screen Actors Guild struck fear into their hearts and after they wet themselves they turned over the hostages... because he was an actor? Makes much more sense then it having been the bribes he agreed to give them to turn over the hostages not a moment before he was sworn in!

RE: Reagan's legacy through an adult's eyes, looking ba...

So, if I understand correctly, you're saying that if Reagan was a lying son of a bitch, it's okay for people to lie about him? Where's the sense in that? Doesn't that make you just as bad as the person you've called a lying son of a bitch? Doesn't it make you the same thing?

You wanna make a picture about the Iran Contra affair, and Reagan's involvement in it? Great. It's a legitimate issue and approaching it from the standpoint that he may have known and approved of what happened would make a compelling arguement.

But to smear the man just for the sake of sensationalism? Where's your integrity?

i agree with the poster above that said that Bush 43 and Cheney are pure evil. There are plenty of legitimate points on which to make that claim. You want to make a Bush 43 biopic? You got cocaine, alcohol, desertion, plenty of sensationalism. But if you portrayed him as a womanizer or getting a Lewinsky in the oval office, that wouldn't be fair, even if you do believe the man is evil.

RE: Reagan's legacy through an adult's eyes, looking ba...

>We've been over that, with corroboration. Do you read what

>others write? You think the image of an actor, governor of

>California and former president of the Screen Actors Guild

>struck fear into their hearts and after they wet themselves

>they turned over the hostages... because he was an actor?

>Makes much more sense then it having been the bribes he agreed

>to give them to turn over the hostages not a moment before he

>was sworn in!

Yes, I read your conspiracy tripe about how Reagan bribed the Islamic Fundamentalists to release the hostages. Regarding that fantasy, please note the following:

(1) The fact that you can link to Internet sites which repeat your fantasies doesn't make them serious enough to merit discussion, let alone true. I can give you lots of links to Internet sites, and titles of books as well, reviewing the "evidence which proves" that Hillary ordered the murder of Vince Foster; that Bill Clinton engineered the "mysterious" deaths of numerous Whitewater witnesses; and that Janet Reno supervises organized crime rings.

Nonetheless, certain conspiracy theories are so devoid of evidence and so facially false that even those who dislike the targets of the theory acknowledge their falsity. They are not just false, but so obviously false as to not merit a reply.

(2) Despite the fact that he buys into virtually every anti-Reagan line around, woodlawn made clear that even he does not believe there is any evidence at all, let alone convincing evidence, to support your bribery fantasy. Since I was asking him what HE thought was the motive behind the release of the hostages - in light of the fact that he discounts the "toughness" theory - there would be no reason I would assume that he thought your conspiracy theory was the reason, since he expressly discounted it.

(3) I have heard fewer conspiracy theories more self-evidently idiotic than the one you are peddling. Do you know how many people would have to be involved on both sides to bribe the regime of Ayatollah Kholemni into releasing hostages? Nobody who is serious has mentioned it in the last 20 years. What's the motive? Reagan already won the election. You think that the regime, in the height of their swooning over the jihadist revolution, would release these hostages for some money?

As this TV movie demonstrates, enemies of Ronald Reagan are willing to invent false facts in order to discredit him, but only the tiniest handful of Reagan haters are willing to claim with a straight face what you allege. Shouldn't that tell you something?

You should be displayed everywhere. You are so desperate to deny that there was ANYTHING good about Ronald Reagan that you are willing to invent and embrace the most extreme fantasies to explain away what he accomplished and replace it with something sinister.

Do you also believe that the Bush Administration engineered 9/11, or knowingly let it happen, in order to increase his popularity and permit his programs to be implemented? That's a serious question. In light of your belief in the Bribery Theory, I'd be totally unsurprised if you believe that, too.

RE: Reagan's legacy through an adult's eyes, looking ba...

>You should be displayed everywhere. You are so desperate to

>deny that there was ANYTHING good about Ronald Reagan that you

>are willing to invent and embrace the most extreme fantasies

>to explain away what he accomplished and replace it with

>something sinister.

To quote the former President, "There you go again...". You spew but don't read. I did compliment Reagan, on ending the cold war and being far more presidential then 43. Further, I've made it clear I don't support the TV movie BS.

>Do you also believe that the Bush Administration engineered

>9/11, or knowingly let it happen, in order to increase his

>popularity and permit his programs to be implemented? That's

>a serious question. In light of your belief in the Bribery

>Theory, I'd be totally unsurprised if you believe that, too.

First, relating to the Clinton's mass murder theories, are we talking "books" from some website stapled together, or books available at Borders, etc... which seriously present the idea they had 40 or more people killed?

There is pretty clear evidence that *at the least* Bush's administration was handed a clear and detailed plan to go after Osama in Afghanistan which they ignored (Bush had more important things to do... vacation), and that his family has massive ties with Saudi Arabia preventing them from doing anything to the country which provided 15 of 19 hijackers and the money.

RE: Reagan's legacy through an adult's eyes, looking ba...

If the plan was so clear and detailed, then why didn't Clinton go after bin Laden the various times he had the opportunity? He is on record as having said that bin Laden was one of the worst terrorists in the world and should be stopped, yet when he was literally handed bin Laden he passed. Makes no sense to me.

RE: Reagan's legacy through an adult's eyes, looking ba...

>To quote the former President, "There you go again...". You

>spew but don't read. I did compliment Reagan, on ending the

>cold war and being far more presidential then 43. Further,

>I've made it clear I don't support the TV movie BS.

Gee, sorry I don't memorize all of your statements regarding Reagan. But the fact that you peddle this fantasy - and then ignore every question and point I made about it - strongly suggests the fantacism I believe drives you on some issues, as does your truly STARTLING belief that Bush at the very least deliberately allowed 9/11 to occur.

>First, relating to the Clinton's mass murder theories, are we

>talking "books" from some website stapled together, or books

>available at Borders, etc... which seriously present the idea

>they had 40 or more people killed?

I don't konw if the book is available or not at Borders, but do you think that Borders is the aribter of everything serious and important in political theory? If they sell it, it's legitimate; if they don't, it's not?

The American Spectator crowd has certainly published books theorizing about Vince Foster's "murder" and other mysterious Clinton-related deaths which have been published in major bookstores.

And did you read that site that you linked to re: Reagan's bribery? It sounds EXACTLY LIKE the kookiest Clinton conspiracy theorists - that site you recommended lists all sorts of people supposedly investigating the bribery theory who "died myesterious deaths." Oooohhh . . . spooky . . . . call Oliver Stone.

>There is pretty clear evidence that *at the least* Bush's

>administration was handed a clear and detailed plan to go

>after Osama in Afghanistan which they ignored (Bush had more

>important things to do... vacation), and that his family has

>massive ties with Saudi Arabia preventing them from doing

>anything to the country which provided 15 of 19 hijackers and

>the money.

Can you please answer the question in a straightforwarded way: do you believe:

(a) that Bush and/or the top officials in his Administration deliberately allowed 9/11 to occur becuase they perceived some political or financial benefit from it;

(b) that Bush and/or the top officials in his Administration helped to plan and/or implement the 9/11 attacks?

RE: Reagan's legacy through an adult's eyes, looking ba...

>The Joint Congressional Committee appointed to investigate

>this matter did not conclude that Reagan knew about the

>transactions of Oliver North and John Poindexter. Do you have

>evidence that they didn't find?

Sure. Just look at the testimony of Reagan aides like Meese who claimed they "couldn't remember" the content of conversations with him about this. Only an idiot would believe that. And what reason could they have for lying about what could remember? I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count.

>>Considering how many lies Reagan told during his presidency

>it

>>amazes me that his supporters would have the brass-plated

>>nerve to accuse CBS or anyone else of dishonesty. It just

>>goes to show what hypocrites they are.

>That's brilliant - if a President tells lies while in office,

>then it's okay for media outlets to lie about his Presidency,

>distort history, and attribute thoughts and ideas to him that

>he never expressed. After all, he did it first.

And why should those who support a president who routinely relied on lies and deceit be allowed to express outrage at the dishonesty of others? If they condone the lies of Reagan, why should they be allowed to hold the producers of a television program to a different standard? Well?

>>I've heard a number of right-wing cheerleaders (including

>Bill

>>O'Reilly) claim that it was Reagan's image of "toughness"

>that

>>made it possible to solve the Iran hostage crisis.

>If it wasn't his "toughness," why were the hostages released

Obviously it wasn't -- since his "toughness" didn't stop the same people from taking plenty of other hostages later. We know he made a deal with Iran to work for the release of hostages later in his administration -- while telling the world that we do not negotiate with terrorists -- so why do you find it hard to believe he did the same thing on another occasion?

>so soon after he took office, when Carter tried forever to get

>them released and failed? Did the Islamic fundamentalists

>like Reagan and wanted to make him look good - is that what

>you think?

Given what we now know about Reagan's actions in Iran-Contra, it seems likely that Carter couldn't get the hostages out because unlike Reagan he wasn't willing to bargain with their captors.

>>So what? Reagan and his people smeared political opponents

>on

>>many occasions. Why should anyone have any sympathy for him

>>simply because he gets a taste of his own medicine?

>LOL!!! The Reagan White House, according to Woodlawn, engaged

>in political smear tactics. So what's the big deal if a major

>television network broadcasts movies falsely depicting

>historical events and disparaging a President's reputation

>based on events that never occurred. To describe this

>argument is to demonstrate its lunacy.

To resist the argument is to demonstrate your hypocrisy. You obviously don't have a problem when a politician you support uses smear tactics to advance his own career. Why do you have a different set of rules for others? If a politician can do it why can't a television producer? In which of those two jobs would you say it's more important that an individual adhere to a set of moral principles, world leader or tv movie producer?

>The fact that Reagan made huge numbers of people proud to be

>American cannot be disputed.

Sure it can. That's just another one of the lies peddled by Noonan, Coulter and the other professional hatemongers of the Right. I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I first heard that Noonan had written a book about Reagan, one of the most dishonest presidents in history, titled "When Character Mattered." Talk about irony! LOL!!!! A much more appropriate title would be, "Reagan -- What a Character!"

>He was re-elected in one of the

>most lopsided landslides ever.

So was Nixon. So was Johnson. Does that justify everything they did too?

>Sure, there are a handful of malcontents

>who stayed bitter and miserable, but the vast majority of

>American citizens responded with extraordinary passion to

>Reagan's presdiency.

Nope, that is just more lying right-wing propaganda.

>America was held up to embarrassment and derision

>before

>>the world community in a way that had not happened since

>>Vietnam.

>Is that what happened? There was enormous cooperation among

>America and its allies during the entire Administration. Bush

>Sr. was able to assemble one of the largest and most cohesive

>alliances ever in ejecting Iraq from Kuwait. The isolation

>and embarrassment which you claim Reagan caused is a figment

>of your imagination.

Whoa -- what does Bush's ability to assemble a coalition against Iraq in 1991 have to do with Reagan? Especially considering that it occurred two years AFTER Reagan had left office? If you can't tell the difference between those two men you may want to get a new pair of glasses. Or ease up on the meth.

>What crime did Reagan - as opposed to Oliver North and John

>Poindexter - commit?

There has never been any doubt in my mind -- and after the scandal broke in 1987 polls showed a majority of Americans agreed with me -- that Reagan authorized their actions. Which constituted multiple counts of larceny, fraud and conspiracy. If Reagan had been convicted of the crimes he actually committed in 1987, he would still be in prison today.

RE: Reagan's legacy through an adult's eyes, looking ba...

Interesting to find out just who Reagan is supposed to have smeared? Do you have any names? Documented?

I know the Democrats smeared at that time. Ray Donovan (Secretary of Labor) was smeared and taken to court by the Democrats and judged totally innocent. I remember his statement when the verdict came down that he was innocent. He said "Who do I see to get my reputation back?" No one answered the question from the Democratic side as they sat there with egg on their faces.

RE: Reagan's legacy through an adult's eyes, looking ba...

>Interesting to find out just who Reagan is supposed to have

>smeared? Do you have any names? Documented?

And what if I do post that information? What are you going to do then? Are you going to post an apology for your misguided admiration of Reagan and promise to vote Democratic in the future? Or are you going to stop posting and run away from this thread the way you usually do when someone out-argues you?

>I know the Democrats smeared at that time. Ray Donovan

>(Secretary of Labor) was smeared and taken to court by the

>Democrats and judged totally innocent. I remember his

>statement when the verdict came down that he was innocent. He

>said "Who do I see to get my reputation back?" No one

>answered the question from the Democratic side as they sat

>there with egg on their faces.

Don't make me laugh. After Republicans demanded the nation spend $70 million on a witch hunt that produced no criminal charges against Clinton, after Republican organizations produced videos accusing Clinton of complicity in the "murder" of White House aide Vincent Foster, who the hell are you people to complain about smear tactics? Your problem is that you can't stand the taste of your own foul medicine. Well, choke on it.

RE: Reagan's legacy through an adult's eyes, looking ba...

>So, if I understand correctly, you're saying that if Reagan

>was a lying son of a bitch, it's okay for people to lie about

>him? Where's the sense in that? Doesn't that make you just

>as bad as the person you've called a lying son of a bitch?

>Doesn't it make you the same thing?

It makes me a person who deprecates hypocrisy. Some of the same people who are screaming that the Reagan film is a smear job (like Pat Buchanan) lied and smeared to get Reagan in office and keep him in office, or turned a blind eye to such behavior by other Reagan supporters. It should turn the stomach of anyone who cares for truth to hear these deceitful assholes whining about the "dishonesty" of anyone else. Let Reagan supporters who are NOT guilty of such behavior make the case against the film -- if you can find any.

>But to smear the man just for the sake of sensationalism?

>Where's your integrity?

My integrity prevents me from remaining silent when a bunch of Republican smear artists have the colossal nerve to complain that someone else is using the same tactics they use. Let them choke on the taste of their own foul medicine.

RE: Reagan's legacy through an adult's eyes, looking ba...

Guess that means you don't have anything to post then!!

the subject was your statement repeated several times that Reagan smeared.

RE: Reagan's legacy through an adult's eyes, looking ba...

>>The Joint Congressional Committee appointed to investigate

>>this matter did not conclude that Reagan knew about the

>>transactions of Oliver North and John Poindexter. Do you

>have

>>evidence that they didn't find?

>

>Sure. Just look at the testimony of Reagan aides like Meese

>who claimed they "couldn't remember" the content of

>conversations with him about this. Only an idiot would

>believe that. And what reason could they have for lying about

>what could remember? I'll give you three guesses, and the

>first two don't count.

In other words, you have no evidence that Reagan knew anything about what Oliver North and John Poindexter were doing - just as I thought.

If the mere fact that witnesses answered "I don't recall" in response to certian questions in a criminal investigation meant - as you ridiculously suggest - that everyone involved is guilt, virtually every criminal investigation would end with guilty verdicts.

Numerous witnesses in the various investigations surrounding the Clintons repeatedly answered "I don't recall" when asked questions, including the Clintons. Guess that means they were all guilty and should have been impeached. But that implies that you apply the same standards to the politicians you like as you do to the ones you don't, and nothing is more apparent than the fact that you do exactly the opposite.

>And why should those who support a president who routinely

>relied on lies and deceit be allowed to express outrage at the

>dishonesty of others? If they condone the lies of Reagan, why

>should they be allowed to hold the producers of a television

>program to a different standard? Well?

Do you really need to ask this. Didn't your mommy teach you that two wrongs don't make a right, woodlawn?

So if a President tells a lie once, then it's a free-for-all with reagrd to how journalists and historians treat the Presidency - it's no big deal if they start inventing all sorts of false claims against that Presdient. After all, since he lied, who is he to complain?

I'd be quite surprised if there were many people on this Board, conservative or liberal, who didn't find that idea to be too silly and corrupt to merit any discussion.

>>>So what? Reagan and his people smeared political opponents

>>on many occasions. Why should anyone have any sympathy for

>him simply because he gets a taste of his own medicine?

Which political party doesn't smear those who oppose them? The Democrats? Are they pure?

Are you so drowning in zealous, blind loyalty to your party that you think that Democrts don't engage in deceit, character assasination and secret deals? Those tactics are the exclusive province of the Republican Party? It's hard to believe that anyone can say any of that with a straight face, but ideology uber alle.

>To resist the argument is to demonstrate your hypocrisy. You

>obviously don't have a problem when a politician you support

>uses smear tactics to advance his own career. Why do you have

>a different set of rules for others? If a politician can do

>it why can't a television producer?

I don't think it's right for Presidents to engage in character smearing based on lies. But if they do, it doesn't make it any less wrong for journalists and film producers to engage in the same dishonest behavior with the intent to destroy that President's reputation.

>Sure it can. That's just another one of the lies peddled by

>Noonan, Coulter and the other professional hatemongers of the

>Right.

I believe that this "lie" - that Reagan rejuvinated America - is shared by more than "professional hatemongers of the Right." That's sort of why he was re-elected with an overwhelming landslide. The people spoke, and they puked out your Reagan hatred. And it seems that, even though that was 19 years ago, you're still hopping mad about it. Maybe a vacation would help.

>>Sure, there are a handful of malcontents

>>who stayed bitter and miserable, but the vast majority of

>>American citizens responded with extraordinary passion to

>>Reagan's presdiency.

>

>Nope, that is just more lying right-wing propaganda.

Oh, okay, Hillary. Chalk up any defeat to "right-wing propaganda," whatever the fuck that is. Is it "right-wing propaganda" that Reagan was a highly admired figure among the majority of the voting populace in this country?

>>What crime did Reagan - as opposed to Oliver North and John

>>Poindexter - commit?

>

>There has never been any doubt in my mind -- and after the

>scandal broke in 1987 polls showed a majority of Americans

>agreed with me -- that Reagan authorized their actions. Which

>constituted multiple counts of larceny, fraud and conspiracy.

>If Reagan had been convicted of the crimes he actually

>committed in 1987, he would still be in prison today.

In order to convict someone of a crime, you need something called "evidence." There was none demonstrating that Reagan knew or approved of anything with regard to these transactions. But that doesn't stop you from wanting him imprisoned, for his true crime - being a conservative.

How did you feel when Bush was inagurated, and then 2 years later, the Republicans captured both Houses of Congress, giving them control of the Executive Branch, the entire Congress, and a sizable majority of state Governors. God, how that must eat at you.

RE: Reagan's legacy through an adult's eyes, looking ba...

>Can you please answer the question in a straightforwarded way:

> do you believe:

>

>(a) that Bush and/or the top officials in his Administration

>deliberately allowed 9/11 to occur becuase they perceived some

>political or financial benefit from it;

>

>(b) that Bush and/or the top officials in his Administration

>helped to plan and/or implement the 9/11 attacks?

Why? You seem to have answered it for me, twice. No, I do not believe these things... I think of Bush as more inept then as an evil mastermind, but may be wrong.

RE: Reagan's legacy through an adult's eyes, looking ba...

>Guess that means you don't have anything to post then!!

As a matter of fact I do. But bear this in mind. If I go to the trouble of posting a link and you do not respond, I am going to follow you around this board reminding you about it until Gabriel blows his horn. Still want me to post it?

RE: Reagan's legacy through an adult's eyes, looking ba...

>>Sure. Just look at the testimony of Reagan aides like Meese

>>who claimed they "couldn't remember" the content of

>>conversations with him about this. Only an idiot would

>>believe that. And what reason could they have for lying

>about

>>what could remember? I'll give you three guesses, and the

>>first two don't count.

>In other words, you have no evidence that Reagan knew anything

>about what Oliver North and John Poindexter were doing - just

>as I thought.

Why don't you explain to the rest of us how such evidence is to be obtained when anyone who conversed with the president about this subject either refuses to answer questions or hides behind executive privilege? Well? We're anxious to hear.

>If the mere fact that witnesses answered "I don't recall" in

>response to certian questions in a criminal investigation

>meant - as you ridiculously suggest - that everyone involved

>is guilt, virtually every criminal investigation would end

>with guilty verdicts.

Do you ever get tired of this transparent tactic of making up some absurd shit like the above and then yelling at your opponent for "saying" it? Apparently not. But you can't be dumb enough to believe it fools anyone.

>Numerous witnesses in the various investigations surrounding

>the Clintons repeatedly answered "I don't recall" when asked

>questions, including the Clintons. Guess that means they were

>all guilty and should have been impeached.

Unless you have amnesia due to a head injury, you must know that the reason Clinton was impeached is that he DID NOT answer "I don't recall" when asked about the matters in question. So that makes nonsense of your argument. Again.

>But that implies

>that you apply the same standards to the politicians you like

>as you do to the ones you don't, and nothing is more apparent

>than the fact that you do exactly the opposite.

A stupid lie on your part. Show me one post of mine in which I deny Clinton's culpability. Just one will do. Well?

>>And why should those who support a president who routinely

>>relied on lies and deceit be allowed to express outrage at

>the

>>dishonesty of others? If they condone the lies of Reagan,

>why

>>should they be allowed to hold the producers of a television

>>program to a different standard? Well?

>Do you really need to ask this. Didn't your mommy teach you

>that two wrongs don't make a right, woodlawn?

Perhaps you are still at the stage at which the encomiums of your childhood constitute all you know of moral philosophy, but the rest of us have learned a bit more on the subject since then. One of the things we have learned is that blatant hypocrisy tends to deprive moral complaints of the force they would otherwise have. Did your mommy happen to mention that to you?

By the way, what did your mommy have to say about hiring whores and taking it up the ass?

>So if a President tells a lie once, then it's a free-for-all

>with reagrd to how journalists and historians treat the

>Presidency - it's no big deal if they start inventing all

>sorts of false claims against that Presdient. After all,

>since he lied, who is he to complain?

>I'd be quite surprised if there were many people on this

>Board, conservative or liberal, who didn't find that idea to

>be too silly and corrupt to merit any discussion.

I'd be surprised if there is anyone visiting this board who doesn't notice that you are going back to your constant pattern of making up shit and claiming your opponent "said" it. Who, for example, has said anything about what journalists and historians should do? We're talking about a tv movie. Why lie about that?

>Which political party doesn't smear those who oppose them?

>The Democrats? Are they pure?

I don't think of Democrats as "pure." Why do you ask? What does their behavior have to do with the hypocritical complaints of the Reagan crowd?

>Are you so drowning in zealous, blind loyalty to your party

>that you think that Democrts don't engage in deceit,

Once again, what does that have to do with this discussion?

>It's hard to

>believe that anyone can say any of that with a straight face,

>but ideology uber alle.

What's really hard to believe is that you think you can impress anyone by this constant tactic of making up ridiculous shit and then yelling at your opponent for "saying" it.

>I don't think it's right for Presidents to engage in character

>smearing based on lies. But if they do, it doesn't make it

>any less wrong for journalists and film producers to engage in

>the same dishonest behavior with the intent to destroy that

>President's reputation.

I never said it was "right." I did say that I do not want to hear complaints about a smear campaign from the very people who have themselves engaged in such campaigns in the past. Is there any part of that last sentence you don't understand?

>I believe that this "lie" - that Reagan rejuvinated America -

>is shared by more than "professional hatemongers of the

>Right."

I don't believe it is. Got any proof?

>That's sort of why he was re-elected with an

>overwhelming landslide. The people spoke, and they puked out

>your Reagan hatred. And it seems that, even though that was

>19 years ago, you're still hopping mad about it. Maybe a

>vacation would help.

Do you really want to propose the notion that the fact a president wins a big re-election victory validates everything he has done? Would that also apply to Nixon in 1972? And to Clinton in 1996?

>Oh, okay, Hillary. Chalk up any defeat to "right-wing

>propaganda," whatever the fuck that is.

It is a series of filthy lies that your ilk is constantly telling in order to justify your policies of hatred and greed. Joe Conason wrote an entire book about this, in case you would like some specifics.

> Is it "right-wing

>propaganda" that Reagan was a highly admired figure among the

>majority of the voting populace in this country?

At one time, I'm sure he was. But your claims about him far exceed that simple statement.

>>If Reagan had been convicted of the crimes he actually

>>committed in 1987, he would still be in prison today.

>In order to convict someone of a crime, you need something

>called "evidence."

Really? You do? So how is it that you shits spent eight years hounding Clinton about Whitewater even though you never had any?

>There was none demonstrating that Reagan

>knew or approved of anything with regard to these

>transactions. But that doesn't stop you from wanting him

>imprisoned, for his true crime - being a conservative.

And the REAL reason you scum tried to get Clinton is because you were outraged that he tried to conceal an affair. Can we have a show of hands of all the people who believe that one?

>How did you feel when Bush was inagurated,

I felt that he had stolen the election. He's the type who would steal anything not nailed down, as well as quite a few things that ARE nailed down.

and then 2 years

>later, the Republicans captured both Houses of Congress,

>giving them control of the Executive Branch, the entire

>Congress, and a sizable majority of state Governors. God, how

>that must eat at you.

Not really. I know enough about history to know that the period of Republican dominance will be short lived, and that much of what they are trying to do now will either fail or be undone when the country tires of their reactionary agenda, as it inevitably will. Republicans, since they re-invented themselves as the party of conservatives thirty years ago, have been in constant retreat. They have retreated on education, on sexual equality, on entitlements, on civil rights, on spending, on gay rights . . . . They have been forced to roll back their positions on those issues again and again in order to win office. The only issue they have left is taxes. That won't last much longer either.

RE: Reagan's legacy through an adult's eyes, looking ba...

Yes.

By the way, you need to take a look at your posting about Clinton and his re-election victory in 1996. Clinton never did win 50% of the vote in either election. That does not strike me as a big landslide victory, particularly against a campaign as lackluster as the one Dole made in 1996.

RE: Reagan's legacy through an adult's eyes, looking ba...

>Yes.

Okay, let's start with this:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/clinton7.html

>By the way, you need to take a look at your posting about

>Clinton and his re-election victory in 1996. Clinton never

>did win 50% of the vote in either election. That does not

>strike me as a big landslide victory, particularly against a

>campaign as lackluster as the one Dole made in 1996.

You need to take a look at all the statements by your fellow Repubs after the 2000 election that it is really the ELECTORAL votes that count. What was Clinton's total and what was Dole's?

RE: Reagan's legacy through an adult's eyes, looking ba...

I was quoting in terms that you would understand!!

RE: Reagan's legacy through an adult's eyes, looking ba...

Your statement was that Reagan was guilty of smears. This website just states that his administration was guilty of smears but does not provide any at all. It states that Lawrence Walsh was under pressure during his independent counsel days but there is no specific example of this. The other references are to the Rev Moon. Then they talk about the New Republic becoming more conservative and the start of conservative leaders on political talk shows. They don't mention that these same political talk shows also had very strong liberal commentators on them as well. The leaders may have been conservative but there was nothing to keep the liberals from talking their points as well and they did, eg, Cokie Roberts and Eleanor Clift and Steve Roberts. Your reference provided no example at all of the Reagan administration smearing.

I did like the bit about the "accidental delivery of FBI files" to the White House. If you believe that one I have a bridge for sale (if Rick lets me sell it). They don't go on to mention that this accidental delivery of files led to the files being lost in the care of Craig Livingston (who was not even an employee of the government and even if he were should never have had access to files of this type - actually Hillary should not have had access to them either and they finally showed up in her office). The story also does not mention that the investigation of the Travel Office resulted in the finding that there was no money gone missing and that the investigation resulted in the destruction of the reputation of the man who had been head of the office.

Nice try but no cigar! You have to do a lot better than that!!