A different look at Reagan (political cartoon)

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2004-06-16 11:59am

This isn't how I think of Reagan but I think the cartoon brings up some good points and I can see how people could look at Reagan, or take things in the context presented in the cartoon.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-06-16 12:04pm

LOL- I hate that fucking bullshit about what a nice guy he was etc etc put in place of actual appraisal of his policies.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-06-16 12:09pm

I like this one

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-06-16 12:43pm

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-06-16 01:51pm

Beautiful.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-06-16 03:13pm

HemlockGrey wrote:

Seriously, Don't you find it ironic that the same people who
splashed Abu Ghraib all over our papers, and TV screens
continuously actually are asking if they overdid the
Reagan funeral

VF5SS · Post by **VF5SS** » 2004-06-16 03:23pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Seriously, Don't you find it ironic that the same people who
splashed Abu Ghraib all over our papers, and TV screens
continuously actually are asking if they overdid the
Reagan funeral

Certainly. The media has officially freaked me out with the fact that seemed to have all those tribute shows ready within less than a day of the former president's death. They should've given it at least a week.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-06-16 03:28pm

It's not particularly surprising, newspapers and other media outlets have these kinds of things prepared in advance in many cases. When Bob Hope passed away the New York Times ran a eulogy written by a journalist who died months before Bob Hope, something that Jon Stewart got a lot of comedic mileage out of.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2004-06-16 03:33pm

VF5SS wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:
Seriously, Don't you find it ironic that the same people who
splashed Abu Ghraib all over our papers, and TV screens
continuously actually are asking if they overdid the
Reagan funeral
Certainly. The media has officially freaked me out with the fact that seemed to have all those tribute shows ready within less than a day of the former president's death. They should've given it at least a week.

To quote Jon Stewart: "This is something they've been worrking on for a very long time." Damn you Joe, got to it first.

VF5SS · Post by **VF5SS** » 2004-06-16 03:36pm

You don't say? Now I wonder what they have cooked up for the Pope.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-06-16 04:01pm

MKSheppard wrote:Seriously, Don't you find it ironic that the same people who splashed Abu Ghraib all over our papers, and TV screens continuously actually are asking if they overdid the Reagan funeral

I wasn't aware that a former president dying and continuing developments in a possible government endorsement of torture in a country we're supposed to be liberating from cruelty were on the same level of severity.

Sometimes I'm amazed at your uncanny ability to spot two things which have absolutely nothing to do with each other, attempt to link them together in any way you can, and then still come out failing miserably.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-06-16 04:17pm

Durandal wrote:I wasn't aware that a former president dying and continuing developments in a possible government endorsement of torture in a country we're supposed to be liberating from cruelty were on the same level of severity.

Sometimes I'm amazed at your uncanny ability to spot two things which have absolutely nothing to do with each other, attempt to link them together in any way you can, and then still come out failing miserably.

You've forgotten the media circus when Abu Ghraib was revealed? You
couldn't flip a damn channel or open a paper without it being
on front page for day after day after day.....and they didn't stop and
say "wait, don't you think we're overdoing it?" but when they OD like
that again for Reagan, they stop and go "wait, are we over doing it?"

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-06-16 04:27pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Durandal wrote:I wasn't aware that a former president dying and continuing developments in a possible government endorsement of torture in a country we're supposed to be liberating from cruelty were on the same level of severity.

Sometimes I'm amazed at your uncanny ability to spot two things which have absolutely nothing to do with each other, attempt to link them together in any way you can, and then still come out failing miserably.

You've forgotten the media circus when Abu Ghraib was revealed? You
couldn't flip a damn channel or open a paper without it being
on front page for day after day after day.....and they didn't stop and
say "wait, don't you think we're overdoing it?" but when they OD like
that again for Reagan, they stop and go "wait, are we over doing it?"

The world stage sees the torture of Iraqi prisoners as a little more pertinent to the current political climate than the death of a former president.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-06-16 05:11pm

MKSheppard wrote:You've forgotten the media circus when Abu Ghraib was revealed? You couldn't flip a damn channel or open a paper without it being on front page for day after day after day.....and they didn't stop and say "wait, don't you think we're overdoing it?" but when they OD like that again for Reagan, they stop and go "wait, are we over doing it?"

I say again: I wasn't aware that a president dying of Alzheimer's was on the same level of significance as exposing the torture of innocent prisoners in Iraq, a country which we've supposedly liberating from a cruel government.

I swear, we should map out the "Shep Canal," as the space over your head through which counterpoints to your moronic statements and arguments sail repeatedly.

SWPIGWANG · Post by **SWPIGWANG** » 2004-06-16 06:54pm

He deliever what the electorate want.

Entertainment and jingoism, how can anyone blame someone that is merely doing his job?

VF5SS · Post by **VF5SS** » 2004-06-16 07:34pm

I'd rather get those from a PR guy. At least when he messes up, you know its not important.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-06-16 08:18pm

As we've already seen, Reagan's friendly and accomodating approach to the South African government can be read positively; his administration did, after all, eventually negotiate the withdrawal from Namibia and Angola that ended the National Party's ability to evoke a spirit of sacrifice and repression. Reagan's anti-Apartheid policy didn't end Apartheid, no, but it did make greater progress than that of any of his predecessors.

And, when it comes to our historical relationship with Saddam, I think we can all agree that it was quite reasonable given the situation in the Middle East at the time.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-06-16 10:24pm

No, actually, I don't think we can.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-06-16 11:06pm

Why don't you expand on that?

Why don't you tell us what would have been, in your opinion, the best choice in that situation?

Perhaps you wish we'd have supported Iran? Or simply sat idle as the rest of the Middle East quaked at the aggresive rhetoric of the Ayatollah?

Granted that Saddam attacked first, but Iran wasn't exactly playing as nicely as one might hope.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-06-17 08:32am

Former President dies at a ripe old age of a disease we knew he had and we know is fatal > human beings in the prime of their lives treated like animals, tortured, and killed as a result of policies maybe endorsed by our government while in american custody? I think not.

I was going to say nothing about the reagan funeral coverage, but I'll open my trap now, I liked reagan-because I was too young to know any better. now I do, and I say he was a good man, but that coverage was ri-goddamned-diciulous. I stayed home from work on Friday for reasons not related to the funeral, and I had the TV on all day while at home. Ridiculous.

SWPIGWANG · Post by **SWPIGWANG** » 2004-06-17 09:24am

News exists because people want to see them, not because it is important.

VF5SS · Post by **VF5SS** » 2004-06-17 10:17am

I hear ya Chardok. It was on every channel plus cable. The only interesting thing to come out of it was the fact that you could see CBS's superior color saturation cuz you can't enjoy a wake without bright blues and sharp lines. =)

VF5SS · Post by **VF5SS** » 2004-06-17 11:11am

Here's another good one.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-06-17 11:43am

VF5SS wrote:Here's another good one.

Kennan thought that Reagan's rolling back of communism was insanity,
mind you

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-06-17 12:12pm

Axis Kast wrote:Why don't you expand on that?

Why don't you tell us what would have been, in your opinion, the best choice in that situation?

Perhaps you wish we'd have supported Iran? Or simply sat idle as the rest of the Middle East quaked at the aggresive rhetoric of the Ayatollah?

Granted that Saddam attacked first, but Iran wasn't exactly playing as nicely as one might hope.

How about Option C? Not support Iraq or Iran. Both were shithole nations with shithole leaders. Neither deserved our support; material or otherwise.