PeterDavid.net

Not sure where any of those scenarios are necessarily bad or disrespectful.

This was exactly my first thought when I heard Reagan died. ):

"Chances that Bush will mention Reagan one minute into his speech: 5-1.

Two minutes into his speech: 3-2.

Three minutes into his speech: 3-1."

All of the above: 7-2.

Generally speaking, I agree with Peter's scenarios. However...

Could you plese not exhibit as much political negativeness during this period of mourning? I can only speak for myself, but I'm really not interested in reading --- at least, not right now --- all the political conniving that might accompany Reagan's death, possible machinations on the part of the GOP and ways by which Reagan's passing might get otherwise sullied by self-serving individuals.

Even presuming all of that is true...

Can we not talk about this sort of crap NOW? Can you please wait awhile? Because a man I greatly admired has died, and if we could just leave it that way for... I dunno, a few days if not more would be nice... I for one would greatly appreciate it.

God, it's like all the people who want to politicize the reading of killed veterans on Memorial Day. Just for a bit, can we please fool ourselves into doing some actual *mourning* this week, and save all this sort of crap for later?

Thor

George Dubya will begin hanging out with a monkey named Bonzo.

I feel the need to mention, lest anyone try to misinterpret what I said, that I'm not disputing Peter's comments. I'm chafing at the timing of them.

Thor

Dee,
Whereas I doubt anyone here has any respect left for YOU at all.

Oh, good. Name calling.

Tone it down, folks. I'm not turning cartwheels about this either, but we should at least try to be civil to one another.

Thor

I'm a conservative from Texas and I couldn't agree with Peter more. The Republican Party should not be using RR's death as a way to earn or sway votes. It's demeaning to the man. I've read what Peter's said and not one posting has been disrespectful towards the former President. Let's see if the Conservatives on the net give President Clinton the same respect years from now when he passes. We respect the office if not the man.

Keep Hope Alive

Jesse Jackson

Wow. It would seem that according to some, Peter David's not allowed to have political opinions, and even if he's allowed to have them, he's not allowed to write about them on his own website.

Not sure why anyone who thinks PAD is "a hack writer" would visit his 'blog in the first place.

while i'm afraid i might just be feeding a troll...

Dee (assuming you aren't also DD and PADSUCKS...which is really suspending disbelief):

where in this posting was Reagan belittled? I see a lot of belittling going on in your post...but up until then, I saw none.

Enlighten me. Please.

well, Look at all the Republicans get upset. Peter didn't say anything bad about Ronald Regan, and all of you attack him for a comment. He just said that Bush and company would use the memorey of Regan to try to get votes, thier was no need to attack Peter David and call him a Hack writer. If you don't want to hear Peter Davids's Comments don't come to the web site. I am so tired of all the Republicnas agreeing with anything that Bush does, even if they know it is wrong, like geting our men killed in Iraq for no good reason, and then using verbal abuse at anyone that disagrees with any thing they say.

Sorry, Charlie, but I'm afraid you are indeed feeding a troll - as are others on here.

I've been hanging out here for a little while, and in that time I've found that Dee cannot present nor defend a position in debate - all he (assuming gender) is capable of, apparently, is spewing forth vitriol directed at anyone who dares disagree with his Great and Holy Opinions of Steel. I suppose it's a lot easier to avoid the variables of reality, while hunched over a keyboard in your parents' basement...

Well DD... by putting forth your anti-semetic views I can honestly say .. fuck you, fuck Regan and fuck the rightwing. Your no better then the leftwing morons out there.

You should probably just sit down, shutup and drink your Busch beer in your trailer park.

Jonathan (the other one):

I assumed so, but I generally like to give people the chance to respond with one intelligent/coherent response. Just seems like the fair thing to do.

But I don't doubt you at all. Too bad. The anonymity of the 'net gives these cowards such a sense of security. All of the anger they feel for all of the failures in their lives can come out here.

Hate to even suggest it...but might be time to move to a 'members only posting' type blog. Won't stop the crap, but might cut down on it enough to make it worthwhile to try.

Charlie

Raising the hand again to say it's not so much the comments as the timing of them. By the same token, I wouldn't wish people to start dissecting Bill Clinton's adultery and political conniving on behalf of the Democrats before his body's even cold.

... oh, why do I bother? The Internet's just not the place for considered, neuonced (sp?) debate.

Because, of course, Bush Jr would never do anything as low as seek to gain political capital from the death of Ronald Reagan...

http://www.georgewbush.com
(The Official Re-election Site for President George W. Bush)

Getting back to the topic, my gut feeling is that Peter is right about the odds. I believe that the image of Reagan will be used by the GOP convention as a rallying point. The question is are the GOP going to be wrong to do so?

Thor, PAD's comments haven't been in the least disrespectful of Reagan himself. They have been disrespectful of the Republican Party - with some justification, in my opinion. I, too, am fully expecting the Republican Convention to come down heavily on memories of Reagan purely to cash in on his remaining political capital.

On the other hand, some folks seem to be expecting PAD to trash the memory of the recently deceased, simply because they were of differing political opinions. Personally, I think that attitude is disrespectful of both the dead and the living - and of the two, I think the insult to the living is the more hurtful (after all, one way or another, Ronald Reagan is beyond the reach of any mortal insult now, while Peter David is right there on the other end of this data pipeline).

Charlie Griefer: "Hate to even suggest it...but might be time to move to a 'members only posting' type blog. Won't stop the crap, but might cut down on it enough to make it worthwhile to try."
Site regulars dealt with a similar situation earlier this year, and if I recall, PAD's decision was to keep posting free and open. In my mind, it was and still is the right decision; free speech might mean having to listen to a few cranks, but the upside is that nobody is required to take the cranks seriously. Freedom of speech carries with it the implied responsibility of having something intelligent and purposeful to say.
IIRC, PAD said something to the effect of respectful disagreement is tolerated and encouraged, disrepectful name-calling and trolling is not and will be dealt with. Obviously, certain recent posters didn't follow that dictum, and ought to be dealt with. I hope PAD tracks 'em down and pulls their ISPs out from under them... they add nothing to the mix, and dumb down the discourse of everyone else.
That OTHER John Byrne

PAD wrote: "...that key GOP figures will exploit the death of Ronald Reagan for all it's worth in order to seal the election. I'm looking ahead to the GOP National convention and am suggesting the following odds:..."

You're not being very fair, are you?. Based on your odds chart, if any person from the GOP says darn near anything eulogizing or commemorating Reagan, they will be heartless opportunists. Would you say the same about Democrats eulogizing Jimmy Carter if he passed away? I don't think so.

Partisan bickering... Bah, humbug!

Well, if Bush does use Reagan's memory for political gain, I hope it backfires on him, just like the firefighters from 9/11. I notice that Kerry has cancelled 5 political fundraisers out of respect for Reagan. A classy move, especially considering he doesn't have much time before the Dem convention.

I don't think PAD is talking about heartfelt eulogies about a man they admire. He is talking about manipulation of the mans memory. Since the GOP propaganda machine has used this tactic in the past, I don't think he's stretching the point or using partisan politics. He's just predicting what will most likely happen.

"Civil is a word you use when you have repect for the dead which I knew this board wouldn't. Only PAD can belittle a great prez like Ronnie. You just lost me as a faithful reader PAD."

Really.

And I belittled him...where? I said politicians were going to use his name and evoke him as often as possible, to use his name as a rallying point to win the election. The response of you, and others, is to berate me for that guess. You don't say I'm wrong. You just call me names or accuse me of things I didn't say.

Nice.

PAD

I actually think that they may not do it much at the convention, because they may have worn it out by then.

"I'm a conservative from Texas and I couldn't agree with Peter more. The Republican Party should not be using RR's death as a way to earn or sway votes. It's demeaning to the man. I've read what Peter's said and not one posting has been disrespectful towards the former President."

Thank you, yes. That was the point I was trying to make. And I kept rereading my posts to see where I was bashing Reagan. I thought I was going nuts there for a moment.

PAD

And how exactly is PAD exploiting Reagan? What exactly is he getting from this? Exploitation means receiving something by the misuse of something. He is getting nothing. Why are you reading so much into PAD's post? He has not said one word about Reagan in any manner that would be disrespectful. HE IS TALKING ABOUT THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION AND THEIR PR PEOPLE. Now, if you want to get on his case about that, fine. But read what he is saying before ranting about what you think you read.
Karen

Just so no one gets confused (and considering the howlers who are still claiming that I bashed Reagan without actually disagreeing with a thing I actually said) the last couple of posts were actually from me, not Kath. I was on her computer when I posted them.

PAD

[Fixed -- GH]

Daryl,
Uhm, I didnt get upset & i'm a conservative republican. Don't start labeling us all into 1 little group.

And Peter, So what if Bush mentions Reagan or Lincoln, or any other former President, republican or democrat. Big deal & so what. Your not voting for him, so why do you care? Is Ron to be off limits because he passed away. President Reagan is by far, one of the best Presidents this nation ever had, Democrats quaote JFK all the time & no one cares. What, is GB not supposed to do anything, not acknowledge great things the man did. Let's say he doesn't, I truly doubt that it will change your opinion on him.

And DEE, c'mon, calm down, I'm a huge Reagan fan, & i also feel his loss. Our country lost a great man, but those insults on Peter are very racist & insensitive.

Now before everyone starts insulting each other, please keep in mind that it could be anyone voicing those opinions just looking to fuel a fire. Anyone here can post & is protected by anonymity.

And Peter, I'll still buy your stuff. I figure you can use this conservative's money to keep this site up.

Joe V.

PAD,

A few thoughts:

1.) If John Kennedy had just passed away from a similar disease, I am absolutely confident the Dems would do no less than you are suggesting of the Republicans. It is not because they are bad, but because they are in a political battle.

2.) Even if Reagan had not passed away, the Republicans may well have used him to strengthen their base. They would want to play up similarities between Reagan's running for a second term over the first Bush running a second term. (I happen to agree they are right, but that is beside the point :-))

3.) I do see some humor in your post, which generally means there is some truth in it. However, I would suggest that there are similarities between Bush and Reagan (which is either good or bad, depending on your perspective.) So it is not without reason they would want to point that out. In spite of the press and some opinions (including other posts on this site), Reagan was widely loved. Bush would be stupid to not try to claim the mantle Reagan left behind. It is up to the public next November to decide if they agree or not.

Finally, in regards to another post, I find commending Kerry for cancelling his events laughable. He had no choice. I don't in any way mean anything more than this, but it is simply reality that the news focus will be on the mother of all state funerals. Bush, as the sitting president, obviously has the "advantage" and the "bully pulpit" to use, and so he will use it. That is simply the breaks. If Bush were to overplay his hand and truly exploit it, it would backfire, and he would know it. Besides, I may be in the minority, but I am convinced that Bush is a decent, good man. I believe he will use this time to sincerely remember a man he knows and truly loves. (He spent time in the White House with Reagan while his father was VP. Bush speaks from first hand experience few others had. I, for one, look forward to what Bush has to say.)

James from Dallas

James says:
Finally, in regards to another post, I find commending Kerry for cancelling his events laughable. He had no choice.

Yes, he certainly did have a choice. He could have cancelled only on the day of the funeral. Kerry worked with Reagan. I don't find it laughable that he may be mourning him, also. Kerry, with his friendship of McCain, shows he can seperate politics from people. But, please, continue to find Bush the only one who is sincere about Reagans passing. The funeral is already bringing out partisanship, and I don't see it from the left.

"well, Look at all the Republicans get upset"

Uh, if you mean Dee, DD, and PADSUCKS, I suspect they are all one and the same. You can add my name to the list of people who will likely vote for Bush who are not at all upset over PAD's statement.

Though I would take issue over the idea that most of the things PAD predicted could be considered as "exploiting" Reagan's name. Now if they do what was done at Paul Wellstone's funeral...it will likely backfire as it did there. Just ask Senator Mondale.

Oh, and Dee? (DD, PADSUCKS, etc) A few more fake names you can post under: IHAVENOLIFE, TROLL4EVER, IMADICK, EPIWSSA,and STILLADICK.

I find it difficult to believe that such a pushy and arrogant person would have enough friends to make a huge difference in sales.

Peter:
Unfortunately for the odds makers in Vegas, I'm too smart to make any sucker bets. However I will lay you even odds that even the Democrats at least do the moment of silence bit too, if not actually mention Reagan in any speech.

Karen,
You are once again a voice of reason. I do feel part of kerry's reasoning had to be because officials and the like would be concentrating on the funeral and also because the funeral would be dominating news coverage.
But, I do also feel Kerry has enough decency to simply do it out of respect.
it's easy to be a cynic; being an optimist is harder:)

I'm far from beeing one of Pete's "blog buddies", but the dirt-bag-publicans are going to exploit Reagan for everything they can.

It's a simple political fact. Those who are too devoted to Bush are just fooling themselves. That's no reflection on Reagan, I wish his Alheimer's hadn't prevented him from commenting on Der Furher GWB's policies...

Would've been real interesting...

Dee,
Oh, and before i forget, the United States is Israel's biggest ally. For you to take such an anti semitic role is a true diservice to President Reagan. We have stood by Israel when other countries would not.

just a little reminder.

Karen: "I find it difficult to believe that such a pushy and arrogant person would have enough friends to make a huge difference in sales."
Hell, I find it difficult to believe that someone who can only spell correctly maybe 50% of the time can handle the word 'boycott,' let alone start one.
that OTHER John Byrne

And I am sure that if Regan was a Democrat, you could count on Kerry or other key Democrats to either meet or exceed the odds PAD spelled out.

Now then, on another but related topic.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Mr. David, as well as all the rest of you out there in e-land, are entitled to your opinions and feelings in this country under the first admendment.
And while Peter certainly does not need me to defend any of his words and/or actions, at least he has been a lot more politer than some of you.
You are more than welcome to agree or disagree with anything posted by me or anyone else here, but at least be polite people!
This is an open website!
What if someone (a child perhaps?) who just discovered their first Peter David written item came to this website out of curiousity and read some of the stuff you've posted here?
Still happy with how you've expressed yourself?

I was glad to see Kerry suspend active campaigning for a few days. Classy move.

I'm a liberal lefty who didn't agree with Reagan's politics. But I always loved the man's sense of humor. Heck, even the joke about bombing the Russians in five minutes was funny. He had a magical gift that few people had, and I wish more of our politicians had that gift.

My heart goes out to the Reagan family. I just got married this year, and I hope I never have to go through what Nancy went through these last 10 years. Losing your husband swiftly is one level of hell; watching him slowly suffer and forget you is a much deeper level of hell.

"And Peter, So what if Bush mentions Reagan or Lincoln, or any other former President, republican or democrat"

Did everyone fail reading comprehension in school?

Peter's not saying that Bush shouldn't mention Reagan...Theoreticly, Reagan was something of a mentor/father figure/personal friend to Bush Jr, so of course he'll mention him, of the loss and respect he likely feels.

Peter's talking about using Reagan's death as in an opportunistic way. To use a very crass overt example, "Vote for George, because Ronnie would want you too!".

There's a clear difference between showing respect for someone and dropping their name to build yourself up.

THAT'S what Peter's talking about.

Thanks Jerome. I sincerely believe politicians do quite a lot of things for appearances sake. I just don't think that's the case this time. I hope he is doing this for the right reasons. And I would rather be an optimist that gets shot down every so often, than a person without hope. It sure does get harder every day...

Bladestar,
you are just as bad as Dee. All I ever read from you is insults & venom. Look @ Tim & Karen. Can't you follow their example as opposed to always being so angry.

Dee,

First, let me just say that I will fight for your right to say what you have to say. It is something I believe in.

Second, and I do not intend this to be an insult by any means, but could you please post messages that are less... I don't know, adversarial?

I've seen you post some solid ideas in the past. I believe that you have something to say and that it could be worth hearing...err... reading. To be blunt, these prior hateful posts of yours are beneath you. I believe that you are better than that.

Please don't prove me wrong.

Salutations,

Mitch

Daryl and Charlie Griefer,
PLEASE do not lump "righties" in with the insane rantings of DEE/DD/PADSUCKS/AMERICAN. I write for a living, and can detect certain writing styles, and can tell you with absolute certainty that all of the above are the same person.
The same sad, demented person.
Jerome

Karen: The funeral is already bringing out partisanship, and I don't see it from the left.

Really? On the right I see nothing but admiration and respect for the passing of one of our presidents. I haven't seen a word about how Reagan relates to the current election cycle. Look at PAD's response, though. He has used Reagan's passing to tweak the noses of "neocons" and "GOP figures".

Who's being partisan?

Joe,
Yes, Bladestar has a lot of anger, but he is certainly not as bad as Dee. I'm surprised he/she hasn't broken the keyboard apart with the level of vitriol it takes to post these messages. I'm sure he/she must be banging the heck out of the keys. That said, thanks for the compliment.

Ben Rosenberg,
I can understand your being upset over DEE/ DD/ PADSUCKS/AMERICAN's insane, anti-Semitic rantings.
But again, I would bet a month's salary that they are the same person, and to disparage the Right-wing and Reagan in response just brings you and the whole discussion down to his/her level.
You're better than that. We all should be.

Mark,
PAD made an observation. He did not tweak anyones noses. It really isn't much of a partisan comment. He is talking directly about what he perceives to be the character of the man running for office. Not the whole republican party. Just commenting based on the past use of Roves PR machine.

At this point, I don't have much love for either party, but I'm sure that Reagan's name will pop in speeches after the "cease-fire" period is over. It could be looked at as "Bush Jr. talking about someone important to his family" or "Bush Jr. riding the wave of emotions after the death of Reagan." It'll all depend HOW he does it. Then again, others may do it for him. That way, if it comes across as crass, no one would be able to say that Bush said it himself. So I agree with the 1-1 odds on the key speaker thing. Mr David didn't say one word against Reagan in the entire post.

BTW: When you spam under different names to make it appear as if a chorus of people are outraged, it's usually considered "good form" to include more than one unique-yet-idiotic racial slur in each post. "I'm going to have to give that sad attempt at mass trolling a thumbs-down, Gene."

For the Russian perspective on the Reagan presidency:

http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/368/13032_ReaganEmpire.html

And for the trolls & paranoids who see Reagan bashing where there is none, this is for you:

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18874

PAD,
As someone who became a Republican because of Ronald Reagan and who listed him as my hero in my high school yearbook, let me just state for the record that I have seen nothing posted by you in regard to his passing that any reasonable person would find even borderline offensive.
And we may disagree a lot, PAD, but you certainly don't deserve the garbage-strewn, hate spewing posts by DEE/DD/PADSUCKS/AMERICAN. Please realize that a.) they are likely ONE person and b.) any reasonable person on this blog finds his/her posts to be downright disgusting, no matter which side of the political aisle we fall on.

Dee,
you are obviously hate-filled and more than a little insane. Calling PAD anti-Semitic slurs is beyond over the line. Why don't you just do what you keep threatening to do, and stop coming here. You can find someone or something else to vent your spleen on, and the rest of us will all be better off.

PAD
your most likely right about the odds and i found it a very amusing post.

As a person who has very mixed feelings on Reagan.. I admire some of the things he accomplished/helped in accomplishing... other things i find completely detestable... At the moment I choose to remember him as a person. Failiable as are all people, filled with both good and bad.

Dee...
Stop and think about what you are saying in all your posts... Now stop and think about everything you've ever read of PADs and how you apparently enjoyed it before you found out Peter's political veiws. How do the two fit together? How can someone so filled with hate have actually enjoyed anything that PAD wrote? It makes no sense to me... Do you only watch movies crewed with Republicans or Rep. approved casts? Does your boycott of PAD also mean a boycott to posting here? Oh well... your boycott is your loss...

These are probably about the same odds as when Johnson campaigned after Kennedy's assasination in '63.

Regardless of party, when someone who is representative of the party possesses great charisma and a powerful "cult of personality" it's impossible not to blur the lines between respect and reminiscence versus exploitation for gains.

Certainly an argument could be made that these moments of reflection should be done private, but I don't think the public en masse would permit public figures this degree of privacy. Likely, if the GOP failed to publically display their grief or reminiscence or whatever, they would be criticized by their own party members as well as the opposition party.

Scavenger,
I know what Peter meant. But those are assumptions. I truly doubt GWB would do that. but what Peter meant, and how he wrote it makes it sound like a fact. That GWB will do that & i truly doubt that. But the problem lies now ,that many believe that GWB or the GOP shouldn't even mention Reagan, & that is absurd. my whole point is "so what if he does."

What, you dont think that if the former president had been able to vote, he wouldnt have voted for his vice president's son.

Thor said:

"Could you plese not exhibit as much political negativeness during this period of mourning? I can only speak for myself, but I'm really not interested in reading --- at least, not right now --- all the political conniving that might accompany Reagan's death, possible machinations on the part of the GOP and ways by which Reagan's passing might get otherwise sullied by self-serving individuals."

Anyone who wanted to mourn for Dutch Reagan should have done it ten years ago.

Speaking as one who got to watch the Alzheimer's process close up, i can assure you that everything that made him what he was died a long time before his heart ceased to beat.

Mr. David, sir, may I respectfully ask what may be
a very stupid (though hopefully inoffensive) question?
My father was a bigot of the Archie Bunker type.
Once when we were playing Scrabble he told me I
couldn't use the word "jew" because the game didn't
allow "racial epithets".
Um, a person who is Jewish is a Jew, right?
Yes, I know Dee and Double-D and all those other
people who identify themselves by their bra cup
size seem to have been using the word as an insult.
But is it that disparaging to call a Jew a jew?
Honestly, no disrespect meant, I'm actually
curious about this point. I used to think the
word "dyke" was politically incorrect but my
lesbian friends assure me that it isn't.
(And speaking of being disrespectful, I found it
disconcerting to see a headline concerning the
late president's death posted at the FARK site
next to the words "Yahoo! News".)
Personally I was offended by the person who
threatened a boycott by, as he/she put it,
"the bulk - and I do mean bulk" of his Star Trek
fan friends. That's another stereotype altogether.
Okay, I'm a Trekkie and I'm bulky. Get over it.

Jerome Maida:
"Daryl and Charlie Griefer,
PLEASE do not lump "righties" in with the insane rantings of DEE/DD/PADSUCKS/AMERICAN. "

I wasn't lumping anybody in with anybody else. not sure what I said that made you think that (or if you are unintentionally attributing another post to me)...but as a rule I don't generally generalize :)

As far as our trolls, yes, they're the same person. in addition to the writing style (and content), all of the emails begin with 'no'.

unfortunately, he/she is getting enough attention/responses to his/her posts that it's making continued posts worthwhile. One of 'em was mine too...i should have known better.

Anyway, I do apologize if I inadvertently said anything that implied I was lumping you or anybody else in with the troll.

Charlie

Chances that Kerry will expoit Reagan's death.

1-9

My question, if we can get past the comments of hatred by the one poster, don't you think that Reagan would support Bush over Kerry? What reason do we have to believe otherwise? And with this line of reasoning why is it opportunistic to bring it up?

Randall wrote:
"Mr. David, sir, may I respectfully ask what may be a very stupid (though hopefully inoffensive) question?"

...and went on the question whether Dee's use of the word "Jew" was offensive.

If he had said, "Mr. David, as a Jew, how do you feel about Zionism?" it wouldn't be offensive.

However, using "Jew" as a pejorative is quite offensive. And, dude, I'm not even a Jew, myself. To wit, a "rich fucking Dem jew."

Please. Peter David isn't Stephen King; I doubt he'd qualify as "rich." And the whole statement of Dee's sounds like your typical skinhead/neo-Nazi crap. Evil rich Jews, running the country from their secret mountain headquarters in Hollywood, trying to deal beautiful Republican women and bring down the nation! Bwahahaah!

So, no. Calling Peter a Jew isn't disrespectful. Calling Peter a "rich fucking Dem jew" is most assuredly disrespectful.

Hey Peter, those are MY lines!!! I used my old Strom's Index column to steal that style from Harper's Index, fair and square!

I bet no one remembers those columns. But I will always remember Peter David's Hulk. I wish I could get the Countdown storyline in a trade paperback. (I guess I could google that, but I don't ever remember seeing one.) And I liked the movie a lot.

Guess I should say something political. Dubya sucks.

"Um, a person who is Jewish is a Jew, right?"

Ok, THIS brings back a memory.
My step-father was Jewish. When I was 14 he had made some off-hand remark about "Niggers." Not one of the best things to do while I'm within ear shot, which I happened to be. I called him on it immediately. In a teenage fit of righteousness I asked, "How would you feel if people called you a Jew?" That's when my mother explained to me how much pride the Jewish people have earned. It was a lesson well learned. To this day I don't know why he used The Dreaded N-Word (I hate to euphemise like that because I don't want to forget how wrong it is to use the word Nigger as a weapon). He has since died and I doubt my mother remembers the context. What it taught me was that every group, every person has something that is a source of pride, something that allows them to stand tall.

At this point I've forgotten why I brought it up.
Ah, well... At least it wasn't a long post.

Salutations,

Mitch

Karen: PAD made an observation. He did not tweak anyones noses. It really isn't much of a partisan comment. He is talking directly about what he perceives to be the character of the man running for office. Not the whole republican party. Just commenting based on the past use of Roves PR machine.

So, commenting on how Republicans will "exploit the death of Ronald Reagan" isn't considered partisan? You and I must be using different definitions. I'm not saying it's particularly offensive, but it is partisan.

Back to my original point, what partisanship have you seen from the Republicans? So far there's a lot of "Reagan won the Cold War, Reagan was an optimist, Reagan was polite to his political enemies", etc. However, there hasn't been any comment from the Republicans about the modern-day Democrats (at least not that I've run across). So, where's the partisanship?

The problem with free speech, is that everyone is entitled to it. Even the ones you're not sure you want to have that freedom.
The idiot above... wait a sec... don't wanna name call. The obviously angry individual above, who has issues with descendants of Red Sea pedestrians, is one of those I'm not sure I want speaking out.
But then you realize, hey! All they want is attention.
Second Realization:
Could be worse. Could be Liddy.
Sorry... I swore I'd watch my language... don't want to use the dreaded L-Word.
Anyway, besides all THAT...
I have nothing against Reagan. I disagreed with his policies, but nothing against the man. I truly find it hard to hate someone just because of their beliefs and/or bloodline.
My only gripe is that all this week I'll be seeing "Remembering Reagan" specials. I spent the whole of the 90's trying to forget 12 years of Reaganomics (or Voodoo Economics, a phrase coined by George Bush Sr). Now I gotta remember him! Sheesh.
To be on track, I have to agree with PAD. Certain members of the conservative leaning party will do their best to capitalize on his prominency (sp?) in the public's mind.
But then again, I live in a city that has a Cowboy Heritage Museum. The second biggest statue? Ronald Reagan.
So I get it more than most, though not as much in Texas or Orange County.

Travis
(Rambling as ever)

Interesting that someone put that he became a Republican because of Ronald Reagan - I became a Democrat because of him....

Folks, you fell right into his(their?) hole.

What could have been an interesting blog of comments about the subject that Peter brought up, was hijacked by another one of those "brave" anonymous internet posters.

For the life of me, I don't know why anyone would bother to type one letter, let alone one word in response to an obvious worthless diatribe.

When it comes to these "fearless" anonymous posters'
I do a simple thing.

Ignore them.

Honestly, why raise your blood pressure over some "courageous" anonymous poster?

The sad thing about Dee's posts (apart from the hate-filled content) is that it fails to, well, argue. Intelligent people can disagree and argue, citing reasons for their position and genuinely disagreeing without being insulting to the other person. Dee seems happy to rail and yell not just PAD, but the whole "anti-american posters" here as well. I wonder when disagreement became anti-American. (And yes, Dee, the first "a" is capitalized.) Maybe when Ann Coulter decided anyone disagreeing with the right was committing "treason."

I think PAD's odds were a bit cynical, and also a bit realistic. I hope you (PAD) post the "results" of this betting.

Finally, let me say how weird it was to see Kathleen's name at the top of the post and PAD at the end. Let the sex-change rumors begin! :-)

Well, that was an interesting browse. I saw the Odds PAD posted, and thought, "well, it wasn't the funnyist (sp?) thing he's written but it was cute." Then i look in here and find several people getting VERY offended. Why can't people just sit back, park thier feelings/beliefs for a sec, and just laugh? The reason I'm thinking along these lines is I've been doing a personal experiment. I show people a passage from a Terry Pratchett / Niel Gaimen book I read and found hilarious, and yet three seperate people have all been offended by the passage. I found it hilarious. Perhaps one of you could explain it to me. Maybe it's just because its out of context when they read it, or that they arn't primed o laugh, etc. but anyway, here's the passage:
"This proves two things:
Firstly, that God moves in extremely mysterious, not to say, circu­itous ways. God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players, [ie., everybody.] to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time."

I also poasted this to make sure i was dissassociated with that bigoted putz that's been posting here.

Peace, Dee Gram

As suspected, PADsucks, Dee, DD, and American are all posting from the same IP address.

Clearly, he's such a fan of Peter's work that he's trying to do an impression of Jamie Madrox.

Put me in the category of those who became a Republican because of his influence.

"This proves two things:
Firstly, that God moves in extremely mysterious, not to say, circu­itous ways. God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players, [ie., everybody.] to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time."

Snort.... Good Omens
Great book

Travis

Dave Strom: I recall the old Amazing Heroes indices, and to prove it, I'll ask when Silver's going to show up. :-)

No Joe, if everyone were the same like you'd like, that would be really really f'in boring...

Secondly, if you can take an honest look at this country and not be angry, then there's something wrong with you. Being passive and accepting the sham that is america is part of the problem. Everyone spouts "America rocks! It's the greatest!" It may be the greatest, but that just show how bad the rest of the world is then.

Mike Weeber, amen. Alzheimer's is something I wouldn't wish even on GWB...

Randall, interesting story, but Jew meaning a person would be capitalized and not allowable in Scrabble, however, "jew" Verb - to bargain with, is acceptable. (versions of the Scrabble dictionary where they started removing words, like the F-word and the S-word, aren't used around here, as we consider them garbage, there are no bad words, only people taking them the wrong way.)

Reagan was president at a time when he and his style was needed. He "died" when the Alzheimer's started to take hold. At least his family can rest now, knowing that Ron has finally found peace.

I wonder why this couldn't have easily been:

What do you think the odds are...
...that key DNC figures will exploit the death of Ronald Reagan for all it's worth in order to steal the election. I'm looking ahead to the DNC convention and am suggesting the following odds:

You go Dee! Organise your fellow homeless to rush to the public libraries where they can post all the messages they want. The last laugh is this whole thing will have NO effect on PAD's sales...

If any of these "boycotts" were ever actually carried through on, big business' stranglehold on america would've been broken long ago. Pretending that you are going to boycott an author whose website you claim to hate yet keep returning to... I wish my time was as worthless as yours....

Dennis, because Ronnie was a republican who beat an ineffectual-looking Jimmy Carter and then when his two terms were up helped get another Republican elected, the democrats can't really use Reagan to their advantage...

Jesse Jackson wants us to believe:
//I'm a conservative from Texas and I couldn't agree with Peter more. The Republican Party should not be using RR's death as a way to earn or sway votes. It's demeaning to the man. I've read what Peter's said and not one posting has been disrespectful towards the former President. Let's see if the Conservatives on the net give President Clinton the same respect years from now when he passes. We respect the office if not the man.//
Yeah, sure... you're a conservative from Texas? Okay, whatever... And yes, lets see what happens when someone like Clinton passes (which I hope isn't soon). I know you want to think the worst of the Conservative acting like today's classless hateful liberal left, but until that time actually comes, be a little more open minded instead of thinking the worst.

Anyway... While I don't think PAD is taking a direct shot at Reagan here, he is definitely shooting off one of his usual low blows at the Republican Party and he's using the death of Reagan as a means for such an attack. Typical and not surprising. Well, actually it is surprising since I thought he was sincere in his blog yesterday. Oh well...

Dee- you can count to 100?

What are the odds that a Republican will introduce legislation allowing for stem cell research so that other families won't have to go through the hell that Nancy Reagan went through?

Dee: I might believe you found 100 people for your boycott, except that you seem to be making up multiple names to post here, as noted earlier. Try again.

DEE says:

"THE PAD BOYCOTT IS ON. SO FAR I GOT OVER A HUNDRED PEOPLE AND COUNTING BOYCOTTING PETER DAVID'S BOOKS, NOVELS & COMIC BOOKS. WILL I HAVE AN IMPACT? I THINK SO...."

OK but if you subtract all of the ones that are just voices in your head you're back to one.

Randall, interesting story, but Jew meaning a person would be capitalized and not allowable in Scrabble, however, "jew" Verb - to bargain with, is acceptable

And, as a Jew, I find the verb quite offensive. Whenever anyone says "I jewed him down" I politely ask them not to say it again within my hearing because it is offensive. Usually this phrase is said innocently, without meaning to insult, but please think about it. It clearly has to do with Jews as being perceived as cheap and unwilling to pay a reasonable price. That is insulting. Being called a Jew, to me, is not, but my mother dislikes the term.

Bladestar,
We disagree on quite a bit, but I have to give you props for your shot at the hateful "boycotter" whose name I don't even want to mention anymore.
You know, I may have to pick up a couple extra copies of "Fallen Angel" tomorrow just to prove a point....

Karen,
The "verb" IS offensive. I'll never forget this "modern feminist" I worked with in sales who would go off on the slightest thing as being "sexual harassment" but saw nothing wrong with using the verb to describe "negotiating".
Sigh.

What do you think the odds are ...

... that Peter and other Democrats will use Reagan's death to attack the Repubulican party with thinly veiled reverse psychology. You can say it wasn't an attack till you're horse, but it was an attack nonetheless.

I bet it doesn't matter what President Bush says in his speech for Reagan's funeral. You'll turn whatever he says into your own political agenda. I guess that's your perogative, but forgive me for mentioning that it really bothers me. I wish you could have waited a while before mentioning what you believe Bush will do to tarnish Reagan's memory. But then again, how long would a while be.

I loved President Reagan and honored him in life and will honor him in death.

God bless Reagan and the United States.

Novafan

Bill Mulligan,
You have been at your wittiest in responding to the Insane Poster with Four Names.
You should be a writer:)
Thanks

James Lynch,
Please don't use the ramblings of the Insane Poster with Four Names to take a cheap shot at Ann Coulter.
If you actually read the book I believe you are referring to, it is well-researched and her definition of "Treason" is far more complex than "those that disagree with me".
While a bare-knuckled partisan, Coulter actually makes intelligent arguments, and I believe she would be as offended as the rest of us by the postings of the Insane Poster With Four Names.

Jerome,

Well, thanks, but really, I just like driving the trolls crazy.

In this case it's a pretty short drive.

Jew, nigger, honky, etc. are only offensive if you are foolish enough to take offense to them. Stop giving other people so much control over you. They're only words...

>

More relevant to THIS point: What are the odds that legislation allowing stem cell research will be introduced so that other families won't have to go through the hell that Dee's family must have gone through?

(And as for cloning - thank God the only way Dee can clone himself is with other Screen names)

Bladestar: Jew, nigger, honky, etc. are only offensive if you are foolish enough to take offense to them. Stop giving other people so much control over you. They're only words...

Words wich incite people to violence. And I choose not to have to listen to them or use them. My right.

Ham,
Nice to see someone else was inspired by the Reagan Revolution as I was.
Is this your first time posting? Your name seems unfamiliar.
If so, welcome aboard:)

"Words which"
Sorry for the typo.

Ah yes, Nixton the democrat.

"living off the stupid americans who buy my products"
So, Dee is not American. Well, that explains the poor spelling and grammar. English is not his/her first language. I wonder where he/she is from.

Ray Cornwall,
Thanks for getting back to the original topic. I think it's possible but unlikely a republican would introduce stem cell legislation this year. Very politically risky.
However, it is clear to me that Bush strugled with this decision when he made a while back. Which is why he compromised.
So, if Nancy and other Republicans can give him political cover..who knows? Something could happen, after all.

Am I reading that right? Is this Dee person so stupid as to be inferring that Nixon was a democrat or a hero to them?

Jerome, the original subject of this thread is not stem cell research, that is thread titled 'Reagan'.

This is whether or not will use Reagan's name and reputation to help him in the Presidential race, of which I say why shouldn't he?

Should be:

This is whether or not Bush will use Reagan's name and reputation to help him in the Presidential race, of which I say why shouldn't he?

Karen,
1.) I'm guessing Dee (who I believe is female) hates Nixon because he started the first affairmative action program and went to China.

2.) And i believe "living off the stupid Americans who buy my products" was, unfortunately, another slam at PAD.
Nope, we can't blame some other country for Dee. Unfortunately, she's one of ours. :(

Ham,
Re: subject of thread
My bad.
And, yes, it should be clear by now that Dee is quite stupid, so the revelation she thinks Nixon (or Nixton, as she puts it) was a Democrat and a hero to them.

I just thought the use of "Americans" was suspect. Usually we would just say people. To differentiate the buyers as American, one may infer another country of origin by the speaker. Also, as stated above, the grammar and spelling are not consistent with English as a first language.

I could be wrong. Dee might just be as completely ignorant as he/she shows in his/her posts. I am keeping an open mind. :)

"Ah yes, Nixton the democrat."

Yep, he was. Served an incredibly shortened term of office between H.W. Bush and Clinton. Killed shortly after taking office, by the time forces pulling his being apart while still at the podium of his swearing in. (Can't remember how to spell inaguration, argh) The Time Corps came in a patched up almost all of the rift caused by his sudden demise causing only Dee to remember him and his VP Forgan. (and apparently me too ;) )

Anyway, I'm a conservative in Texas, I agreed with most of what Reagan tried to do in office. I don't see PAD's remarks as a "shot" or "tweak" of Bush supporters, just an observation of what would happen in either Convention in the same type circumstance.

jeff

"Please do not lump "righties" in with the insane rantings of DEE/DD/PADSUCKS/AMERICAN. I write for a living and can detect certain writing styles, and can tell you with absolute certainty that all of the above are the same person. The same sad, demented person."

reminds me of a poster at star trek books board at simonsays.com named dstewart.

Karen,
Well, Dee has stated in the past that she was part of the U.S. military.
So that's another clue, which is one more than Dee has...:)

So Dee is Micah Wright?

Mike said: "Speaking as one who got to watch the Alzheimer's process close up, i can assure you that everything that made him what he was died a long time before his heart ceased to beat."

Thank you, my father died from Alzheimer's. So I daresay I have first-hand experience with this disease.

For the record, the actual death itself is still a traumatic event no matter how much you prepare for it.

Kindly do not presume that you have more experience than me in that regard. And I'll do the same for you.

Thor

Actually, come to think of it... I'm done with this.

Speaking as someone who tries to carry themselves as a moderate, and to use a reasonable tone (but doesn't always succeed, admittedly), I fear there's not much call balanced behavior on the Internet. All of this just comes down to partisan mud-slinging, and who needs that right now? Pointless.

So I'm done with this board for good. I'll enjoy the Reagan tributes this week without this scathing political nonsense --- admittedly perpetrated by both sides, but still scathing.

Enjoy the Reagan tributes. Or don't. But have some respect for those of us who'd like to mourn in peace. It's healthier for everyone involved that way.

Thor

Wow, after reading all these posts, I have a few things to say (which may have already been mentioned before, but I don't think so).

First, like George Carlin says, the words don't hurt, it's the context. If you have a friend who's fat, but and you or even the friend calls himself fat, it's Ok. However, if there's some rat-bastard who happens to be fat and you call him "that fat rat-bastard" then it's insulting.

Second, while I believe it's true that the GOP will use Regan's death to sway voters, I don't doubt it for a second that the Democrats won't do the same thing. "Hey! Those *political* guys are using *any subject* to sway votes! Let's tell the *whoever they can* and get the votes to sway our way."

Third, since this is the subject of the day, when else would people talk about it? I mean now isn't the time to bring up the OJ Simpson trial right?

Fourth (and I have to say it), maybe someone who wants to claim a boycott should first get some real friends (not the blow up ones), then go out and actually "boycott" (ya know like protest) his stuff. Then, and only then when/if it works you can claim responsibility! Won't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside (instead of the warm and fuzzy feeling you get from wetting the bed-hmmm...maybe too much.....)

Vote Quimby!

While I almost always disagree with PAD on political issues, the name calling and such is ridiculous. He hasn't bashed Reagan or anybody else for that matter. Hopefully the GOP won't go too far with it and whatever they do will be respectful. I think it would be naive to think that nothing will happen, or that were there any liberal leaders as widely loved and admired as Reagan in the same spot that the dem's wouldn't do something as well.

Did Dee learn to spell from the same teacher that taught him/her history lessons???

Wait, if Dee is boycotting everything PAD writes, why is he still here?

"Am I reading that right? Is this Dee person so stupid as to be inferring that Nixon was a democrat or a hero to them?"

No, he's implying it. We're to infer it. Yes, we're supposed to infer that Nixon, who actually was elected twice and was a Republican, was a one-term Democrat.

I think the safest inference is that we're just dealing with an idiot. My first impulse was just to delete his postings, but then I figured, the more he's allowed to speak, the more he just hangs himself. When faced with blinding ignorance and hatred, it's better to let it spew so it can be seen for what it is rather than try and smother it and thus give it even the slightest measure of credibility.

PAD

Am I the only one who finds Dee's insanity, poor spelling, poor grammar, lack of intellect, multiple personalities, hypocrasy, and second grade threats somewhat entertaining and amusing, despite being a waste of space and time? I guess the key is how seriously you take "it". Oh, to whoever it was who made the comment about being surprised Dee could spell "boycott" let alone organize one, I laughed out loud and almost woke up my sleeping infant. :)

In the end, I suppose the more attention we give it, the more likely it is to return, and sooner or later it will stop being amusing.

Monkeys

So, Mr. David is a night owl too.

You articulated something I didn't, about letting the ignorance and hatred hang itself. THAT'S the part I find mildly entertaining. I didn't mean to say I think Dee should be doing stand up or anything.

Alright, I think I should go to sleep now.

Monkeys.

Dee, This is "Arguments," aka Debates.

You're looking for "Abuse," which is next door.

Thanks!

StS, channeling Monty Python

PAD,
I commend you for taking the high road with all of this. My respect for you has jumped a couple of notches, and it was pretty high to begin with:)

I'm a liberal Democrat, and I have a number of friends who are moderate and conservative Republicans. We get along well, even though our political opinions differ; we never see the need to call each other names or to argue.

Now, back to the world "liberal" for a second. The word was widely used to describe Teddy Roosevelt, but modern pundits have turned it into something negative. I don't think of it as a negative word in the least; call me crazy, but I thought differences of opinion made America great. We're allowed to think differently, but we shouldn't be attacked for our beliefs.

"THE PAD BOYCOTT IS ON. SO FAR I GOT OVER A HUNDRED PEOPLE AND COUNTING BOYCOTTING PETER DAVID'S BOOKS, NOVELS & COMIC BOOKS. WILL I HAVE AN IMPACT? I THINK SO...."

I saw the funniest thing the other day. My poor cat, startled by a backfiring car, came running full tilt toward the house.

Unfortunately for her, the sliding glass door was closed.

You're going to have the same impact on PADs sales as my cat had on the door.

" say what you lefties want about me. I will not respond."

Promises, promises.

Dee, you are truly so full of shit that you need to be flushed.

Is it sad that this is the only thing I can comment on, since everything else has been said?

Anyway, "jew," meaning to negotiate unfairly, would almost certainly be ineligible as a Scrabble word, being slang.

The worst exploit of a polotician's death was when Minnesota Sen. Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash a couple years ago.

Walter Mondale was selected by the Dems to take Wellstone's place and run against Norm Coleman, the mayor of St. Paul.

They had a memorial service for Sen. Wellstone at the hockey arena in St. Paul. This memorial service soon turned into a politcal rally. Gov. Ventura was so offended he walked out. While people like Sen. Ted Kenedy shouted about defeting the Republican Coleman, many people switched off their TVs and vowed not to vote for Mondale. It blew up in their faces so badly and Coleman won by a huge landslide.

"(As a verb) "jew," meaning to negotiate unfairly, would almost certainly be ineligible as a Scrabble word, being slang."

As I'm sure the context of my question made clear, I meant it as a noun. Having grown up athiest in a predominantly Polish Catholic and Dutch Christian-Reformed neighborhood, and being of mixed racial background (half white, half Scottish), I was not aware that it was neccessary to capilatize the noun "Jew".
I apologize if my remarks struck anyone as flippant or offensive, but I do thank the several of you who took the time to answer my question.

Double-D wrote: "say what you lefties want about me. I will not respond."
... nah, too easy and too late.

Couple of responses, first to PAD...

Odds of Republicans using the funeral as a pep rally: 0-100

And using the memory of Reagan at the Republican Convention SHOULD be done. Granted, it will be more pronounced since his death, I can't see any reason republicans wouldn't do it. A major fault with Gore was his refusal to be attached to most of the 8 years of the Clinton administration during the last election. Agree or not with his policies or (lack of) character, Clinton was a very popular president and Gore shot himself in the foot by not utilizing that. Reagan was a very popular president and I can't see the GW Bush ignoring that. Plus, GW Bush is more of a "Reagan Republican" than he is of being a "GHW Bush Republican".

Karen (talking about Kerry not campaigning this week):
"Yes, he certainly did have a choice. He could have cancelled only on the day of the funeral."
Actually, he didn't have a choice. The biggest news story (so far) of the week is the death of Reagan, and will continue to be up until a few days after the funeral. All of the news services are focusing their energies on Reagan and the upcoming state funeral. There won't be enough time in the day to cover Kerry this week, and honestly, anything he says on the campaign trail would look "anti-Reagan". Not a good thing. Kerry going out this week would be an incredible waste of time and resources. Kerry would be best served using this week to regroup and rest up for the long run to November.

1. Gosh, PAD, are you always on? I'm honestly disappointed but since it's your Blog I don't feel I have the right to say anything more besides that I feel your timing could've been better.

2. PADSUCKS, you just belittled yourself and everyone you presumed to be speaking for with your having to result to slandering the name of the Jews to attempt to make a point.

3. Jesse Jackson, the Republican Party hasn't done anything regarding Regan’s death to sway or influence votes. It's dishonest to present your case in such a way that presumes that they have. Also, the man is supposed to BE the office and the embodiment of everything that makes America the greatest, most morally driven nation on Earth. The fact that Clinton sullied the honor of said office in an immoral act and then lied about it means that he is not to be granted the same courtesy as Regan, who did not.

4. Dee, the asininity of your comments causes any semblance of what could be construed as 'eloquent' words to escape me. So just shut up.

It's too late to go farther, but these individuals really stood out to me.

A great leader and, what’s more, a noble man has passed on from this world to a far better place. It’s easy to let partisanship and politics edge their way into our minds, especially during the present campaigning, and I’d personally rather just pause and remove my hat to the earthly memory of the man and to the bowed head of his mourning wife. Maybe such things aren’t possible nowadays that the media and those with power, Left and Right alike, are able to beam themselves directly into our line of sight on a constant basis, though. Maybe a certain level of paranoia should be taken into consideration for everything that is said. Maybe I’m falling asleep at the keyboard and the resultant decline in knowledge of where I was going with this is evidence enough that I should wrap up the philosophic waxing… Yeah.

Breck

You're wondering why people hang around this forum if they really hate Mr. David and his views?

Very simple. They're secretly in love with him.

They're desperate to win his devotion away from his wife and kids and to have it concentrated on them. They're hoping to get him irritated so that he'll actually talk to them (something no one else does) and then, they'll win his heart. They can't avoid this forum. They can't avoid the gravitational pull which is their everlasting attraction to Peter A. David.

Isn't true love wonderful to witness? Well, maybe not in this case, but in general, wouldn't you say it's wonderful?

Bladestar wrote:
"Dennis, because Ronnie was a republican who beat an ineffectual-looking Jimmy Carter and then when his two terms were up helped get another Republican elected, the democrats can't really use Reagan to their advantage..."

Sure they could (or at least try)... they could try to belittle Bush in the eyes of his supporters (and more importantly, those on the voting fence) that he is not the great conservative that Ronald Reagan was. I do believe that the NY Times tried to do something like this yesterday.

"I do believe that the NY Times tried to do something like this yesterday."

Is there an odd better than 1-1, because that would be the chances that the NY Times would do just that.

Breck,
You DO realize that PADSUCKS and Dee are the same person, right?
It's obvious in the writing style.
That, and no TWO people could be that stupid.

"Also, the man is supposed to BE the office and the embodiment of everything that makes America the greatest, most morally driven nation on Earth. The fact that Clinton sullied the honor of said office in an immoral act and then lied about it means that he is not to be granted the same courtesy as Regan, who did not."
Breck thats all a matter of opinion... There are quite alot of people who really really disliked Reagan and think that he sullied the honor of our nation with his actions just as much if not more than Clintons. So by saying what you did, your turnig his death into a political statement against those who don't see him in the same light... i.e. "liberals"
by publically lauding him as this or that in any matter his funeral has become a political message. And All parties have no choice but to cash in on it as best they can, the Republicans being the ones who can and will cash in the most. Is this bad? depends on how you look at it... is it disrespectful... depends on how you look at it.. to be either it has to be against Reagan's wishes for what would happen as well as the wishes of his mourning family. If they do not wish for what is happening to happen then they will speak up about it... ITs late and i'm not clearly sure what my point was or if i ever got to it... so i'll stop my stupid rambling now...

Mr Tichy, regarding your use of "landslide" in connection to Norm Coleman's election: Please do your research before posting.
Coleman was not elected in anything resembling a "landslide".
From the Minnesota Secretary of State's website:
Green RAY TRICOMO 10119 0.45
Independence JIM MOORE 45139 2.00
Republican NORM COLEMAN 1116697 49.53
Democratic-Farmer-Labor WALTER F. MONDALE 1067246 47.34
Democratic-Farmer-Labor PAUL WELLSTONE 11381 0.50
Constitution MIRO DRAGO KOVATCHEVICH 2254 0.10
Write-In ED MCGAA** 7 0.00
Write-In "DICK" FRANSON** 3 0.00
Write-In WRITE-IN (OTHER) 1790 0.08
Write-In MICHELLE MARIE HARBECK** 3 0.00
Fewer than 50,000 votes separated Coleman from Mondale, hardly the stuff of which landslides are made.
Furthermore, Mondale was not the Party's nominee during the Wellstone Memorial; he was presumed to be the front-runner by the pundits. There IS a difference. Mondale was not selected by the Party until the day AFTER the service, so it would have been incredibly difficult for anyone to have switched off their TVs in disgust, vowing not to vote for Mondale (as you suggest). Mondale merely stated that he would be willing to serve if asked.
Leave the lack of research to the likes of Ann Coulter.

Jerome Maida,

Oops. Had it not been 4am when I wrote that, I might've realized. Sorry.

AW,

I don't want to get into a flame session with you, but I have to say that by your logic, if I had said anything about his Presidency, good or bad, I would be turning his funeral into a political message. All I did, in response to Jesse Jackson, was to point out why people are going to look at the two differently X number of years from now. I mean, let's be honest, you haven't heard any stories about Regan getting any pizzas delivered to the oval office, have you?

And, oh gosh, that was just my opinion? What has every other person posted on here other than such? I guess that just because I think that the man who is supposed to represent us to the rest of the world as the entity that we presume ourselves to be (honest, moral, loyal, worthy of respect and able to give it, etc.) should be as such. And I can "...publicly laud..." as you so put it, because he was a man who I admired, especially as a guy who is working to become a pilot in the US Air Force. How exactly does do I turn his funeral into a political message by doing that? I didn't say anything about voting for Bush, or voting Republican, or Democrat, or Kerry, or Green (they're sorta in it, right?).

Though, reading through my post again, I do see that I didn't accurately cite my work (a problem which I hopefully didn't do on this paper I just spent the whole night writing) so I could see where it could be misread. If that's the case, disregard the above, and accept my deepest most sincere, Shaka Brah.

BZZZTTTT! Sorry Karen, wrong answer, thanks for playing!

Words do not incite ANYONE! Only the person committing violence can move themselves to violence. If you choose to be offended by certain words, especially to violence, that is your own ignorant fault.

Don't blame others for YOUR lack of self-control...

Thor, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Do yourself a favor and if that loose a grip, just don't read the politcal stuff here, and stick to the other topics. Depriving yourself of reading PADs blog just because of a few posts shows a remarkable lack of reasoning...

Joeseph Finn, I checked in in the Scrabble dictionary, but don't know about the latest version of the Scrabble dictionary, this one's about 5-10 years old.

One further note concerning the Wellstone memorial: it was just that, a memorial, and took place with the full consent and endorsement and participation of his son and other surviving family members and their friends. So they chose to celebrate a life rather than wallow in sorrow over a death. Considering that the Limbaughs and O'Reilly's that took them to task for that seem to revere the death and pain of others, it really puts the event into perspective. I think *true* conservatives would've stepped aside and said "let'em blow off steam in their own manner."

If the Republicans want to make hay from Reagan's "Legacy" in a similar matter, it ain't no skin off *my* nose. But they'd better get the consent of the one person who still matters: Nancy.

BTW, the actual funeral service had taken place days earlier, and was a more somber and private affair, a fact that received little attention.

Peter, do you honestly think for Bush to mention Reagan in his speech would be exploitative? If the Republicans sincerely believe Reagan was a great man, and that his presidency is something from which they can draw inspiration and example, then where’s the harm?

Dee: Ronald Reagan was agreat man and only someone like PAD could belittle him with his shit leftish point of views. Just once PAD pull your head out of your Dem ass and honor a great man…
Luigi Novi: I don’t think Ronald Reagan was a great man, and neither I nor Peter is obligated to honor him or anyone I/he doesn’t admire.

Reagan was a human being, and should be mourned by his family for that reason. If someone else wants to “honor” him because they think he was “great,” that’s their choice. Not my obligation.

Dee: You and you anti-american posters here can all stick it.
Luigi Novi: So anyone who disagrees with you, or is a Democrat, is “anti-American”?

Nope. Sorry. Thanks for playing.

It’s people who think anyone who disagrees with their point of view is being unpatriotic who are truly anti-American.

Dee: Ronnie was the fucking best we had in office.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, unless you were black, gay, poor, had AIDS, were in a union, understood the importance of Separation of Church and State, were offended at things like selling missiles being sold to our enemies and lying to Congress, etc.

Dee: Im losing what little respect I have for you.
Luigi Novi: Gee, what a valuable commodity that must be. Certainly Peter and all of us here will be kept up at nights wondering how we can regain back some of the respect of an racist anti-Semite who couldn’t form a cogent argument with anything resembling logic if her life depended on it.

Dee: If you can sit there and belittle ronnie then you sir are just a hack writer.
Luigi Novi: The quality of Peter’s writing is determined by his political views? Sorry, but that’s a non sequitur.

Dee: Go dip your head in your comics thats where it belongs and stop playing politics unless of course you plan to run for office???
Luigi Novi: Expressing one’s political views is hardly “playing politics.” Are you saying you’re playing politics when you express your views?

Dee: Ronnie has done more in his lifetime than some shit jew dem writing comic books & spewing his hate on a blog.
Luigi Novi: Peter never expressed hate. He simply predicted that the Republicans would use Reagan’s death to promote themselves, much as they did with 9/11. Constantly making anti-Semitic remarks, on the other hand, certainly qualifies.

Dee: Dont like our voting system then go somewhere else…
Luigi Novi: Peter didn’t mention anything about our voting system.

And even if he did, doing so doesn’t require him to go somewhere else. Part of being American means you can express dissent and suggest and fight for ways to improve the things you don’t like. It doesn’t mean having to leave the country.

Dee: Civil is a word you use when you have repect for the dead which I knew this board wouldn't. Only PAD can belittle a great prez like Ronnie.
Luigi Novi: Peter didn’t belittle Reagan. He merely predicted others would exploit his death.

Charlie Griefer: Hate to even suggest it...but might be time to move to a 'members only posting' type blog. Won't stop the crap, but might cut down on it enough to make it worthwhile to try.
Luigi Novi: I think it just may stop the crap. It might weed out trolls and attract only people interested in discussing well thought out opinions made in good faith, rather than just racist remarks and Straw Man arguments. We’d still have a lot of good ‘ol disagreeing going on (which is great), but people might disagree with a bit of intelligence in their statements, instead of just spewing racial eptithets and putting words into others’ mouths the way people like Dee do.

I second the motion.

Dan Forinton: Because, of course, Bush Jr would never do anything as low as seek to gain political capital from the death of Ronald Reagan...

http://www.georgewbush.com
Luigi Novi: Again, why is this political gain? Isn’t it possible that people like Bush are genuinely in mourning? I didn’t see anything on that page connecting Reagan’s death to Bush’s political agenda, unless you count the inconspicuous “Paid for Bush-Cheney ‘04” at the bottom of the page. I mean, what, is Bush not supposed to say anything when a former President passes away? Wouldn’t he be subject to even more criticism if he didn’t?

Dee: THE ONLY ONE I SEE EXPLOITING THE DEAD IS YOU PAD.
Luigi Novi: To exploit means to use something for some type of personal gain. Please explain what Peter will gain from expressing his thoughts on his blog about the GOP possibly using Reagan in their campaigns.

Dee: Time for me to start boycotting all Peter David Novels, comics and anything with his name on it and I'll get the bulk and I do mean bulk of my Trek friends & comic book buddies to boycott. I used to be a real fan until I started coming hearing and reading the leftish single minded pov of views on this blog. Stick with comics PAD and stop dabbling with politis. Ronnie was a great man the least you could have done was honor him even for a few seconfs in your blog & even if you didn't mean it. I have lost all respect for you.
Luigi Novi: Funny how you chose not to answer the point made in rebuttal to your comments that Peter never said anything derogatory about Reagan in the first place, but instead chose to simply repeat everything in your original posts, as if repeating your tired little “I have lost respect for you” refrain, without any acknowledgment of the rebuttals here to your comments, means anything at this point.

Ray Cornwall: My heart goes out to the Reagan family. I just got married this year, and I hope I never have to go through what Nancy went through these last 10 years. Losing your husband swiftly is one level of hell; watching him slowly suffer and forget you is a much deeper level of hell.
Luigi Novi: True, and I’m thinking similarly of his kids, and moreso, since Alzheimer’s tends to run in families, and in a program on risk factors of Alzheimers on one of the TV news magazines a few years ago, three different candidates were profiled, and their various risk factors (stress, diet, family history, etc.), including Reagan’s son Ron. Despite having the best diet and other risk factors of the three, the fact that his father had it made him the most likely of the three to get. Having witnessed the mental deterioration of my grandmother over a period of about a year and a half prior to her death a couple of years ago, I find that frightening, and hope that advances will be made by the time he’s old enough to begin experiencing it. My heart goes out to Ron Reagan and his siblings as well.

Joe V.: Bladestar, you are just as bad as Dee. All I ever read from you is insults & venom. Look @ Tim & Karen. Can't you follow their example as opposed to always being so angry.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t see anything in Bladestar’s posts that comes anywhere near what Dee said.

Randall Hugh Crawford: Yes, I know Dee and Double-D and all those other people who identify themselves by their bra cup size seem to have been using the word as an insult. But is it that disparaging to call a Jew a jew?
Luigi Novi: No, but when the word appears in a sentence like “we got enough overpaid jews in office as it is,” or “Ronnie has done more in his lifetime than some shit jew dem writing comic books…” it kinda is disparaging, to say the least.

MarkL: Back to my original point, what partisanship have you seen from the Republicans? So far there's a lot of "Reagan won the Cold War… So, where's the partisanship?
Luigi Novi: Saying that he did something that he did not actually do, like winning the Cold War, is certainly partisan. The Cold War was won in part by EVERY President who presided during it, including Reagan. Not just by Reagan. Moreover, Soviet documents show that his defense spending did not accelerate its collapse.

Dee: THE PAD BOYCOTT IS ON. SO FAR I GOT OVER A HUNDRED PEOPLE AND COUNTING BOYCOTTING PETER DAVID'S BOOKS, NOVELS & COMIC BOOKS.
Luigi Novi: Really? Are they inbred anti-Semitic retards too?

Dee: WILL I HAVE AN IMPACT? I THINK SO....
Luigi Novi: Somehow, I suspect you already suffered one.

Bladestar: Jew, nigger, honky, etc. are only offensive if you are foolish enough to take offense to them.
Luigi Novi: I don’t think taking offense to being called a “nigger” is indicative of foolishness? I find the word offensive. Am I a fool? :-)

Dee: Tell Me PAD: If a terrorist had you ass against the wall and was about to blow it up: who would you cryout for? Clinton? or W. BUsh?
Luigi Novi: Ooh, another intelligent post. Somehow, I doubt Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg, if they did any screaming, called out the name of a President while doing so.

Dee: who is your politcal hero anyway? Slick Willy? Ford? Carter? Nixton? All of the rich Dem scumbags thats been in office over the past 40 yars? Do I need to give you a history lesson of all the dirty polticics your scumy Dem heros passed down from loser Dem to loser Dem?
Luigi Novi: Nixon and Ford were Democrats?

Dee: say what you lefties want about me. I will not respond.
Luigi Novi: Too late. You already did. Or did you not post here in reaction to something Peter said?

Breck: Also, the man is supposed to BE the office and the embodiment of everything that makes America the greatest, most morally driven nation on Earth. The fact that Clinton sullied the honor of said office in an immoral act and then lied about it means that he is not to be granted the same courtesy as Regan, who did not.
Luigi Novi: Reagan never committed an immoral act while in office? He never sold arms to our enemies and tried to cover it up from Congress? Which put more lives in jeopardy, Monica going south on Bill Clinton, or Reagan selling missiles to Iran?

Jerome Maida: That, and no TWO people could be that stupid.
Luigi Novi: Don’t be so sure, Jerome. There’s a Dee on every message board on the net. Go to TrekNation, imdb, nitcentral, or any other message board site, and you’ll see it.

So when one black calls anothe black a "Nigger" you're offended too? Luigi, I thought you were smarter than that....

Luigi: I think Reagan was a "great" man in the Gatsby sense -- larger than life, as was Kennedy and arguably Clinton (although I think his "greatness" is in how he connects to people on their level -- more an extreme form of popularity, which is a little different from Kennedy and Reagan).

I would not argue the merits of Kennedy or Reagan's presidencies (though Reagan's was more impressive than Kennedy's at least in the sense that he lived longer and was able to do more).

I will say this: Seeing Reagan's speeches again made me realize how utterly... ordinary our current president is. Reagan had a very Washingtonian air to him. After the Challenger disaster, I was moved by his comments that "the future belongs not to the fainthearted but to the brave." I can't imagine what GWB would say in a current situation.

Reagan and Kennedy's deaths resonated with people across political spectrums, which is encouraging. Nixon destroyed the office of the presidency, and it tainted both Ford and Carter. Reagan, to his credit, redeemed it. Politics aside, that was a tremendous accomplisment.

The political sniping from the right and the left disturbs me because I think it has lessened the presidency. If the office is to mean anything, then that person must be *our* president. Once the election is over, the person who won represents the nation and the best of us. If he's just one party's president, while the other side detests him (the case with Clinton and Bush), then he's not the leader he should be.

I hope that sometime in my lifetime the presidency can be salvaged.

SER said: " If he's just one party's president, while the other side detests him (the case with Clinton and Bush), then he's not the leader he should be. "

I don't think that's a reflection on the president, that's a reflection on the citizens.

And let's not forget Bush wasn't elected by the people. Gore won the people's vote, GWB won through the archaic nonsense of the electoral college (an election system where 20 people voting in one big state could effectively nullify miliions of votes in a dozen of the smallest states...)

We're taught in school that America is a democracy but we repeatly have the lie of it all displayed....

Luigi Novi: Again, why is this political gain?

Because it's Bush's re-election website? (As in the banner title of the webpage).

I don't disagree that Bush is entitled to publicly honour Reagan, but I would question wether putting it up as the front page is the best place - unless someone is looking for political gain.

I am starting to wonder, though, how many people who are offended by the use of "jew" as a verb, don't even think twice about saying someone got "gypped"...

- Jonathan the Proud Honky :)

If the Republicans sincerely believe Reagan was a great man, and that his presidency is something from which they can draw inspiration and example, then where’s the harm?

Because Dubya isn't a great man.

I can't imagine what GWB would say in a current situation.

Umm, what did Bush say after the Columbia disaster?
I don't recall off hand, but I certainly agree - Reagan had the advantage of radio/tv/acting to fall back on, not to mention much better speech writers.

I am starting to wonder, though, how many people who are offended by the use of "jew" as a verb, don't even think twice about saying someone got "gypped"...

You know, I never made that connection before.

I think part of the problem is that, generally, the word "Jew" is often used and seen as a negative, regardless.
I mean, at times it seems like you can't even say "Yes, PAD is a Jew" without it coming across as an insult. You have to say "PAD is Jewish", as if that carries a more proper meaning when either phrase is correct.

And I think alot of that has to do with history.

Regarding whether calling someone "Jew" is normal or offensive, it all depends on the context. If it's casually tossed back and forth between two Jewish people who know each other, I don't think it's offensive. If you shout it to a person because that's all you know about them ("Which way to the library, Jew?"), that could be offensive because you're defining them solely by one characteristic, instead of learning more about them (here I think of MONTY PYTHON & THE HOLY GRAIL: "I didn't know you were called Dennis" "Well you didn't bother to find out, did you?") or using a neutral term ("Which way to the library, mister/miss?")

As for the idea that words are not offensive in themselves (argued by, among others, George Carlin), I have to disagree there. Some words are so loaded with anger and vileness -- "nigger" and "cunt" leap to mind -- that using them with anyone but the closest, most understanding of friends can get you in trouble. These words contain a world of degredation, a history of treating people as inferior, and to think they're as meaningless/meaningful as any other word is naive. As writers know, words have power; and some words are far more powerful than others.

And Luigi Novi, while you (and others) did a great job on the Dee/PADsucks/inbreeding result poster, it's a bit bathetic to dedicate so much time and exactness to so little a person.

Incidentally, why do you think that person posts here? Do liberals go to conservative websites to complain about how biased they are, then threaten boycotts? (I don't, but that's just me.)

And for the person who "called" me on Ann Coulter's TREASON, I believe her premise was that people who disagree with the current Bush are jeopardizing the country and committing treason by weakening this great nation. I don't own the book, but I'll be happy to look up her definition. If anyone knows what she considers treason in that book, feel free to chime in.

Considering the magnitude of what the textbook definition of Treason is, Ann Coulter is an (all pardons to Dan Ackroyd from back in the days he was funny) "ignorant slut".

Disagreeing with and speaking out agains Der Furher Bush is NOT treason by any stretch of the imagination.

Come on folks.. why do you think the Republican wanted their convention in NY.. to exploit the sympathy and Patriotism of 9/11 Of course their going to exploit the president that introduced us to the term HOMELESSNESS. To the President that ignored AIDS for years. To the President that said make the rich richer and they'll higher more poor people to work for them. The best part is will they allow Nancy to speak, and will she rain on their parade and talk about the need for Stem Cell research again.

Gypped, as in "dirty, stinking, thieving Gypsies" (at least according to Jerri Blank)? Yeah, I hadn't ever considered that.

B

Luigi Novi: "Reagan never committed an immoral act while in office? He never sold arms to our enemies and tried to cover it up from Congress?"

As I recall, even though then President Regan pled ignorance to any illegal activity perpetrated by his administration, he went on the record, saying, "I am accountable." As opposed to President Clinton's ultra secular stance, "That depends on what your definition of sex is."

Up to this point, I've only had to defend myself, which, in light of the former President's passing, I'm going to keep that way by not posting on this topic again. I've said my peace; do with it what you will.

Breck, the correct quote was, "That depends on what your definition of 'is' is." It was his smart-ass Southern-lawerly way of treating the question of whether "you are now having an affair", by saying that the format of the question implied that there might, in fact, be a woman in the witness box at that very moment, humming away.

Mostly what I recall hearing from Reagan during the Iran-Contra thing was "I do not recall." (And, of course, George Sr., former head of the CIA, claiming he was "out of the loop" - who the hell was supposed to be running the country at the time, the Hardy Boys' Evil Twins?)

Mostly what I recall hearing from Reagan during the Iran-Contra thing was "I do not recall."

Hmm. You know, there have been those that question whether Reagan was being affected by Alzheimers even while he was in office.

Kind of makes you cringe a little at the possibility when his best quote on something like the Iran-Contra is "I do not recall."

Bladestar,
There is really no need to call Karen ignorant. She is nothing but respectful toward you or anyone else, and she deserves the same in return.

The funny thing is, on your basic point, I agree with you. we have become way too sensitive to what people say.
Columnist Larry Elder (a black libertatrian radio host) likes to tell this story:
"In high school, my class read a poem":

While riding through old Baltimore, so small and full of glee,
I saw a young Baltimorean keep a-lookin' straight at me;
Now I was young and very small, and he was no whit bigger;
And so I smiled, but he poked out his tongue and called me 'nigger';
I saw the whole of Baltimore from May until September;
Of all the things that happened there, that's all that I remember

"The teacher talked about the permanent damage done to this little boy's psyche. The permanent stain of racism. The denial of the little boy's dignity. the boy, said the teacher, will never be the same. By the time the bell sounded, everybody left angry."
"I went home and repeated the poem to my mom. When i came to the last stanza;'of all the things that happened there, that's all that I remember', she took a spoon out of the pot she was stirring, rapped it on the side, turned to me and said, 'Larry, it's too bad he let THAT spoil his vacation'.

But by the same token, Bladestar, if someone is intentionally trying to provoke you, and you're out in public and ask them politely to stop and they don't, don't they deserve what they get?
If I was having lunch with Karen and PAD and someone starting calling them the K-word and wouldn't stop, or walked into a VFW pub and burned a flag, well, aren't they asking for it then? Don't I have a right to not to peace and quiet? Don't my friends? Don't the Vet? Does there EVER come a point where you feel someone would cross the line verbally?
I remember a poster said they didn't think you were very intelligent a while back, and you seemed upset about that?
So if Karen lets it be known she doesn't appreciate certain terms, or if I ask someone firmly not to call my girlfriend a slut, well, where do my rights and the rights of the obnoxious insulters begin and end?
I'm seriously asking.

Well, that was interesting. And should go a long way to support the idea that the internet allows people to let their true selves out. There are more than a few colorful characters in here who'd make excellent characters on MTV's next season of Real World/Road Rules or whatever clone show they come up with next.

Maybe Dee/DD is really a democrat plant, trying to smudge the Republican image with their tirades? Who knows. It is pretty amusing to read, until you think about the emotions boiling over behind the words, and you wonder if you're not reading a post from the next murder/suicide the news broadcasts.

I think PAD should send copies of all the foul-languaged posts to the posters' mothers, along with some virtual soap to get them to clean up their acts.

For the record, I've not seen PAD take one shot, cheap or otherwise, at Ronnie during this time. Although I can see how his decision to start this post today could be seen as disrespectful to the man. But if he'd waited any longer, the abuse of RR's memory would have already started, and posting odds would have been pointless. Democrat, Republican, when it comes down to it, they all get the job done the same way. It's just the direction they take us that differs. In general, neither party is "better" or "cleaner" when it comes to politics. The fastest, surest way to the top is a dirty, mean, rotten path, and both party members have to walk it.

Hello Mr.David.

I have found your web for my first time and I feel that I have to say how great your work is; congratulations for your stories of Hulk (my favourite ones, of course) and Captain Marvel (reaaaally great!!).
Here in Spain, Marvel comics arrive almost 1-2 years later than in USA or Britain so you can imagine how impatient we were when you were writing for Hulk (I remember for example that War & Pieces saga appeared here in 1994/5 and now the spanish editorial group is re-editing your Hulk period).
If you read this, sincere congratulations for your stories and a big hello from one of your biggest fans from Spain.

Dee, Read Comprehension Time---Nixon was a Republican!!!! Impeach is not spelled 'empeach'!!!!

I hate typos when I am correcting someone!

Should be:

Dee, Reading Comprehension Time---Nixon was a Republican!!!! Impeach is not spelled 'empeach'!!!!

Wow, at least I learned from this post that there are some died-in-the-wool Republicans that can actually read! Wow!

Now, as to whether they can be civil when facing a viewpoint that disagrees with theirs, that is a different story.

Just so you know, you unpleasant jerks, I'm not Jewish. So get it right when you start name calling.

"But by the same token, Bladestar, if someone is intentionally trying to provoke you, and you're out in public and ask them politely to stop and they don't, don't they deserve what they get?"

No Jerome, they don't. Physical violence over words IS stupid and ignorant and unneccessary.
And if you advocate physical violence over words, then you need SERIOUS counseling...

I wasn't calling Karen ignorant, just the whole idea that words are offensive, not her specifically.

I just thought I should add that, while I respect Peter and Glenn's decision to let the idiocy run rampant, I for one can't believe it's worth it for any of us.

James Lynch,
First, I'm pretty sure liberals DO go to conservative websites to complain about how biased they are. In fact, i remember a while back a colleague who had been on Chuck Dixon's website saying some posters were calling him a "gun nut".
And I don't consider Dee a conservative or a Republican. I consider Dee insane. Does Louis farrakhan represent all liberals?
In regard to Ann Coulter and "Treason", that was me who "called you on it".
The book is actually quite well-written and informative (and I read books from the other end of the political spectrum I can say that about as well, like Jonathan Kozol's education/poverty masterpieces).
While a bre-knuckled literary work (much like her TV commentary), Coulter does more than support Bush. She examines the sixty year history of the Cold War and on to today, and concludes that liberals have been horribly wrong in almost all their political analyses and policy prescriptions. She cites FDR calling Joseph Stalin, one of the worst mass murderers in history, "Uncle Joe" and how he turned a blind eye to the growing threat of Communism. She points out that the villified joe McCarthy was exonerated by the recently released Venona Papers that prove he was right about Soviet agents working for the government. She feels that Truman, Kennedy, Carter and Clinton show a liberal pattern of being satisfied with containing, appeasing and retreating from our enemies, and have often sacrificed America's best interests and security in the process. And the one Democrat president who was willing to fight a war since World War II, LBJ, was unwilling to do what it took to win.
That is the "treason" she talks about. Bush actually takes up a small portion of the book. Even if you disagree with the premise, it does make for fascinating reading.

O'Toole,
There has only been one true "unpleasant jerk" on this board, the Insane Poster with Four Names. The rest of us can act quite civil.
Don't lump us all in with the trolls.

Also, Republican president Richard M. Nixon was not impeached. He resigned before the House could finish considering the Articles of Impeachment.

Andrew Johnson was called a Democrat at the time, although the ideals he espoused would have placed him firmly in the Republican camp today (not the NeoCon camp - while favoring states' rights, he also stood foursquare for the rights of minorities). He was impeached, and found innocent by only one vote. (Remember that "impeachment" is the process of bringing the President to trial before Congress, whether Congress finds him innocent or guilty.)

Let Bush compare himself to Reagan all he wants. He'll come out looking like a cheap knock-off brand anyway.

Oh, I'm having trouble trying to define the type of attack I've heard. Is this an ad hominem or a straw man attack: "W. is now trying to compare himself to Reagan? Let's see, Reagan was almost killed when bullets were fired at him from a deranged psychopath in love with Jodi Foster, while Bush is a dumb-ass who passed out choking on a pretzel."

And then there's this: "Bush comparing himself to Reagan? Doesn't he know that Reagan was the Great Communicator, he Bush has had what 6 press conferences in 4 years in office and still can't say 'nuclear' right?"

Bladestar,
I'm not advocating violence, but you never answered my question. Where do my rights begin and the hecklers/slur-tossers end, and vice-versa?

Spike,
1.)If you thought homelessness started with Reagan, you obviously never heard of The Great Depression.

2.) AIDS was not taken seriously by many when it was first announced. It took Surgeon General C.Everett Koop - who ironically had been loved by conservatives and villified by liberals due to his strong pro-life - becoming a determined crusader for AIDS awareness and prevention that really brought the issue a matter of importance and urgency. Laying that load at Reagan's feet is to be ignorant of the times and circumstances. Between Koop and then Magic Johnson's revelation, Bush Senior did better and clinton obviously better still.

3.) We did have a six-year expansion that transformed and spoiled the country to this day. So his economic policies aren't as worthy of ridicule as you seem to think.

Jerome,
I have to take issue with your defense of Coulter. FDR may have called Stalin Uncle Joe but he was by no means unaware of Soviet aspirations, just look at his papers. Joseph McCarthy hasn’t been exonerated by the Verona papers, because his sin wasn’t suggesting there was a few spies working in government his sin was saying that we were infested with them, and only he knew who they were and then he began a witch-hunt tarring innocent and guilty alike. But his greatest crime was fostering the idea that those who exercised their constitutional rights had something to hide. Were Truman, Kennedy, Carter and Clinton great appeasers? Hmmm. Truman ever heard of the Berlin Airlift? Wouldn’t an appeaser have just given them the city? He also fought the Communists in a little place called Korea, I guess his crime is not starting WWIII by nuking China. Kennedy fought Communist in Vietnam, but then again he didn’t start WWIII by invading Cuba, appeaser. Carter, let’s see after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan he ordered a massive military build up, created new offensive weapons programs like the F-117 and the B-2, and of course pretty much ended détente with the boycott of the 1980 Olympics. Damn these Democrats.

* shakes his head in wonder *

It's been over 12 hours since I last visited and posted here and I can't believe a lot of you (I'm assuming, bright inteligent people) are STILL responding to the "brave" anonymous poster!!!

Folks, IGNORE HIM.
Like any pest, he'll go away!

I don't understand why people who have obvious favorites (like a liberal going to a conservative board or vice-versa) would bother at all to post on that board!!!
Why?
What's the point??

Do people REALLY have that much time to waste???

Geez, I wish I had some free time to patheticlly waste posting moronic, worthless messages.

"Wow, at least I learned from this post that there are some died-in-the-wool Republicans that can actually read! Wow!

Now, as to whether they can be civil when facing a viewpoint that disagrees with theirs, that is a different story.

Just so you know, you unpleasant jerks, I'm not Jewish. So get it right when you start name calling."

Given that both of you are prone to wide reaching overgeneralizations of those you disagree with, you come across as just a more literate, smarter version of Dee.

Which is not something to put on one's resume...

It gets even better. To judge from the slew of political cartoons on the subject of the Normandy invasion, apparently FDR was an arch-conservative. Because all the cartoonists clearly state that a liberal would never have gone ahead with the invasion.

What does Nixson & Cliton have in common??? Both Dems & both were 'empeached' the only other diff is that Nixton left & Slick Willie didn't.

Gee, I take a few days off from this site and everything goes insane. :)

I see Dee in particular has lost his mind.

BTW, the above statement is wrong on two counts not counting spelling errors:

1) Nixon, as others have mentioned, was not a Democrat.

2) He was never impeached. He resigned before the vote on the impeachment resolution was called. The only US presidents to be impeached were Clinton and Andrew Johnson.

Simple, don't listen. What you are suggesting is shutting down freespeech that one individual doesn't like. That's censorship and fascism. You don't have to listen, you can ignore, and when you use phrases like "they get what they deserve", you cetrtainly sound like you are advocating violence.

O'Toole, of *course* you're not a Jew. I mean, look at that name - it's obvious that you're a mick! :)

(Sorry, couldn't resist...)

- Still a Proud Honky Geek

Evan,
okay, since you really want to get into this...

1.) FDR, in his first diplomatic act, officially recognized the Soviet Union. Besides calling him "Uncle Joe", he allowed Stalin's agent, Alger Hiss, to be at his side and help convince him to sell out Eastern Europe at yalta. He promised stalin three votes in the U.N. General Assembly, plus the right to name the No. 2 U.N. official. On Roosevelt's watch, the soviets took eastern Poland, Moldavia, Lithuania, Latvia, estonia and Albania. "Uncle Joe' murderd 12 to 20 million people, and forced at least 10 million into slave labor.

2.) Harry Dexter White, assistant secretary of the treasury under FDR, was identified as a Soviet spy in Venona.
White secured high-level government positions at the Treasury Department for at least eleven other Soviet agents - and they were all named in Venona.
White conspired with his fellow Soviet spies Frank Coe and Solomon Adler to kill a critical loan to Nationalist China, while at the same time trying to persuade Roosevelt to give the soviet union a $10 billion loan on extremely favorable terms.
Despite repeated warnings from the FBI that White was a Soviet agent,President truman retained white at treasury and then apointed him as the top U.S. official at the International Monetary Fund.

3.) Lauchlin Currie (Andrew Card today) was an administrative assistant to President Franklin D. Roosevelt and deputy administrator of the Board of Economic Welfare. Currie was identified as a spy in Venona.

4.) Duncan Lee, was chief of staff to the head of the Office of Strategic Services - the precursor to the CIA - under FDR. He honeymoned in Moscow and was identified as a Soviet spy by ex-spy Elizabeth Bentley. Lee was confirmed as a Soviet spy at Venona.

5.) Harry Hopkins - the Karl Rove of his day -was a special advisor to FDR, was described by a member of the Soviet underground,Anatoly Ahkmerov. He was described by the KGB as a Soviet agent "of major significance".

6.) Roosevelt's vice-president Henry Wallace (1940-44 term) believed "America's main enemy was Churchill and the British Empire. He insisted that peace would be assured "if the United States guaranteed Stalin control of Eastern Europe. " When Stalin seized Czechoslovakia, Wallace sided with Stalin. When Stalin blockaded Berlin, Walace opposed the U.S. airlift.

All in all, decrypted Soviet cables have identified over 300 spies that were working for the u.S. government in the forties and fifties.
That might qualify as a significant "infestation".

"The biggest news story (so far) of the week is the death of Reagan, and will continue to be up until a few days after the funeral."

Hmm...MSNBC's web page's main story is a report about Rumsfeld, Iraqi torture, and President Bush. Reagan's the second story.

CNN's main story: "Bush: UN Resolution on Iraq will pass unanimously".

Even Drudge's main story, while dealing with the funeral, focuses on the fact that Clinton has been left off the funeral speakers list. The second story is about the Stepford Wives movie. And Drudge is a Reaganite.

Of course, I think we do agree on the main point. While Kerry COULD have campaigned this week, it would have been a monumental mistake.

Interesting that Reagan, even in death, is a hugely controversial figure. Anyone read Slate's take on Reagan?

Bladestar wrote:
"And let's not forget Bush wasn't elected by the people. Gore won the people's vote, GWB won through the archaic nonsense of the electoral college (an election system where 20 people voting in one big state could effectively nullify miliions of votes in a dozen of the smallest states...)"

Nonesense... we all know the rules of the game. It's the electorial college that matters -- as it always has -- so why are people still bellyaching about this now? The same thing could have happened for Gore and I would have been fine with it (although, yes, disapointed) BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE RULES and we knew that going into the election.

Also, the "people" hardly voted at all. Look at the turn out numbers. Sure, Gore won the popular vote, but not by very much -- and more importantly, both Gore and Bush only recieved votes by those that bothered to vote. I would hardly call that the "people's vote." In the end, our president was elected by those that bothered to vote (which in some ways may be a good thing because a lot of people haven't a clue on the issues).

Dear me! I've never felt compelled to post on this board before, as usually the subject matter revolves around American politics which - though I recognise as important - I simply don't have a firm enough grasp of to contribute on.

But coming onto the site and seeing 183 posts waiting under this topic made me think it was worth a look - and it has been. If for nothing more than the varied responses to Dee (et al?) and the racist banter being posted. Its always worth having a look at how different sides see identical things. When many of you condemn Dee's rather vicious and distressing comments, you throw back insults of comparable magnitude without worrying about it. Fighting fire with fire is very good, but only when you want to burn something down.

It's worth noting, that if a person can have these beliefs, express them, and then continue to express their beleifs despite opposition - simply calling them stupid, ignorant, or 'trailer-trash' will accomplish nothing. Dee has her/his beliefs for a reason, ask the reason, discuss it, see where it comes from. Do you want to understand? Or defend? Either is perfectly fine in my view, but the advances that have been made by our societies seem to have been made through attempts at understanding, more than anything else.

It might be instinct to batter down and belittle someone who's views are taken as socially offensive - but remember that (in both our societies) not long ago promoting homosexuality or women's rights would be met with the same en-mass condemnation.

I believe its worth engaging in dialogue as best you can in such a situation, even if it's a blow to give credability to a standpoint that injures you on some level. Divisive behaviour such as racism certainly injures me.

Good evening all, as its evening here in the UK

That's censorship and fascism.

You know, these two are not mutual exclusive.

Frankly, I don't see how fascism can even be considered here.
Hell, the more I think about your comment, the more my head feels like it's going to explode.

For everything intelligent you say, Bladestar, you can something completely stupid and ignorant.

Kerry and his camp announced that they were going to stop campaigning for the week "out of respect" for the mourning for Reagan before admitting that the real reason for the temporary suspenson of campaign activities was that no one would be paying attention to him this week since everyone was focussed on Reagan. Looks like the Democrats are trying to get a little mileage out of riding Reagan's coat tails into the grave, too.

Colour Blue,

There's little or no logic in Dee's rantings--that's why they are rantings. He makes up facts that make it sound like he's a refugee from the Amazing Bizarro World. If he were making arguments we could argue them on the merits but it's just goofy 4th grade monkeybar insults. I'll bet my 8 year old niece could come up with better insults. Hey Tara, c'mere:

"Dee is a poopyhead."

There, did I lie? OK, I helped with the spelling, although I'm sure that even she would know that "impeached" doesn't begin with an "e".

Incidentally, I have been informed that all of her beanie babies will buy a copy of MADROX, which cancells out the effects of Dee's imaginary friends.

Jerome,

1) FDR recognizing the SU is like you and I recognizing Iran. Pretending they're not there won't make them go away. Hardly an indicator that FDR was secretly a communist. Was the SU over-represented at the UN? It’s arguable but I think so. However the only time it really ever mattered they blew it by walking out.

2) Harry White was a spy but I haven't seen any evidence in Venona that he knowingly appointed other Soviet agents to policy positions.

3),4),5) I won't deny these people were involved in espionage. But that begs the question just what these agents provided the Soviets because they certainly didn’t undermine America to any degree.

6) Wallace was 1/2 right the British Empire was an unsustainable behemoth and we're still dealing with its failures in places like the Indian sub-continent and Africa. However his opposition to the airlift didn't stop Truman a Democrat from saving Berlin and then going on to confront.

PS) As for the 300 "agents" identified by Venona. If memory serves me correctly and to be honest it's been a few since I really worked on this many of these were "one timers" people who passed on information to the Soviets or their agents sometimes unknowingly. Hardly an infestation.

However I stand by the main point of my argument in Treason, Coulter paints democrats as capitulating to the Soviets, as quitters ready to build Gulags in America. When in fact containment the policy the eventually won the day was conceived under Truman, and executed under Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan. Go back and look at some of the old debates with the exception of Ford in 76 saying there was no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe almost all the candidates sound the same. "We can't get rid of the Soviet Union but we can contain it." It wasn’t a democratic or a republican policy it was an American policy one that eventually won the day.

"In the end, our president was elected by those that bothered to vote (which in some ways may be a good thing because a lot of people haven't a clue on the issues)."

- Dennis

"If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for ... but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong."

- Lazarus Long

Dennis, math isn't your strong suit is it?

The popular vote, the vote of the people who woted, indicated that more people who voted voted for Gore than Bush, yet America is touted as a democracy all around the world?

Hello????? In a democracy, the vote of the people, not some insane numbers game, would elect the president.

How many fewer people are going to bother to vote know that they know for sure they're vote doesn't matter if they aren't from California, Texas, New York, or on of the other 5 largest electoral vote states...???

Bladestar, when the difference in the popular vote was less than one percent, the reason for an electoral college is self-evident.

Even with your crying foul, Gore won the two largest states electoral votes, even though in California, Bush carried almost almost 50% of the popular vote.

Gore lost, plain and simple. Not by a failure in the system, but by a failure in his campaign strategy.

While I agree that the Electoral College is an outdated mode of presidential selection, I'm inclined the US is not a democracy -- we're a democratic republic.

According to the CIA (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html), our government type is a "Constitution-based federal republic," with a" strong democratic tradition."

What this means is that we don't directly elect all of our officials by counting the votes of every single citizen. For some, like the President, we vote for representatives who then in-turn vote for us. That's the "republic" part coming into play of "democratic republic." Does the system need to be changed? Definitely. The Electoral College is a relic from a bygone era and, since it is no longer necessary, should be accordingly abolished.

So, not trying to piss anyone off here or anything like that; just thought I might point this out.

Wow,I mean the keyboards are burning around here.
Lets begin with the unamed racist person who is gonna boycott and keeps posting even though they say they are going to stop.
Please just go away.Go hang out with your hardcore,trekkie,anti semite fans and leave the rest of us alone.
Okay the real reason im posting is in response to Bladestar and the words never hurt anyone thing .Yes they do.From a little kid calling another a poopyhead ,to a man calling a woman a cunt they all hurt.No, not physically but it incites people,angers ,and embarasses .Some one who is told all their life as a child how stupid,ugly ,or worthless they are grows up with a bad image of themselves and becomes an insecure, incomplete and damaged adult.
In response to one of your other questions ,yes I am bothered when one black person calls another
Nigger.It makes it seem like the word is acceptable and its not despite what some Rap artists,and entertainers would make you believe.
They can try to pretty it up by saying ,"oh i meant nigga"as if it makes a difference,or its a term of love .No its not!!
Okay due me a favor call your mother, wife or girlfriend a cunt or bitch and then try the words dont hurt schtick.
Henry Rollins was on T.V. one time and asked a very good question...When did it become acceptable to call someone bitch,nigger or faggot.Answer it never should have been allowed to become acceptable.
We all laugh at Dee of a thousand names because of how foolish and ignorant he /she sounds when reduced to using slurs and profanity to prove a point.Not because of the slurs ,but that is all he /she has to offer where most people can post intelligently.
Not picking a fight just saying words can and do hurt and incite violence.

Sometimes, it's not the words, Deano - it's other connections made by them.

As a hardcore Trekkie since the first series, I confess myself somewhat insulted by your linking me and mine with Dee et al.

And no, "harcore Trekkie" is not an insult, anymore more than "big-time 'Law & Order' fan" is (unless, of course, you express your fandom by writing Briscoe/McCoy slashfics or something...).

That's supposed to be "hardcore", or course, not "harcore".

Poopyhead.

HITLER! HITLER HITLER!

There. NOW Glenn will shut down this silly thread. :)

In all seriousness, we're going to argue about Bush's election until the cows come home. I don't really care whether or not Gore should have won; he DIDN'T, and that's the important part. Speaking as a guy who voted for Gore (and doesn't like W one little bit), if the guy had just won his own home state, Tennessee, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Hell, if he had won Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, or Wyoming, the states with the smallest number of electoral votes possible that went for Bush (3 votes each), he would have swung the vote his way. But he didn't.

Everyone raves about Florida, and I'm not convinced justice was done there. But, y'know, there was a lot more that he could have done to win his own campaign. I'll be surprised if Kerry doesn't win Massachusetts and a sizable number of Northeast states (although New Hampshire went for Bush in 2000).

Jonathan(the other one)
POOPYHEAD !You call me a poopyhead !Im devastated ,crushed forever:)
The hardcore Trekkie was meant more as a comment on nitwit and his hundreds of like minded friends.Not that trekkies are idiots just the ones that could be influenced by Dee.
Personally im insulted someone said that person was in the military.I dont want that type of person being associated with me.If it makes you feel better im a hardcore QUANTUM LEAP,24,and ANGEL fan so attack as you wish:)

I'm going to boycott the boycott and buy three extra copies of Peter's books! Who's with me!?

:wink:

Why has "dee" not been reported to it's provider? I'm assuming Glenn has access to the ISP. No where on the net should this type of abuse be tolerated.

Good grief.

A man died.

Josh, I know that, but one of the lies the government loves to trumpet to other countries about how "great" Amerika is is because "The US is a Democracy!"...

Not that you care, Dee, but since PAD was giving odds on whether those things would happen at the GOP National Convention, which hasn't happened yet, he is neither wrong nor right, sort of like the time in Frost's "Acquainted With the Night."

No bet, dear PAD.
*grrs at GOP*

Ray Cornwall: "HITLER! HITLER HITLER! There. NOW Glenn will shut down this silly thread. :) "

Actually I think it has to be a nazi analogy.

Howzabout...Dee's nazi-like attempt to dictate that nobody should be able to purchase particular pieces of literature (to wit, those written by the venerable PAD) filled the group with contempt.

go ahead. declare it :)

People are always getting the wrong idea about PAD. Partly it's because they're idiots, but reading his original post I can see how some erroneous ideas could be inferred. For instance, PAD leaves unstated his opinion about politicians who would exploit Reagan's death. It is *implied* that he would find such a thing disgusting, but implications can be easily overlooked by the casual idiot.

Scott,

I think PAD is sitting in his office smoking a cigar just laughing at all of us for keeping this thread going :)

"We're taught in school that America is a democracy but we repeatly have the lie of it all displayed...."

I hope you're not taught that in school. The U.S. is a democratic republic. Democracy is two wolves and sheep voting on the dinner menu. As a minority, I'm very pleased we don't live in a democracy where the majority can oppress the minority and that's still technically democratic.

Bladestar: So when one black calls anothe black a "Nigger" you're offended too? Luigi, I thought you were smarter than that....
Luigi Novi: You’re opining a lower estimation of my intelligence because of something I didn’t say?

I didn’t say anything about one black calling another black a “nigger.” I was referring to the use of the original use of the word by white racists. However, since you bring up the point, I’m not sure if I’m offended by black-on-black epithets, but I don’t think they’re doing themselves any favors when using them.

SER: I will say this: Seeing Reagan's speeches again made me realize how utterly... ordinary our current president is. Reagan had a very Washingtonian air to him. After the Challenger disaster, I was moved by his comments that "the future belongs not to the fainthearted but to the brave."
Luigi Novi: Do you feel he wrote those words himself, or had them written for him by a speechwriter?

I’ve heard people talk about how good a President he was because he was cognizant about how he appeared and came off to others, and knew how to carry himself in public to appear Presidential, and I suspect that what you’re talking about pertains to this. But wouldn’t you expect such a thing from an actor?

Luigi Novi: Again, why is this political gain?

Dan Forinton: Because it's Bush's re-election website? (As in the banner title of the webpage).
Luigi Novi: So where is he supposed to put it? On a porno site? It’s only his re-election website because it’s an election year. Any other year, it’s simply his website. Are you saying that putting up a memoriam for someone he may genuinely admire will get him more visitors to that site (and more votes) from people who otherwise would not have voted for him?

Dan Forinton: I don't disagree that Bush is entitled to publicly honour Reagan, but I would question wether putting it up as the front page is the best place - unless someone is looking for political gain.
Luigi Novi: So he should deliberately hide the link?

Luigi Novi: If the Republicans sincerely believe Reagan was a great man, and that his presidency is something from which they can draw inspiration and example, then where’s the harm?

Craig J. Ries: Because Dubya isn't a great man.
Luigi Novi: What does one have to do with the other? Dubya cannot honor a great man because he himself isn’t one? Explain to me the logic in that.

James Lynch: And Luigi Novi, while you (and others) did a great job on the Dee/PADsucks/inbreeding result poster, it's a bit bathetic to dedicate so much time and exactness to so little a person.
Luigi Novi: To each his own.

Luigi Novi: "Reagan never committed an immoral act while in office? He never sold arms to our enemies and tried to cover it up from Congress?"

Breck: As I recall, even though then President Regan pled ignorance to any illegal activity perpetrated by his administration, he went on the record, saying, "I am accountable.
Luigi Novi: The point was whether Reagan had committed an immoral act while in office. Is or is not selling missiles to an enemy terrorist nation not an immoral act? And how can he be accountable while simultaneously pretending he was ignorant of it? How can he be ignorant of it if he was President? Even if that were true (and I don’t think it is), what does that say about his competence as a President?

Gotta love two empeached presidents turnout to be Dems.

I see you still haven't learned how to spell "impeached," huh?

BTW, Andrew Johnson, the only other president besides Clinton to be impeached, was a republican.

Jerome Maida posted:
"2.) AIDS was not taken seriously by many when it was first announced. It took Surgeon General C.Everett Koop - who ironically had been loved by conservatives and villified by liberals due to his strong pro-life - becoming a determined crusader for AIDS awareness and prevention that really brought the issue a matter of importance and urgency. Laying that load at Reagan's feet is to be ignorant of the times and circumstances. Between Koop and then Magic Johnson's revelation, Bush Senior did better and clinton obviously better still."

Actually, we CAN lay the load at Reagan's feet. Dr Koop was REAGAN's surgeon general. Dr Koop found several of his recommendations overruled because of Reagan's apathy to AIDS (at worst)or his being beholden to the Religious Right (at the very least). The Reagan Administration refused to allow taxpayer dollars to be spent on ads promoting safe(r) sex to gay men (the group most connected with the disease).

Well, luigi, now who's now answering the question asked? I don't give a damn how people used the word 150 years ago, I don't live in 150 years ago, and neither do you. Nice to see you stoop the standard level of intellectual dishonesty....

Am I correct in assuming Scott is inferring that anyone who disagrees with Peter is an idiot?

Ok, what the heck is a casual idiot anyways?

LMAO!!!

Novafan

"You're wondering why people hang around this forum if they really hate Mr. David and his views? Very simple. They're secretly in love with him."

This comment by Thomas disgusted me almost as much as Dee's rants.

Good grief.

Novafan

Andrew Jackson was registered as a Democrat, but elected to the office of the Vice-President under Republican Abraham Lincoln. However, as I pointed out earlier, his views pretty well dovetailed with what the Republican Party claims to believe today - and that was what he was impeached over.

A casual idiot is one in a T-shirt and jeans, rather than a two-piece suit and a Presidential seal... :)

My word, certainly a spirited discussion.

The Insane Poster with Four Names reminds me of what Nimoy/Spock and DeLancie/Q said to each other in their brilliant live performance.

"You are... a fathead."
"Fathead? ...FATHEAD?!"
"You are... a lackwit, useless, brainless dunce."

There is nothing more dangerous in this world than someone with a big mouth and no brain. Can those of us possessing full usage of our frontal lobes please leave the neanderthal to his incoherent grunting?

Sadly, it's almost certain that both parties will try, either overtly or subtily, to use this period of mourning for their own ends. That's life. Depressing, but it's life.

Whether or not Reagan was a great man is debatable. But he was, indeed, a man, and a wise man once said that anyone's death diminishes us. Let's try to be respectful, if not for the sake of civility, than for the simple reason that a man is dead.

Bladestar:
"Well, luigi, now who's now answering the question asked? I don't give a damn how people used the word 150 years ago, I don't live in 150 years ago, and neither do you. Nice to see you stoop the standard level of intellectual dishonesty...."

Pardon me for jumping into your conversation here.
I have to assume, Bladestar, that you and I must live in radically different parts of the world. See, in the area in which I live there is more use of the word Nigger in it's derogatory context than there are pot holes. Per minute. Incidentally, I don't live 150 years ago either. Granted there may be some demographical factors involved that you don't face on a daily basis, but what is more intelectually dishonest? considering the possibility that racism can be anywhere at any givien moment or viewing ones corner of the world as representative of the rest of the world?

I'm not taking shots at you, Bladestar. In fact I'm thinking tat you might live in a better place than I.

If you get a chance, visit West Michigan. The world capitol of stereo-types and scared little minds.

Salutations,

Mitch

"Actually, we CAN lay the load at Reagan's feet. Dr Koop was REAGAN's surgeon general. Dr Koop found several of his recommendations overruled because of Reagan's apathy to AIDS (at worst)or his being beholden to the Religious Right (at the very least). The Reagan Administration refused to allow taxpayer dollars to be spent on ads promoting safe(r) sex to gay men (the group most connected with the disease)."

JosephW, some people might say that Reagan's being beholden to his Religion was a good thing.

I find it hard to fathom that the man just died and here you are talking about his policies and laying blame already. Now it's his fault for the Aids epidemic because he didn't promote safe sex ads for gay men.

Grrrrrr!!!!!!

Mitch sez:
"If you get a chance,
visit West Michigan.
The world capitol of
stereo-types and
scared little minds."

Randall sez: I've lived in Grand Rapids for
fifty-one years (except for a couple of nights
in Chicago IL and Madison WI) and the truth
of your statement fails to offend me.
By the way, my stereo types are Pioneer and
Sony and you misspelled a word: there are
two "R"s in "scarred".

This thread is STILL going on?
Just goes to show proof to the old axiom, you get 100 people together to discuss anything (especially politics) and you're going to get 100 different opinions.
Although in Dee/DD/PADs*cks/American's case, the count is at 97.

But my opinion is the only one that counts, right?

From all the people that have posted here over the last few months I have 2 observations:

The republicans have "DEE" & the democrats have "BLADESTAR". Just goes to show both parties have their cross to bare.

Both are angry, stupid idiots that are mad at the world. They have nothing but hate and contempt to those with differences of opinions.

You bitch and complain from the anonimity of cyber space, but I would bet that if confronted face to face you 2 twits would chicken out like the pussys I'm sure you are.

Piss on both of you fucks! Who needs you morons!

What happened to you fuckers ,your mom dropped you on your head when you were little. I swear the 2 of you are insane. The 2 of you put together wouln't equal the IQ of a gnat. You 2 should get together. I bet you could tell some great sob stories about how tough your little live are.

Peter, I love your stuff. Looking forward to maddoX, & read fallen angel religiously. Don't let what DEE told you get to you. Keep up the good work. I hope you still have at least 1 more Hulk story in you. I hate the Bruce Jones run (drags on too much & doesn't seem to have a point)and would love if you went back to the title.

PAD fan

PS Bladestar, don't get mad, these are just words after all, you piece of shit.

PPS same goes to you too, DEE!

But my opinion is the only one that counts, right?

Snort... exactly right Karen. exactly right.

Travis

I see no problem with the Republicans mentioning Reagan, nor perhaps having a moment of silence. That in itself is polite, etiquette and - indeed - might look strange if it didn't happen.

Peter is, to my view, simply saying that Reagan's legacy will be given several shiny, polished, edited and revised outings with their main aim to prop up the current (and deeply troubled) administration.

That in itself, is politics. It's going to happen and, yes, if the situation was reversed and this was a Democratic convention taking place shortly after a Dem ex-President had died, I would expect the same thing.

But however likely, it's still somewhat opportunistic whoever does it. Whether it be Dem or Repub, Conservative or Labour it does seem that no-one misses an opportunity to grab whatever is on hand as a crutch to back up whatever the policy of the week might be. How many times have the likes of Kennedy been quoted by ALL sides?

John M

Picking a new alias, eh Dee? I mean "PAD Fan"

Also PAD FAN, I notice you posted rather anonymously...

Wildcat: I don't think the GOP will have the consent of Ron Jr., at least not if he still feels the same as he did in a Salon interview from 2003:

"The Bush people have no right to speak for my father…these people are overly reaching, overly aggressive, overly secretive, and just plain corrupt. I don't trust these people."

And I don't think Nancy would ever give her blessing to anything overtly political that would be seen as exploiting her husbands death.

I'm surprised no one else has addressed the important question Breck raised quite a while earlier in this thread:

"Is there an odd better than 1-1, because that would be the chances that the NY Times would do just that."

Yes, there are better odds than that. Odds of 1-1 are even odds, also referred to as a 50/50 proposition. Odds of 2-1 are better than odds of 1-1, odds of 100-1 are better yet. The highest odds possible would be 1-0, which would mean the chance of the thing happening would be a certainty.

Katheryn,
To paraphrase Dorothy Boyd (from "Jerry Maguire"):
"I am with you!"
Today I am making a point of buying not only the current issue of "Fallen Angel" but my comic dealer says he has the issues that I have missed.
Was probably going to eventually, but this has spurred me to action now.
And I just loaned a devout R.A. Salvatore fan one of my paperback copies of "Imzadi" to get her hooked on PAD.
Just doing what I can to show support:)

Has anyone noticed that Dee sounds exactly like Vic Chalker?

"It's going to happen and, yes, if the situation was reversed and this was a Democratic convention taking place shortly after a Dem ex-President had died, I would expect the same thing."

Not that I'm old enough to remember the event (I doubt my folks had the TV tuned to that channel anyway, not being overtly political, even in the '60s), but as I recall, yes, that's pretty much what happened after JFK died.

And nova, "1-1" means that in 1 trial, the event happened once - a 100% chance. A 50% chance would be 2-1 - that is, for every 2 trials, the event happened once. (Doubt me? Then find the notation in that system indicating a unitary probability.)

I should clarify - just because that's what happened, didn't make it right - IMO, LBJ was a crass opportunist, willing to sell out his party's most revered member in a blatant attempt to hold power.

Seems a common theme among politicians from Texas...

Picking a new alias, eh Dee? I mean "PAD Fan"

Nah, too well written. Not enough misspellings.

Bill "CSI" Mulligan

SER: I will say this: Seeing Reagan's speeches again made me realize how utterly... ordinary our current president is. Reagan had a very Washingtonian air to him. After the Challenger disaster, I was moved by his comments that "the future belongs not to the fainthearted but to the brave."
Luigi Novi: Do you feel he wrote those words himself, or had them written for him by a speechwriter?>>

I know he didn't write those words himself. Few presidents write their own speeches without assistance. However, Bush isn't exactly performing improv. If I were one his speechwriters, I'd cringe every time he butchered my words. He lacks sincerity or at least to ability to appear sincere or inspirational. I honestly don't get how Bush supporters can view him as inspiring. I'm not a Republican but I can easily see how conservatives would find Reagan inspiring.

As for Reagan being an accomlished actor... c'mon, did you *see* his movies? He's not that great a performer. He, like Clinton, was just extremely good at retail and wholesale politics. The people who knew him on a personal level -- both conservatives and leftists -- contend that what you saw what was you got with Reagan.

"As for Reagan being an accomlished actor... c'mon, did you *see* his movies? He's not that great a performer."

I find it hard to rate actors of Reagan's time with the standards of today--it's an entirely different style. Bogart or Edward G Robinson would not make it in today's climate. They played essentially the same characters with slight modifications, you never forget for a minute that you are watching Bogie. (And I loved Billy Crystal's imitation of Robinson in The Ten Commandments: "Nyah! Where's your Moses now, see? Nyah!")

When Reagan ran for gov of California the democrats ran Bedtime For Bonzo as often as possible to make him look bad--another case where blind dislike for someone backfires since any idiot who watches the movie would know that it shows Reagan as a genial, kindly professor type, not exactly the worst traits that one could have as a leader. He played one role very well in a time when that was the way most actors were. Whether he was good enough to stretch beyond that when times changed is debatable: he was very effective as a cruel hit man in The Killers, though I suspect a lot of the strength of the role was in seeing a typecast "nice guy" actor play against type (Like Henry Fonda in Once Upon A Time In The West. Jesus! Cold blooded as all crap!).

Reagan was no Fonda but he wasn't John Agar either.

Bill "President of the "Cattle Queen Of Montana" Fanclub" Mulligan

Randall sez: "I've lived in Grand Rapids for
fifty-one years (except for a couple of nights
in Chicago IL and Madison WI) and the truth
of your statement fails to offend me.
By the way, my stereo types are Pioneer and
Sony and you misspelled a word: there are
two "R"s in "scarred".

First, Randall, I'm not suprised that I failed to offend since Grand Rapids and Muskegon are not all that far apart. I've been here for just 5 years and there are not many people I even want to talk with for just those reasons. Including reletives.

Yes, it would seem that mis-spelling has become of of my super powers. More proof that I shouldn't type after my bed time.

My stereo type is restricted to Realistic (aka Radio Shack) circa 1989. Ouch.

Salutations,

Mitch

Randall sez: "I've lived in Grand Rapids for
fifty-one years (except for a couple of nights
in Chicago IL and Madison WI) and the truth
of your statement fails to offend me.
By the way, my stereo types are Pioneer and
Sony and you misspelled a word: there are
two "R"s in "scarred".

First, Randall, I'm not suprised that I failed to offend since Grand Rapids and Muskegon are not all that far apart. I've been here for just 5 years and there are not many people I even want to talk with for just those reasons. Including reletives.

Yes, it would seem that mis-spelling has become of of my super powers. More proof that I shouldn't type after my bed time.

My stereo type is restricted to Realistic (aka Radio Shack) circa 1989. Ouch.

Salutations,

Mitch

...And I've been bitted by the Doupble Posting Bug. Inbred cousing to the mosquito.

Damn Me,

Mitch

A large group of costumed villains descend upon the city!

"It's the Legion of Doom! Help us, Typo-Man!"

Typo-Man appears, and, with a wave of his fingers over a keyboard, the costumed villains suddenly transform -

- to a large group of leather-clad women wielding whips and gags!

"Typo-Man, are you sure we'd be safer from the Legion of Dom?"

Novafan, if you're going to attempt to correct me or call me on my comments, then have the decency to use the CORRECT quotation. I did NOT say that Reagan was beholden to his "religion"; I said that he was beholden to "the Religious Right". Get it straight. The two are NOT remotely synonymous.
As for it not somehow being "the right time" to discuss his policies, what the hell do you think is being discussed in the news right now? I'm hearing little about Reagan other than what he did as President, and much of what's being discussed is glossing over (at the very least) the full scope of his Presidency.
I'm not eulogizing the MAN. I'm not even discussing the MAN. I'm talking about the PRESIDENT. He wouldn't be receiving all this attention had he not been President. His policies as President are fair game for discussion, no matter how much affection someone has for Reagan, the MAN.

Randall sez: "I've lived in Grand Rapids for
fifty-one years"

Mitch sez: "First, Randall, I'm not suprised that I failed to offend since Grand Rapids and Muskegon are not all that far apart..."

Wait a minute here...! Surely this cannot be accurate! Counting me in this mix, there are THREE people that live in West Michigan who read PADs stuff AND who may all subscribe to the label that starts with an "L"? (no, not "Legionnaire")
:-)

Kurt

Mitch sez:
"If you get a chance,
visit West Michigan.
The world capitol of
stereo-types and
scared little minds."

Randall sez: there are
two "R"s in "scarred".

So if I have nothing but fear in me I'm SCARRED ? Considering that I work in Downtown Flint, MI and my job has consisted in interacting with people on a daily basis that fall into stereotypes I can see why people in Flint and the surrounding suburbs would have SCARED little minds because they are afraid of the boogie man, or being victimized.

Of course actually seeing that with an open mind you start to find the humor in Dee's futile attempts to post coherent thoughts. Reminds me of Butters and his alter-ego on South Park.

What does one have to do with the other? Dubya cannot honor a great man because he himself isn’t one? Explain to me the logic in that.

Honoring is one thing.

But if Dubya tries to do what PAD listed as examples that started this thread, especially those last few, then everybody should have a right to be upset because Dubya isn't a great man.

I missed where greatness was decided by Craig's opinion.

Gee, can you give a list of those that you feel are great so we can see what your standards really are?

Ham: "I missed where greatness was decided by Craig's opinion."

um...that's just it. he's stating his opinion. in his opinion, GWB isn't a great man.

people get too pissed off too easily on forums when they disagree with somebody else's opinion, because they automatically assume that person is making a blanket statement and speaking for everybody.

every post by every person shouldn't need to be prefaced with "in my opinion...". it should be implied.

of course...that's just my opinion...

CJG

Just as a matter of record, the people for whom I'm reserving my sympathy are the family of Kate Worley who died this past weekend. Kate was an exceptionally talented writer who could handle a truly mature adults-only story ("Omaha, the Cat Dancer" with Reed Waller) as well as an all-ages, family-friendly story (Disney's "Roger Rabbit" series) with equal love for the characters and a complete lack of condescendion for the readers. "Omaha" wasn't just comic-book porn; anyone who was reading it just for the sex scenes would've grown incredibly bored--there were real characters with real emotions and real lives, for whom sex was just a part. The "Roger Rabbit" comic may have been viewed as kiddie fare to most comic book fans, but her stories had the same love seen in any of Carl Barks' or Don Rosa's Duck stories.
Sorry, but I'll miss Kate Worley far more than Ronald Reagan.

I missed where greatness was decided by Craig's opinion.

Well, let's see what other opinions I can make that you will automatically assume as fact.

Bush is, I repeat, not a great man.

He doesn't deserve to sit on Reagan's shoulders, as it were, to boost himself and his agenda.

"I missed where greatness was decided by Craig's opinion."

I missed where "greatness" was anything *but* an opinion. Please post a precise definition of the term "greatness", as well as the objective scientific criteria to be used in determining the presence or absence of this quality.

Bladestar: Well, luigi, now who's now answering the question asked? I don't give a damn how people used the word 150 years ago, I don't live in 150 years ago, and neither do you. Nice to see you stoop the standard level of intellectual dishonesty....
Luigi Novi: Bladestar, I have no idea what you’re talking about, nor do I know what “question” you are referring to. You are apparently either unwilling or unable to respond to what I actually say, preferring to instead respond to your own Straw Men, as this is the second time you’ve employed one when responding to me on this thread.

You opined that anyone who takes offense at the use of words like “nigger” must be foolish. I responded by disagreeing, saying that I find the use of the word offensive, and that I don’t think it is foolish of me to do so. You responded by questioning my intelligence, challenging the idea of a white person being offended at a black person using the word with another black person. Although I do not think such situations are helpful to blacks, that was not the situation I was referring to, and I never said that I was. When I clarified this point by informing you that I was speaking of the use of the word by whites, you responded by claiming not to give a damn about how people used the word “150 years ago,” when I never said anything about “150 years ago.” The use of the word as a racial epithet is contemporary, not archaic. Racists use the word “nigger” today. To opine that it hasn’t been used in this way since 150 years ago is preposterous.

My original position stands. I find the use of the word “nigger” to be obviously offensive, particularly when used in a derogatory manner. While the intent behind its use by blacks amongst themselves may be different, my personal opinion on that cultural quirk is that it is not beneficial in the long run to empowering them.

Jerome Maida AIDS was not taken seriously by many when it was first announced. It took Surgeon General C.Everett Koop - who ironically had been loved by conservatives and villified by liberals due to his strong pro-life - becoming a determined crusader for AIDS awareness and prevention that really brought the issue a matter of importance and urgency. Laying that load at Reagan's feet is to be ignorant of the times and circumstances.
Luigi Novi: By the time Reagan gave his first speech on the AIDS crisis, 25,000 Americans had already died from the disease. In my opinion, whether AIDS was taken seriously by “many” does not absolve Reagan for his silence. He was the President. He is supposed lead others by example in responding to crises like that, and transcend the common ignorance on the part of the general public by getting all the facts himself and disseminating them to his citizens, not pander to that ignorance himself. 25,000 of his own citizens should not have had to die before he uttered a word about it. Just my opinion.

Question for Glenn: Is there maybe some way that you can ban all posts which have been recieved from the back of 4th grade elementary school classrooms? Or posts that come in all caps, including the poster and poster's e-dress?
That OTHER John Byrne

Brak,

4th grade? I was thinking more of pre school :-)

Joe V.

My nephew happens to be a lefty jew. We found out he was a lefty quite young, when he first picked up his pacifier with his left hand. Later on, when he started using crayons, it was confirmed that he is a lefty jew. While most of us in the family are rightys, this little guy remains, despite our best efforts, a confirmed lefty and likely to remain so.

Dem's da breaks.

David

So Dee is an "indie moderate voter" that can think for hirself, yet s/he spews all this crap about hating "dems" and "lefties"?

Dee is about as indie moderate as Bill O'Reilly.

Kurt: "Wait a minute here...! Surely this cannot be accurate! Counting me in this mix, there are THREE people that live in West Michigan who read PADs stuff AND who may all subscribe to the label that starts with an "L"? (no, not "Legionnaire")
:-)"

If you mean 'Liberal' I don't think that I'd qualify. I have some rather conservative ideas also and I think that the two just act just like matter/anti-matter anhiliation. At least in me. At that point I'm just left with deciding whether something is right or wrong based on it's own merrits.

Come to think of it, I never did work well in groups ;)

Salutations,

Mitch

I agree the chances are very good we'll see/hear everything PAD stated. But, and forgive me if this has been mentioned, were it Jimmy Carter that passed (though not as popular) I think the Democratic reaction would be very similar.

It's called politics, and partisan politics at that...

Mitch,

i think we all have a little bit of liberal & conservatives on all of us. For example I label myself a conservative and align myself with the republican party. I am however extremely pro environment, anti guns & anti hunting, I'm for stem cell research, & even though i don't believe in abortion, nor do I endorse it, i believe it should be legal (population control). I also trade the SUV for a small economical car.

So you see, we all have a little bit of both in all of us. My conservative side just outweighs the liberal side, though. I'm for smaller government, strong military, less taxes, shutting borders down, better police, & so on.

Joe V.

Joe V.,
There is NO threat of overpopulation. So to say that you support abortion as a "right" is one thing, but as a "means", well, wouldn't birth control (condoms, the Pill) be much better and safer anyway?
I mean, do you support forced abortions in China for what you seem to be claiming is a "greater good", population control?
I worked with someone who says she had five abortions and five children. So despite her multiple abortions, she still had twice as many kids as the average American family.
The greatest threat is the aging of the populations across the world and the declining proportion of young people to support them.
Again, there is more than enough resources, and especially food, to sustain us, and there is A LOT of LAND left.
Malthus was proven to be full of shit.

Jerome,

I am against abortion, I would alway prefer people try other methods of birth control or even adoption, i don't however believe abortion should be illegal. As it is, there are still hundred of people who discard new borns. 2 months ago, right here in south dakota a woman threw her newborn into a dumpster, in iowa, a mother buried her newborn in the cornfields. this happens in a country where abortion is legal. imagine if abortion became legal, how many more babies would be murdered. I have 2 children of my own & still cant comprehend how people would be able to abort a child. I loved my daughters from before they were born.

as far as having plenty of land, are you willing to cut down every tree to make housing. Look at what is happening in brazil with the amazon rain forest. You do know a rainforest, once destroyed, doesn't come back. are we going to put more animals in the endagered & extinct list as we destroy their habitat. sacrifice more farmland to make way for more urbanizing & more roads. topple mountains, etc. are you aware as to how the population of this planet has more then doubled in the span of 200 years. there are more people living now then in any period of civilizations.

Joe V.

Joe, the devastation of almost 1% of the Brazilian rain forest is not occurring to make room for humans, no matter what you may have been told by Earth First! and similar misguided groups. Rather,local farmers are clearcutting because they want the range for their cattle.

To the best of my knowledge, neither animal nor plant species have gone extinct there. You can pretty well figure that anyplace humans have occupied for more than a few generations has reached a dynamic balance within its biosphere. When we do wipe a species out through our actions, it tends to happen a lot quicker (cf. dodos on Mauritania, moas in New Zealand).

Our planet can easily sustain a much larger population than we have now. Admittedly, it would require many of us to sacrifice our single-family dwellings on an acre or more of land... and we might have to get used to the idea of "food" formed from single-cell proteins... and we'd have to homogenize our cultures a lot more than we have...

Y'know, maybe the time really has come to start looking for real estate offplanet.

Wow.

A writer posts a bit of political speculation on his personal site, and one cracked mind turns the place into a sounding board for some of the most hate-filled, mouth-frothing, MPD-afflicted lunatic wailings I've heard since... well, since the last time some hate-filled, mouth-frothing, MPD-afflicted, right-wing lunatic stumbled across a left-leaning celebrity's personal site.

To quote a friend of mine, "just f--kin' chill, dudes".

PAD - I can already see the Republicans beginning to exploit Reagan's death, but that hardly comes as a surprise. Bush's campaign site has been magically transformed into a Reagan tribute, which is either the simple paying of respects or a hint of the pandering to come. I suppose we'll see. The coming weeks will be interesting, at the very least...

Congrats on the "Fallen Angel" trade, by the way. I'll be picking up a copy next week.

Bry Kayz,

I wouldn't say that there is a huge amount of hate on this thread. Just a huge amount of discussion about hate. The MPD afflicted poster notwithstanding, that is.

Salutations,

Mitch

sorry to do this .......and yes , I am a bleeding heart liberal, but damn it someone has to say it:

hey Dee:

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!

get a life!
if bad language and racist remarks is the best you can come up with, then I feel so sorry for you. typical repulican, so full of hate.

"if bad language and racist remarks is the best you can come up with, then I feel so sorry for you. typical repulican, so full of hate."

Most Republicans here condemn her comments, including this one. Hardly typical. That would be like me referring to Ted Rall's comments--he hopes Reagan is burning a crispy brown--to be a typical Democrat, so full of hate. No, I realize he's a jerk, and that most Democrats are respectful in their disagreement.

My thoughts:

1) The name of Reagan was likely to be invoked at the GOP convention anyway, dead or alive.

2) Invocation of his name (and especially a moment of silence) is only to be expected, much as the Dems would do if it was Clinton or Carter.

3) Who cares what the GOP does at the convention except the GOP? I doubt there's a single current Kerry voter or undecided voter that's going to watch the GOP convention, hear Reagan's name (or anything else for that matter), and think, "Oh yeah, I'm voting for GW now!"

I agree that PAD's comments weren't offensive. I agree that he's probably correct. I just don't see how it matters. Everyone at that convention has already made up their minds, and everyone opposed to them is going to find something to disagree with. Nothing new there.

Kurt wondered if there are three people in West Michigan who read PAD and to whom the "L-word" applies.
Okay, I'm a Trekkie and I'm Lumpy. Get over it.
Actually I campaigned in '96 as a radical moderate and would-be crackpot despot. Didn't get a single vote, but at least when they "empeached" Clin-Ton I was able to use the slogan "Don't blame me, I ran against him."
"Empeached": that means soaked in schnapps, right?
So do any of you lefties, righties or ambidextries know if they're going to rerun todays episode of "The Screamin' Al Gore Show"? I love that show.
(ps: yes, I knew he meant "scared" and not "scarred". I was refering to my own "scarred little mind", an example of self-defecating humor. But it soaks the humor right out of it if you have to explain the joke - so, if you were joking, don't explain it, okay?)
Does anyone else suspect that "Double-C" or "Letter-4" or whatever he who is to henceforth be shrouded's name is was just a plant, a straw dog set up to make the connies and reps look bad? I'd almost think so except no self respecting politically correct liberal would feel comfortable tossing such utter crap around.
But then that's what I usually think about sincere extreme conservatives. (Note adjective "extreme"; I don't mean you Mr. Just-to-the-right-of-moderate compassionate conservative. (That's not a complete oxymoron, I've known a few.)

Okay, getting back to the important question...

originally posted by Jonathan (the other one):

... "1-1" means that in 1 trial, the event happened once - a 100% chance. A 50% chance would be 2-1 - that is, for every 2 trials, the event happened once. (Doubt me? Then find the notation in that system indicating a unitary probability.)

Perhaps I'm wrong. I'm reading the notation 1-1 (also written as 1:1) "one to one." Similarly, 2-1 = 2:1 = "two to one," 3-1 = 3:1 = "three to one", etc. That's how I've always understood the notation to read. Is this not how others use and pronounce this notation?

In answer to the question of how one would indicate a probability of 100% in this notation, that would be 1-0 (1 chance of occurrence to no chances of non-occurrence).

Now I'm curious. Next time PAD does an open question thread, I'm going to ask what he intended by the odds posted at the start of the thread.

My above rant should read "if abortion became ILLEGAL, imagine how many more babies would be murdered."

Sorry about that.

And Mr. Richie Photo, plenty of republicans here were outraged by by Dee's coments. This isn't the 1st time we asked, but I will be cordial & ask again, Don't put as all in the same group. I'd be glad to show you examples of Democrats that are full of hate.If you have issues with Dee's coments, join the club.

Also, quit it with Dee. PAD has asked that he be shrouded & if you keep responding to his childlike banter your giving Dee just what he wants.

Joe V.

Hm. This entire thread has been interesting. I read this blog because I'm interested in PAD's thoughts on things in general, however, I generally don't feel the need to argue about things. It's kinda neat the way I see the same people who just love to debate though. American politics kinda scare me. I'm scared about being asked to participate in another war. I'm Canadian, and I'm glad that we didn't end up going with the States in Iraq. But my concern is in being named against the States, just because we didn't want to go to war with them. :o/

Joe V.,
The idea that we have to "cut down every tree" to accommodate people in the near future is claptrap. ONE QUARTER of the world's population resides in China alone!While they are reaching a breaking point, think of all the land available in the rest of the world.
It is becoming a well-known fact all of the U.S. could live in Texas and it would simply have the density of the population of New York City.
To use the unique situation of the rainforest as an example is disingenuous. Yes, it's insane to burn down tis habitat which may provide all kinds of natural medicines not even found yet. But then, if we found all of these medicines and cured cancer, AIDS, etc. you would see that as an eventual bad thing!
We have more trees than ever before, more arable land than ever before and more capacity to grow food than ever before. Please don't buy into the extreme environmentalists' propaganda.

Joe V.,
The idea that we have to "cut down every tree" to accommodate people in the near future is claptrap. ONE QUARTER of the world's population resides in China alone!While they are reaching a breaking point, think of all the land available in the rest of the world.
It is becoming a well-known fact all of the U.S. could live in Texas and it would simply have the density of the population of New York City.
To use the unique situation of the rainforest as an example is disingenuous. Yes, it's insane to burn down tis habitat which may provide all kinds of natural medicines not even found yet. But then, if we found all of these medicines and cured cancer, AIDS, etc. you would see that as an eventual bad thing!
We have more trees than ever before, more arable land than ever before and more capacity to grow food than ever before. Please don't buy into the extreme environmentalists' propaganda.

I can't figure out what all this debate is about.

They're POLITICIANS, guys. GOP or Dem, they all lie, cheat and steal, and say anything to get you to vote for them and then go their merry way after they're elected. It's instinctive, just like the way birds sing to proclaim their territory.

It is becoming a well-known fact all of the U.S. could live in Texas and it would simply have the density of the population of New York City.

Just because we can doesn't mean we should.

I'm still trying to figure out if the nation is mourning a time gone by or Reagan's death. Reagan lived much longer than the vast majority of people in the U.S. He lived a great life filled with much more money than he could ever possibly need even for luxury items. He married the love of his life and spent most of it with her. He had an incredible influence on the world. For the past two years or so he has not been "Ronald Reagan (I had a grandfather who suffered with Altzheimers and being completely non-functional for much longer than Ron Reagan.). His death was very natural and he lived much longer, much better, and a much more fulfilling life than most of us could ever dream of. The nation had him for a long time. More than anyone could hope for or expect.

So my question is are our people mourning his death or the death of a nation largely united under him and a time when they felt great about our country?

Fred

"We have more trees than ever before, more arable land than ever before and more capacity to grow food than ever before. Please don't buy into the extreme environmentalists' propaganda."

I don't think of myself as an extreme environmentalist. In fact, my job regularly calls for me to approve projects that fill wetlands, clear trees, pipe streams, and take biotic species.

But I can certainly attest to the fact that we don't have more trees or more arable land than in the past. Want proof? Do some searches for aeriel photes of just about anywhere in the U.S. Get a photo from 1940, then one from 1960, then one from 1980. You'll see, in many areas, reductions of up to 100% of anything larger than a shrub. That's all the trees in an area that used to be hundreds of acres of trees. And that's just the U.S. Rain forests all over the world are being cleared to make room for grazing cattle. Now ask yourself, with all that reduction, do you see hundreds of acres of new trees being planted?

Well, you can probably answer yes to that. Sure, hundreds of acres of trees get planted every year. But that can't compensate for the millions of acres that have been lost over the past 60 years.

And even if you could replace close to the acreage that has been lost, a tree is not a tree is not a tree. By which, I mean that replacing a stand of old growth forest with some new saplings is not an equal act. You're taking an eco-system that has developed over hundreds of years, and trying to "replace" it with an engineered system. There's no way that our current science can quickly replicate the biotic diversity that a true, ages-old forest contains.

And while we may have a greater capacity to produce food today, we're doing it on less arable land. In part related to the taking of forests (and wetlands), a good deal of the best arable soil in this and other contries is now floating around in various oceans. The removal of flood-controlling forests and wetlands has let a good deal of our best soil wash down the Mississippi.

Amen Craig, I know I don't want to live that closely packed with other people in closet sized apartments.

Besides, where would find jobs for all those people in that small of an area, imagine the commuting nightmares....

So in the whole everyone in Texas argument does that allow for the acres and acres of food production that will be needed to sustain the population as well as industrial zones for that population to produce our goods in? OR is it only the towers of apartments? with us importing?

Damn... why Texas... i'd rather be a little bit more crowded and live in California... or a little less crowded and live in Alaska.

And Bobb you are certainly right about the trees and the topsoil lost down the rivers (a direct result of the deforestation)

Craig,
It was just an extreme example, but it is a fact.
And what do you mean by whether we "should"? As if it's something immoral.
Me, I feel it's immoral to place restrictions on people's standards of living - and possibly their right to reproduce in the future - based on a "threat" that is an absolute myth.

Bladestar,
you're riiiight! There's NO jobs in New York City! That's why so many people, from high-powered executives to writers and artists to immigrants continue to move there!
It's the biggest city in the country for a reason!

"So in the whole everyone in Texas argument does that allow for the acres and acres of food production that will be needed to sustain the population as well as industrial zones for that population to produce our goods in?"

If everyone on Earth lived in a single megacity covering all of Texas, that would leave the rest of the planet for growing crops...

Actually, young trees, in order to grow, actualy take more carbon dioxide from the air than old, huge trees. So they actually slow down/prevent global warming.
And again, that's just if we have to do it today, which we obviously do not Seems to me we still have a LOT of land left over in the other 49 states. But the fact that we COULD all live in Texas drives a stake through the heart of one of radical environmentalism's biggest bullshit claims: that we are in imminent danger of overpopulation.

Elise,
Regarding politicians:
They do NOT all lie, cheat and steal. Many, if not most, do good things, from local township supervisors to national elected officials. But it's too easy to bash them all, as if they're all the same, instead of paying attention to what's really going on.
i have known many politicians, and believe me, when you see up close the work they do and what they have to put up with, you conclude that most of them are heroes.

Jerry, you once more show an inability to read or think.

Why would the entire population WNAT to live in that small of a space? THere'd be no room for jobs anbd the like.

How many who live in New York work there and vice versa?

It's such a big city because people think they need all the glitz and glamour and crap that is New York....

And besides, have you looked at how much it costs to live in New York? over $1000/month for a tiny apartment?

You may want to live like a sardine, but I'll take several acres and my nearest neighbors over 1/2 mile awya if I ever get the cash.

By the way Jerry, we could live on gruel and water and live packed 4 in bunkbeds in 10x 10 rooms, but that doesn't mean we should strive for that.

And what do you mean by whether we "should"? As if it's something immoral.

Not everybody wants to live in a place that looks like a lost relative of a landfill.

Which is what some metropolitan US cities look like.

I live in Denver, which is the largest city I could ever see myself living in. Some of these places, like NYC, or Mexico City, etc... it just makes me shake my head why people would want to live there.

Bladestar,
Why, whenever I disagree with you, do you feel it necessary to dispute my intelligence.And I read (and write) quite a lot, thank you.
I am simply using the situation I described as a hypothetical, to illustrate how this myth on how we're about to suffer catastrophic consequences because of overpopulation is absolute horseshit and has been for at least 40 years.
And I love New York.

Craig,
Fine. That's your choice. No problem.
But the problem with radical environmentalists is that they make it seem as if we're all living that way right now, and want everyone to sacrifice act as if all their horseshit propaganda is true.
Enjoy Denver:)

Bladestar,
Can i please ask you not to call me Jerry? I just don't like it.
Thanks,
Jerome

And I repeat, "just f--kin' chill, dudes".

It's a sound policy. ;)

Gotta love two empeached presidents turnout to be Dems.

I see you still haven't learned how to spell "impeached," huh?

BTW, Andrew Johnson, the only other president besides Clinton to be impeached, was a republican.

No, he was a Democrat. Lincoln nominated him as Vice President to run on a national unity ticket in 1864, to the everlasting regret of Congressional Republicans and generations of black people.

Be glad I don't know you in the real world, you're official Jerry in my book now.

And why don't you like "Jerry" with a name like Jerome?

Bladestar,
Why "Be glad I don't know you in the real world?"
I don't hate being caled Jerry. I just prefer to be called Jerome. Can't you respect that?

And why can't you respect that I want to call you Jerry?

Jerry, you once more show an inability to read or think.

At least he can spell. You?

Why would the entire population WNAT to live in that small of a space? THere'd be no room for jobs anbd the like.

How many who live in New York work there and vice versa?

It's such a big city because people think they need all the glitz and glamour and crap that is New York....

You theorize that people live in and around New York because they're attracted by its characteristics? Brilliant! I think you're right!

And besides, have you looked at how much it costs to live in New York? over $1000/month for a tiny apartment?

You may want to live like a sardine, but I'll take several acres and my nearest neighbors over 1/2 mile awya if I ever get the cash.

OK, you've convinced me. We need more space, or living room, or elbow room, or whatever it's called. I think the Germans came up with a word for that a while back. Anyway, we can't make the globe bigger, so we'd better make global population smaller. What do you suggest?

Karen wrote:
Bladestar: Jew, nigger, honky, etc. are only offensive if you are foolish enough to take offense to them. Stop giving other people so much control over you. They're only words...

Words wich incite people to violence. And I choose not to have to listen to them or use them. My right.

Should be easy not to use them. For not having to listen to them, I recommend earplugs.

Dear Lord, I'm kind of agreeing with Bladestar on something. Maybe the evangelicals are right and we're coming up on the end times. Someone throw a lamb in a pen with a lion quick, and see what happens.

"so we'd better make global population smaller. What do you suggest?"

World War Three? :)

"And why can't you respect that I want to call you Jerry?"

Bladestar, do you mind if I call you Rush Limbaugh? I know your a liberal (and so am I), but I'm sure being called Rush will piss you off a lot more than being called Michael Moore.

"Dear Lord, I'm kind of agreeing with Bladestar on something. Maybe the evangelicals are right and we're coming up on the end times."

I've always been convinced that the sign that the end is near is when the doomsayers stop saying it is.

Nice guess Ben, ben Libertarian.

I'll take Gas-bag's money though, I'll do with out the fame though... or the painkiller addiction...

How'd I double-type ben instead of but for the second word, when "u" and "e" and "n" and "t" are so far apart on the keyboard....

Sorry Dave, but you aren't important enough for me to spell-check my posts...

And how the fuck do make the leap from living space to being a Nazi? I see you are unable to think logically ...

Don't have to make the existing population smaller, just have fewer babies and make more land available for housing and less for golf courses, baseball stadiums, cemetaries. Cremate the corpses. No reason to waste so much space on worm food.

Michael Moore and Rush are both idiots that twist the truth and ignore facts that are inconvenient to them.

Although in retrospect, a nice "Captain Trips"-type virus (Remember "The Stand"?" would work pretty good too, but preferably at only about 1/3 the fatality rate. And quicker and more painless...

Sorry Dave, but you aren't important enough for me to spell-check my posts...

If you're not willing to make the effort to write coherently and legibly, why should we put in the effort to mine your diamonds in the rough? It's actually much more tempting to believe that your sloppiness in writing is symptomatic of your sloppiness in thinking. The content of your writing certainly leads to that conclusion, as well.

And how the fuck do make the leap from living space to being a Nazi? I see you are unable to think logically ...

Wait for it...

Although in retrospect, a nice "Captain Trips"-type virus (Remember "The Stand"?" would work pretty good too, but preferably at only about 1/3 the fatality rate. And quicker and more painless...

THERE we go.

Hey, you wanted to know how to shrink the population. And obviously you can't read. In "The Stand" there was no racial bias in the effect of the American Government-created supervirus...

Nice try Dave. Once more you prove my point.

Hey, you wanted to know how to shrink the population. And obviously you can't read. In "The Stand" there was no racial bias in the effect of the American Government-created supervirus...

"Can't read" != "hasn't read The Stand." In any event, I wasn't accusing you of plotting a racially biased massacre. I was implying that your stated goals would require a massive population reduction, and that any such thing would be an atrocity. I'm not quite sure how you think that your endorsement of a nondiscriminatory holocaust (small H) really subverts my point, but I'm sure you'll tell me.

I'm still amazed that you went after that huge troll.

Nice try Dave. Once more you prove my point.

Likewise. By the way, thanks for spell-checking this time. It means a lot.

All I ask is enough respect to be called by the name i wish to be referred to by. Why is that too much too ask?

And I want the winning PowerBall numbers, is that too much to ask?

Life ain't fair, you don't always get what you want.

Besides, "Jerome" sounds WAYYYY too formal. I don't know or like you enough to refer to you in formal manner. You haven't haven't earned that from me yet.

Life ain't fair, you don't always get what you want.

But that doesn't mean you have to be a total jackass about it.

And you continually prove, in your own manner, that you are no better than The One That Deserves to be Banned.

High praise from Craig, the master of the universe

You know, "Bladestar", just because we lost D** to shrouding doesn't mean the position of Resident Dick is open for applications.

"Resident Dick?" Isn't that an associate of President Nixton's?

Blade, I don't know where you picked up etiquette from, but generally, when one does not know a person well, is *exactly* when one should employ formal modes of address. If you can't bring yourself to type "Jerome", perhaps "Mr. Maida" might suffice?

Jonathon:

>Blade, I don't know where you picked up etiquette from, but generally, when one does not know a person well, is *exactly* when one should employ formal modes of address. If you can't bring yourself to type "Jerome", perhaps "Mr. Maida" might suffice?

... or simply not reply at all. Short of the amusement factor that runs short-term, I never understood why people who don't respect someone, their opinions, or the exchange of ideas would continue to poke each other with sticks when it serves no purpose.

Fred

"Mr. Maida"???

HAHKAHAGHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHEGHEHHEHEHEHEHHOHOOHOHOHOHOHAHAHA

What a great joke! Thanks for the laughm I needed that!

By the way Bill, good way to shroud the shrouded one by bringing him up.

Amazing how you only want your interests and wants respected but everybody else HAS to bend to your wishes...sad actually

Okay i get it now ,the shrouded one has leaped inside of Bladestar and is using him as a way to keep spewing venom for no apparent reason and blasting anyone who disagrees with him.Must not be complete because there is no caps lock,and the spelling is correct for the most part.Of course it could be that Bladestar is just being an asshole.Thats just my opinion....I could be wrong.

Opinions can't be wrong Deano

"Opinions can't be wrong"

Only if you equate them with feelings. If you take the definition of opinion as being a judgment that one accepts as truth but lacks sufficient proof to rule out dispute, then of course they most certainly can be wrong.

I suppose one advantage of your definition is that you don't ever have to admit having been wrong, which may be important to some, but evidence of insecurity to others.

I can admit when I'm wrong.

I'm just not wrong

What's the longest thread ever on this site? Are we close?

As far as the whole overpopulation thing, sure, the planet might be able to support a lot more humans, but could it still support everything else? Especially with our current "culture"? Very few of us actually live "in tune" with nature. We tend to be very wasteful and produce much much more waste material (not just turds, plastics and garbage, pollutants and whatnot) then we recycle. We also would need to be cautious of what happens if we totally destroy an entire ecosystem, what kind of chain reaction could that cause? I believe eveything is pretty much interconnected somehow (especially as pertaining to the weather. If the ice caps melt whether from a natural heat increase or related to greenhouse stuff, the water levels will rise and become much colder, effectively destroying the current warm currents in the ocean that cause weather, all leading to a new ice age. At least, that's what the Discovery Channel told me), and if you start removing too many pieces, everything will collapse.

Alright, I'll stop babbling since this wasn't the topic of the thread and it wasn't even the most recent discussion within this thread.

Monkeys.

Wait, I think I'll babble some more:

Posted by Deano at June 11, 2004 07:12 PM
Okay i get it now ,the shrouded one has leaped inside of Bladestar and is using him as a way to keep spewing venom for no apparent reason and blasting anyone who disagrees with him.Must not be complete because there is no caps lock,and the spelling is correct for the most part.Of course it could be that Bladestar is just being an asshole.Thats just my opinion....I could be wrong.

Posted by Bladestar at June 11, 2004 07:35 PM
Opinions can't be wrong Deano

So, uh, Bladestar, are you saying Deano is right and that you are either possessed by "it" or are being an asshole? Just curious, not looking for any verbal sparring here.

Monkeys.

Toby, truth is what you make it. Fact is what is.

Opinions are like assholes, and some posters here are their opinions.

'Opinions can't be wrong Deano"

Nonsense. Of course they can. Once upon a time, it was the opinion of Americans that hanging people accused of witchcraft was a good idea. Once upon a time, it was the opinion of the Church that the Earth orbited the sun, and that opinion was disputed at one's extreme peril. Once upon a time, it was medical opinion that illness was caused by evil spirits, and that the best way to cure such illnesses was to bleed the patient to get the spirits out.

People believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's not true. Everyone is entitled to their informed opinion. People can have an opinion about any damned thing they want, but they can also be flat wrong by any measurable means. To say that all opinions are equally valid and none can be wrong is just ludicrous.

PAD

"Once upon a time, it was the opinion of the Church that the Earth orbited the sun, and that opinion was disputed at one's extreme peril."

I would never presume to debate such an opinion, PAD - especially since it's borne out by the evidence.

I believe you mean the idea Bruno was burned for arguing against - that the sun, and indeed all the heavenly bodies, revolve around the Earth, the obvious center of all that is... :)

"Actually, young trees, in order to grow, actualy take more carbon dioxide from the air than old, huge trees. So they actually slow down/prevent global warming."

Umm... how are you measuring this. Looking it up in various biology texts and such... Trees remove Carbon Dioxide through their leaves. The more leaves the more CO2 is removed from the air. Larger, older trees have more leaves than young saplings. Saplings may be growing but older trees continue to grow throughout their lifespan. So older/larger trees take more (based on leaf surface area alone) CO2 out of the atmosphere than their saplings. Unless your comparing different species or saplings to old dead trees then there is really no way to come up with that conclusion. So as fast as CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising,loosing older larger trees is bad for the enviroment.

As for everyone living in texas... well if everyone living in MegaCity Texas... what exactly is considered overpopulation? If say a few more states were at that level? Or the Entire South West was at that density? Or 90% of the U.S. is as populated as our hypothetical Texas? Is that overpopulation? Is that something to be strived for?

'Opinions can't be wrong Deano"

Nonsense. Of course they can. Once upon a time, it was the opinion of Americans that hanging people accused of witchcraft was a good idea. Once upon a time, it was the opinion of the Church that the Earth orbited the sun, and that opinion was disputed at one's extreme peril. Once upon a time, it was medical opinion that illness was caused by evil spirits, and that the best way to cure such illnesses was to bleed the patient to get the spirits out.

It helps to distinguish between things referred to opinions. The latter two things you refer to as "opinions" are factual claims, which can easily be falsified. (Or proven, in one case, but we know what you meant.)

True opinions are harder, if not impossible, to falsify. The first one you present, on the merits of slaying witches, is a value judgment. I'm not a moral relativist, so I have no compunctions about rejecting it outright, but strtictly speaking it has no truth value. Analytically it's a preference statement, no different from "chocolate tastes better than vanilla" and "Slipknot is the worst band in human history." Although again, I'm not a relativist, so I think those two opinions are more defensible than capital punishment for witchcraft.

I disagree with one of your points, David. I believe it can be shown that hanging people accused of witchcraft is, indeed, a bad idea.

Assuming the accused party is not guilty, you have just executed an innocent person.

Assuming the accused party is guilty, would he/she not use his/her magic powers to escape? Cf. Robert Asprin's "Another Fine Myth" (or the graphic-novel version, "Myth Adventures"), when Skeeve and Aahz have been captured while disguised as two local con artists. The villagers want to beat them to death, but the military intervenes - insisting they be hung, in accordance with the law. Aahz, being temporarily deprived of his powers, simply uses his amazing strong Perver- er, Pervect neck muscles to avoid strangling; Skeeve, meanwhile, simply levitates at the end of his rope. When everyone is satisfied that they must be dead by now, their bodies are thrown on a midden heap, from whence they proceed with their adventures...

Similarly, it would seem that a true witch would simply use his/her powers to - well - not die, at least by strangulation.

No, I think the only reliable way to rid yourself of a witch is the tried-and-true burning at the stake!

(Or, of course, a wood chipper...) :)

Geez ,i was trying to be funny,Bladestar was being a bit testy and i was trying to break the negative waves.The opinion thing was actually stolen from Dennis Miller (when he was still funny).
I do feel UNINFORMED opinions like a certain unmentionable persons'can be wrong.Of course i never have this problem ,because my opinions are never wrong:)( thats a joke ladies and gentlemen)

"Toby, truth is what you make it. Fact is what is.

Opinions are like assholes, and some posters here are their opinions."-Bladestar

Hm. If truth is what you make it, isn't it an opinion then? Does not truth require fact? I always believed that fact and truth were essentially the same thing, but I guess that's an opinion.

Monkeys.

Truth and fact can be different, many fools truly believed that it was the truth that earth was flat or that "witches" should be burnt at the stake, but the Facts (the Earth IS round) are totally different...

PAD,
Yeah, so what? As long as he beats whatever lunatic the Dems run.
Oh, some of us in the center (Nazis are right wing, not Republicans... actually Dems are closer to Nazis. Hmmm) would like to apologize for the idiots who use racial names. Take pride in your ancestory. But you're still wrong...

"Truth and fact can be different, many fools truly believed that it was the truth that earth was flat"

Bladestar, it may have been the truth that they believed that, but what they believed was not the truth. Just like it was a fact that they believed that, but what they believed was not a fact. Both the truth and fact are objective.

Nope. Fact can exist without people, truth cannot.

Toby:
"I always believed that fact and truth were essentially the same thing, but I guess that's an opinion."

Bladestar:
"Truth and fact can be different, many fools truly believed that it was the truth that earth was flat or that "witches" should be burnt at the stake, but the Facts (the Earth IS round) are totally different..."

Ben Lesar:
"Bladestar, it may have been the truth that they believed that, but what they believed was not the truth. Just like it was a fact that they believed that, but what they believed was not a fact. Both the truth and fact are objective."

Ok, somehow I hate to do this. Bladestar is correct, although his approach leaves much to be desired. 'Truth' and 'Fact' are not synonymous.

'Truth' is more a philosophical matter and is reliant upon ones perspective whereas 'Fact' is indisputable. A murder trial is a good example. Witnesses are called to testify as to what they have seen. When one witness describes the killer as wearing a red shirt (seen only from behind) and a second witness describes the killer as wearing a blue shirt (seen only from the front) is one of them lying or telling the truth? Or are they both telling the truth from their own points of view (perspective)? Only when a third witness testifies that the killer wore a red and blue shirt (reliant upon his/her perspective which allowed a view of both colors) do we realize that the 'fact' is that the killer wore a multicolored shirt and both of the first two witnesses told the 'truth.' The trouble is that the first two witnesses did not have all of the facts, thus their conflicting testimony.

Toby and Mr. Lesar, I haven't seen posts from either of you for a while. 'Tis good to see that you both are still around.

Side note:
I was acquitted and I have gotten rid of that shirt. ;)

Salutations,

Mitch

Ah, I see, said the blind man to his deaf son, pissing into the wind, it all comes back to me now.

Seriously, thank you for the clarifications, I understand now.

Monkeys.

Hence the term in a court of law...

"The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth..."

Because it's quite easy otherwise to give factually correct information which doesn't accurately reflect the truth.

John

"...it's quite easy otherwise to give factually
correct information which doesn't accurately
reflect the truth."

Like it says on a recent "Simpsons" T-shirt:
"Facts can be used to prove anything."

David Bjorlin: True opinions are harder, if not impossible, to falsify. The first one you present, on the merits of slaying witches, is a value judgment. I'm not a moral relativist, so I have no compunctions about rejecting it outright, but strtictly speaking it has no truth value. Analytically it's a preference statement, no different from "chocolate tastes better than vanilla" and "Slipknot is the worst band in human history.
Luigi Novi: And who says a preference statement cannot be an opinion? Why must something only be one or the other?

Some people opined that slavery was a good idea, that communism is a good idea, that we shouldn't have Separation of Church and state, and the gay marriage should be illegal, and so forth. I can say that I think those statements are wrong. Period. Nothing wrong with that.

war mongers agains hate!! how funny!

How many of the mutitude of Reagan supporters actually voted for him when he ran for president? Or were even old enough to have voted then?

I was old enough, I was there, I feel sorry for his family and loved ones as I would for any decent human.. But a great president? He was no LBJ,,, who was no JFK,,, who was no FDR. It seems history's memory is a faulty as Reagan's was.

It's a sign of the time Armii,

As america and it's people's has slid downhill, so are the standards to which we apply the label "Greatness".

Reagan was no JFK, FDR, or even a Lincoln or Washington, but it today's world and political climate, would any of them gotten selected?

(Elected is a joke, Gore won the vote of the people, but the nonsensical Electoral college buulshit pissed all over that. Amazing how Bush loves to preach that Democracy is what makes america great but we don't actually practice it...)

You can't be 40680 serious?!?