BigMike619 Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 I understand respect for the dead. I'm not a ****ing moron. But I don't see how criticizing someone's actions, actions that still affect us today, is disrespecting the dead.I mean there have been multiple threads about FDR lately. So what? apparently you dont get it if you are trying to justify it by saying that because some idiots in an FDR thread are doing the same thing. you dont see me in that thread doing it and you dont see me in this one doing it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 apparently you dont get it if you are trying to justify it by saying that because some idiots in an FDR thread are doing the same thing.you dont see me in that thread doing it and you dont see me in this one doing it either. I don't care if anyone does it in any thread. That's the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 I don't care if anyone does it in any thread. That's the point. but apparently it bugs the **** out of you that I care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 but apparently it bugs the **** out of you that I care. Not really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Not really. ok, we can go with that then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 but apparently it bugs the **** out of you that I care. Strangely enough it seems to be you who's gone into a rage over this. We just have different opinions of what constitutes respect for the dead. I just didn't like the guy, and I have a low opinion of the job he did as POTUS. That's all-so sue me. Likewise, I'll speak poorly of the job Carter and Slick Willie did (IMHO) after they buy the farm too but that doesn't mean I'm disrespecting their memory. It just means that like Reagan, I have an opinion of their work as POTUS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 ok, we can go with that then. I was just curious as to the reasoning behind why it is bad to criticize Reagan. But if me caring about you caring makes you feel good, run with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Strangely enough it seems to be you who's gone into a rage over this. We just have different opinions of what constitutes respect for the dead. I just didn't like the guy, and I have a low opinion of the job he did as POTUS. That's all-so sue me. Likewise, I'll speak poorly of the job Carter and Slick Willie did (IMHO) after they buy the farm too but that doesn't mean I'm disrespecting their memory. It just means that like Reagan, I have an opinion of their work as POTUS. so im in a rage because i expressed the same way you did by typing on a board? yeah, that joke is old and you need new material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 I was just curious as to the reasoning behind why it is bad to criticize Reagan. But if me caring about you caring makes you feel good, run with it. i only ask you because you quoted me. so it seems like your caring was about my caring over your caring. i could care less and was speaking about before you cared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 i only ask you because you quoted me. so it seems like your caring was about my caring over your caring. i could care less and was speaking about before you cared. So we're in agreement. Awesome. (But really you're one of two people who is pissed, and the first of the two, so it only made sense to quote you. Someone questioning your reasoning behind something because they're curious isn't a shot at your manhood. Or whatever. And I honestly don't care. I don't agree but I don't care either. It's a Redskins message board.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 So we're in agreement. Awesome.(But really you're one of two people who is pissed, and the first of the two, so it only made sense to quote you. Someone questioning your reasoning behind something because they're curious isn't a shot at your manhood. Or whatever. And I honestly don't care. I don't agree but I don't care either. It's a Redskins message board.) i dont see how either you or yusuf would honestly know if i "blew up" or whatever when you dont really know me and they are just words on here. i answered your questions but they must not have been the way you wanted me to. that still doesnt make it my problem because i am just watching jay and silent bob strike back and waiting to see how you angle this next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHOPSkins Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 ..... it's not like he knows anything about it anyway being worm food and all. disrespectful....... having or showing lack of respect; discourteous; impolite; rude http://www.yourdictionary.com/disrespectful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcoles11 Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 its called respect for the dead. i dont know how you cant understand that but thats on you. im not going to even bother to try and explain why it is like it is.and what have any of us in here done that even compares to what he did with his life? oh wait, not a ****ing thing. none of us have even done anything as cool as the most boring thing in that story. Do you realize how moronic you sound? He's a historical figure, just like George Washington, Robert E. Lee, ect. You can't just stop talking about someone, whether it be critical of them or not, just because they are dead when they part of American history. What would you like history text books to be? Nothing but sunshine about everyone in history because they are dead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Do you realize how moronic you sound? He's a historical figure, just like George Washington, Robert E. Lee, ect. You can't just stop talking about someone, whether it be critical of them or not, just because they are dead when they part of American history.What would you like history text books to be? Nothing but sunshine about everyone in history because they are dead? It would be interesting to see them cover Hitler and Stalin w/ bigmike's philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Yeah, I'm a little confused as to where there was any 'disrespect' was shown (with the exception of Yusuf's worm food jab which was obviously a joke). Presidents, alive and dead, are constantly open to criticism and debate, it comes with the job. You don't want people debating your legacy? Don't run for public office. I didn't see one single post critizing Reagan as a man, just a President. And I agree with PeterMP - are all dead people's legacies off the table for debate? edit - just so my post doesn't contribute soley to the hijacking of this thread: Reagan, along with JFK, to me are the most overrated Presidents. Most of his 'accomplishments' were do more to the people in his cabinent than himself - though he deserves credit for surrounding himself with those people. He was aloof at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcoles11 Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Yeah, I'm a little confused as to where there was any 'disrespect' was shown (with the exception of Yusuf's worm food jab which was obviously a joke). Presidents, alive and dead, are constantly open to criticism and debate, it comes with the job. You don't want people debating your legacy? Don't run for public office. I didn't see one single post critizing Reagan as a man, just a President.And I agree with PeterMP - are all dead people's legacies off the table for debate? If you take BigMike at his word, then yep, all dead people. So apparently all discussion about generals in the Civil War and what mistakes they may have made in battle are off the table now, because it is disrepectful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 I don't get this. Because someone dies what they did in their lives is no longer open to criticism? Duh when someone dies then the political hack's version of that person is deified get with the program Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 If you take BigMike at his word, then yep, all dead people. So apparently all discussion about generals in the Civil War and what mistakes they may have made in battle are off the table now, because it is disrepectful. By that logic we can't say that Hitler and Stalin were bad :insane: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 I think the people that are comparing Reagan to Clinton are being a bit dillusional. You could make a lot of money by going back to 1980 and betting people that in a decade the US will be considered the world's lone super power. You could make a lot of money by going back to 1992 and betting people that in a decade the US will have suffered its worse attack on the Continental US in terms of lives lost and that many people will consider China's economy the most powerful economy in the world. Kennedy is a little harder. He essentially gets all of the credit for LBJ's good moves (i.e. Civil rights) and none of the blame for his bad (i.e. Vietnam). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabR Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 IMHO Reagan is the most overrated president ever They are all Historical figures and i can draw my own conclusions about their accomplishments and it has nothing to do with respect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 That Charlie Manson seemed like such a great guy, who really cared about folks. j/k I know he isn't dead, but I have him in the ES Death Pool and am hoping the mother ****er kicks it soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 I think the people that are comparing Reagan to Clinton are being a bit dillusional. I agree. Despite Clinton leaving office with a higher approval rating, Reagan seems to have benefited from the outright failure of modern conservatism, and favorable comparisons to GWB despite the fact that their policies were very similar. Clinton was actually in control of his administration, left the economy in good shape, and had a proper respect for the Government he was leading. Reagan's outright disdain for Government, rule of law, and penchant for needless interventionism have reaped untold amounts of damage over the last 20 years inflicted by followers who actually bought into his empty political rhetoric. His leadership lead to a Republican party that had zero respect for the FED and thus no interest in good Governance. Being one of the two major parties, they inevitably gained power and proceeded to scrap Government regulations, ignore department of justice rules, and subvert the intent of the law across the board. And here we are. You could make a lot of money by going back to 1980 and betting people that in a decade the US will be considered the world's lone super power. That might be the case regarding popular opinion at the time. But the fact is the Soviet style of Government began it's decline long before Reagan took office, particularly economically in the 70s. Communism is inherently inferior to capitalism, and the Soviet Union was riddled with corruption and incompetence. The results were inevitable with or without Reagan. At best, he can be credited with expediting the inevitable. Other factors in the outcome of the cold war are more significant than Reagan's strategy of military spending-most notably Nixon's policies which regularized relations with China and ended the Vietnam war. You could make a lot of money by going back to 1992 and betting people that in a decade the US will have suffered its worse attack on the Continental US in terms of lives lost and that many people will consider China's economy the most powerful economy in the world. OK. But go to the 1993 world trade center attacks and I don't think it would be so hard for folks to fathom the terrorists would make another attempt. Also, China's economy isn't the most powerful in the world by any stretch, even after another 8 years of Reagan's ill-advised fiscal policy. And they especially weren't as a result of the Clinton years, which were some of the best economic times in history while simultaneously setting us up for years of prosperity to follow. As far as trends go I can see what you are saying. Bush inherited a GDP that was 7 times China's and left office with one that is 4 times China's. But I don't see how that can be seen as a strike against Clinton. But there is no comparison. Reagan gets credit for a lot of things that were out of his control. Clinton gets blame for having an affair, which is obviously not a good thing, but really has very little to do with the results, which speak for themselves. I agree. There is no comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 While we're rewriting history here, why is it that nobody mentions how Clinton proclaimed that things were so bad when he took office,that he doubted he could balance the budget? How about his very own stimulus package being dead on arrival? That he hopped on board Gingrich's Contract with America and successfully spun it as his idea?? Was the .com bubble all Clinton's doing?? Sheesh.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 While we're rewriting history here, why is it that nobody mentions how Clinton proclaimed that things were so bad when he took office,that he doubted he could balance the budget? You remember the justification for W's tax cuts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hokie4redskins Posted February 7, 2009 Author Share Posted February 7, 2009 I'm betting not one person who has posted in this thread read the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.