Just the term "monkeys" reveals intense hatred. Disgusting
Not for people in here.
"If a president says it, and another president laughs about it and later replaces monkeys with "cannibals" when retelling the oh so funny anecdote - it shouldn't be reported at all"
Think about that for a second.
No one thinks it shouldn’t be reported. But it’s own thread wasn’t needed. Could have just as well gone in the Republican Party thread. And the snarky “US darling” preface is just you being you.
A lot of people in this thread have expressed it shouldn't be reported.
Why wouldn't a thread about it be needed - it's two presidents having some racist-fun? One of them actually being a "US darling". "The party of reagan" etc.
Stop being colored by whatever you feel about me when posting. It makes your post come of as silly.
Whatever. You’re just trying to be an instigator when you title your post like that.
When he types anything. But he keeps the ability to type. Threads get locked and other people get blamed. It’s nonsense.
Just the term "monkeys" reveals intense hatred. Disgusting
Not for people in here.
"If a president says it, and another president laughs about it and later replaces monkeys with "cannibals" when retelling the oh so funny anecdote - it shouldn't be reported at all"
Think about that for a second.
No one thinks it shouldn’t be reported. But it’s own thread wasn’t needed. Could have just as well gone in the Republican Party thread. And the snarky “US darling” preface is just you being you.
A lot of people in this thread have expressed it shouldn't be reported.
Why wouldn't a thread about it be needed - it's two presidents having some racist-fun? One of them actually being a "US darling". "The party of reagan" etc.
Stop being colored by whatever you feel about me when posting. It makes your post come of as silly.
Whatever. You’re just trying to be an instigator when you title your post like that.
When he types anything. But he keeps the ability to type. Threads get locked and other people get blamed. It’s nonsense.
You want me banned?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
If OP wanted to be more accurate, he would have said "Republican Darling" as opposed to "US Darling" but details like that probably don't matter if you're going to end up generalizing all the people who give less than satisfactory replies anyway.
If OP wanted to be more accurate, he would have said "Republican Darling" as opposed to "US Darling" but details like that probably don't matter if you're going to end up generalizing all the people who give less than satisfactory replies anyway.
You need to find out. Because no one's gonna tell you what I'm on about. You need to find a way for what you want to say. But before tomorrow.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Just the term "monkeys" reveals intense hatred. Disgusting
Not for people in here.
"If a president says it, and another president laughs about it and later replaces monkeys with "cannibals" when retelling the oh so funny anecdote - it shouldn't be reported at all"
Think about that for a second.
No one thinks it shouldn’t be reported. But it’s own thread wasn’t needed. Could have just as well gone in the Republican Party thread. And the snarky “US darling” preface is just you being you.
A lot of people in this thread have expressed it shouldn't be reported.
Why wouldn't a thread about it be needed - it's two presidents having some racist-fun? One of them actually being a "US darling". "The party of reagan" etc.
Stop being colored by whatever you feel about me when posting. It makes your post come of as silly.
Whatever. You’re just trying to be an instigator when you title your post like that.
Just the term "monkeys" reveals intense hatred. Disgusting
Not for people in here.
"If a president says it, and another president laughs about it and later replaces monkeys with "cannibals" when retelling the oh so funny anecdote - it shouldn't be reported at all"
Think about that for a second.
No one thinks it shouldn’t be reported. But it’s own thread wasn’t needed. Could have just as well gone in the Republican Party thread. And the snarky “US darling” preface is just you being you.
A lot of people in this thread have expressed it shouldn't be reported.
Why wouldn't a thread about it be needed - it's two presidents having some racist-fun? One of them actually being a "US darling". "The party of reagan" etc.
Stop being colored by whatever you feel about me when posting. It makes your post come of as silly.
Whatever. You’re just trying to be an instigator when you title your post like that.
Yeah that’s fine but the thread could have been “Report: Ronald Reagan once called back people monkeys” or something. Just like the ASAP Rocky thread didn’t need the “token black guy” stuff. But again, whatever. It’s just a message board. You be you.
Just the term "monkeys" reveals intense hatred. Disgusting
Not for people in here.
"If a president says it, and another president laughs about it and later replaces monkeys with "cannibals" when retelling the oh so funny anecdote - it shouldn't be reported at all"
Think about that for a second.
No one thinks it shouldn’t be reported. But it’s own thread wasn’t needed. Could have just as well gone in the Republican Party thread. And the snarky “US darling” preface is just you being you.
A lot of people in this thread have expressed it shouldn't be reported.
Why wouldn't a thread about it be needed - it's two presidents having some racist-fun? One of them actually being a "US darling". "The party of reagan" etc.
Stop being colored by whatever you feel about me when posting. It makes your post come of as silly.
Whatever. You’re just trying to be an instigator when you title your post like that.
Just the term "monkeys" reveals intense hatred. Disgusting
Not for people in here.
"If a president says it, and another president laughs about it and later replaces monkeys with "cannibals" when retelling the oh so funny anecdote - it shouldn't be reported at all"
Think about that for a second.
No one thinks it shouldn’t be reported. But it’s own thread wasn’t needed. Could have just as well gone in the Republican Party thread. And the snarky “US darling” preface is just you being you.
A lot of people in this thread have expressed it shouldn't be reported.
Why wouldn't a thread about it be needed - it's two presidents having some racist-fun? One of them actually being a "US darling". "The party of reagan" etc.
Stop being colored by whatever you feel about me when posting. It makes your post come of as silly.
Whatever. You’re just trying to be an instigator when you title your post like that.
Just the term "monkeys" reveals intense hatred. Disgusting
Not for people in here.
"If a president says it, and another president laughs about it and later replaces monkeys with "cannibals" when retelling the oh so funny anecdote - it shouldn't be reported at all"
Think about that for a second.
No one thinks it shouldn’t be reported. But it’s own thread wasn’t needed. Could have just as well gone in the Republican Party thread. And the snarky “US darling” preface is just you being you.
A lot of people in this thread have expressed it shouldn't be reported.
Why wouldn't a thread about it be needed - it's two presidents having some racist-fun? One of them actually being a "US darling". "The party of reagan" etc.
Stop being colored by whatever you feel about me when posting. It makes your post come of as silly.
Whatever. You’re just trying to be an instigator when you title your post like that.
When he types anything. But he keeps the ability to type. Threads get locked and other people get blamed. It’s nonsense.
You want me banned?
Nope. Want the nonsense to stop though. It doesn't have to be all bad all the time about a specific other country.
Just the term "monkeys" reveals intense hatred. Disgusting
Not for people in here.
"If a president says it, and another president laughs about it and later replaces monkeys with "cannibals" when retelling the oh so funny anecdote - it shouldn't be reported at all"
Think about that for a second.
No one thinks it shouldn’t be reported. But it’s own thread wasn’t needed. Could have just as well gone in the Republican Party thread. And the snarky “US darling” preface is just you being you.
A lot of people in this thread have expressed it shouldn't be reported.
Why wouldn't a thread about it be needed - it's two presidents having some racist-fun? One of them actually being a "US darling". "The party of reagan" etc.
Stop being colored by whatever you feel about me when posting. It makes your post come of as silly.
Whatever. You’re just trying to be an instigator when you title your post like that.
Just the term "monkeys" reveals intense hatred. Disgusting
Not for people in here.
"If a president says it, and another president laughs about it and later replaces monkeys with "cannibals" when retelling the oh so funny anecdote - it shouldn't be reported at all"
Think about that for a second.
No one thinks it shouldn’t be reported. But it’s own thread wasn’t needed. Could have just as well gone in the Republican Party thread. And the snarky “US darling” preface is just you being you.
A lot of people in this thread have expressed it shouldn't be reported.
Why wouldn't a thread about it be needed - it's two presidents having some racist-fun? One of them actually being a "US darling". "The party of reagan" etc.
Stop being colored by whatever you feel about me when posting. It makes your post come of as silly.
Whatever. You’re just trying to be an instigator when you title your post like that.
People in here defacto defending and wanting news to not cover the Governor of California calling the President of the USA being racist as fuck and the President laughing.
Amazing.
Talk about regressive.
Correction. The CA Governor and President in 1971. No one (that I’ve seen) is condoning his comments. I just think most people don’t see how comments from 50 years ago are relevant today.
Sounds like racism apologists to me. What does it matter if it was in 1971? It is still an unheard recording of the President laughing while the then future President is being a big ol´racist.
Ofc its news. Unless one has murky reasons for feeling the need to downplay it.
Historical perspective. Learn something about the academic side.
Racism apologists.
You keep using that term, yet I haven’t seen anyone apologize for his awful comments. So why do you insist on using that term and painting everyone with a broad brush? Oh yeah...you enjoy stirring the pot. That’s why. Raegan’s comments were terrible. My point is, why is this a story in 2019 when he said it in 1971? We have enough other shit to focus on and fix in present day.
Why was Shadow of your Love a story in 2018 when it was recorded in 86-87?
Didn't get an answer from you?
I don’t follow the question. If you want a question answered, be direct and I’ll answer it. If not, go stir another pot. I have work to do.
Reagan's legacy is shameful. Here are a few points to consider:
-Reagan never understood or tired to understand mental health. He was influential in shutting down California's mental health hospitals in the 70. And then as president, he shut down the Mental Health System act before it even got off the ground.
-Reagan turned his back on Vietnam Vets. Many of them still wander the streets and fight demons because they were never givven proper care. Reagan's neglect of mental health issues is a big factor in that.
-During Reagan's presidency, the gap between the rich and the poor widened and homelessness and poverty increased.
-The "great communicator" made fabrications and exaggerations. Welfare programs were cut because he invented a so-called welfare queen he described as driving around in a Cadillac. Journalists were unable to find this person.
-Reagan helped start the on-going rant of Republicans to reduce government yet, in fact, he increased government spending.
-He was credited with restoring America's prosperity but most of those who benefited were well off (many America's citizens still fall for this "Make America Great Again" bullshit).
-Instead fo monitoring Wall Street, the Reagan admin turned a blind eye.
-Like Trump today, Reagan's indifference to urban problems is huge.
There's more, I'm sure. But isn't that enough to deter one from having any respect for the man. None given here.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Reagan's legacy is shameful. Here are a few points to consider:
-Reagan never understood or tired to understand mental health. He was influential in shutting down California's mental health hospitals in the 70. And then as president, he shut down the Mental Health System act before it even got off the ground.
-Reagan turned his back on Vietnam Vets. Many of them still wander the streets and fight demons because they were never givven proper care. Reagan's neglect of mental health issues is a big factor in that.
-During Reagan's presidency, the gap between the rich and the poor widened and homelessness and poverty increased.
-The "great communicator" made fabrications and exaggerations. Welfare programs were cut because he invented a so-called welfare queen he described as driving around in a Cadillac. Journalists were unable to find this person.
-Reagan helped start the on-going rant of Republicans to reduce government yet, in fact, he increased government spending.
-He was credited with restoring America's prosperity but most of those who benefited were well off (many America's citizens still fall for this "Make America Great Again" bullshit).
-Instead fo monitoring Wall Street, the Reagan admin turned a blind eye.
-Like Trump today, Reagan's indifference to urban problems is huge.
There's more, I'm sure. But isn't that enough to deter one from having any respect for the man. None given here.
Reagan's legacy is shameful. Here are a few points to consider:
-Reagan never understood or tired to understand mental health. He was influential in shutting down California's mental health hospitals in the 70. And then as president, he shut down the Mental Health System act before it even got off the ground.
-Reagan turned his back on Vietnam Vets. Many of them still wander the streets and fight demons because they were never givven proper care. Reagan's neglect of mental health issues is a big factor in that.
-During Reagan's presidency, the gap between the rich and the poor widened and homelessness and poverty increased.
-The "great communicator" made fabrications and exaggerations. Welfare programs were cut because he invented a so-called welfare queen he described as driving around in a Cadillac. Journalists were unable to find this person.
-Reagan helped start the on-going rant of Republicans to reduce government yet, in fact, he increased government spending.
-He was credited with restoring America's prosperity but most of those who benefited were well off (many America's citizens still fall for this "Make America Great Again" bullshit).
-Instead fo monitoring Wall Street, the Reagan admin turned a blind eye.
-Like Trump today, Reagan's indifference to urban problems is huge.
There's more, I'm sure. But isn't that enough to deter one from having any respect for the man. None given here.
Ketchup is a vegetable.
Ronnie loved the little children, all the children of the world...
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I don’t know of any President that did everything right. To be fair, I think Reagan did a lot of good during his Presidency as well. An unpopular opinion in these parts, no doubt. I’m sure I’ll be asked to elaborate. If so, I’ll have to do so at a later time. Just taking a couple minute break while at work.
I don’t know of any President that did everything right. To be fair, I think Reagan did a lot of good during his Presidency as well. An unpopular opinion in these parts, no doubt. I’m sure I’ll be asked to elaborate. If so, I’ll have to do so at a later time. Just taking a couple minute break while at work.
At your leasure, b., but yes, I'd be interested in hearing what you thought Reagan did right.
Reagan had fans or partial fans who were not all right wing republicans, including Neil Young:
AMSTERDAM INTERVIEW - 1989
INT: You have been known to support Reagan, which a lot of fans thought
you were
going right wing, and then I think in Rolling Stone you said you
weren't very
fond of Bush. I was wondering why you apparently changed political
views?
NEIL: Because that's only an apparent thing. I don't have a view, I
have an
opinion that changes because everyday is a different day. I'm not a
liberal or
a conservative. I'm not like that. With Reagan, some things he did were
terrible, some things he did were great. Most people tend to take a
president
and say you hate...he does one thing you really don't like. Like he
builds
excessive amounts of warheads or something. So you write him off
completely.
Which I think is completely stupid. And I think, is very narrow minded.
Anyone
can have an opinion and be right, like you don't want warheads on
earth. I
agree with that, but that is a decision that he made to do that and I
disagree
with that. On the other hand there are other things that he did that I
agreed
with. And because I had the ability to say what I feel, people only
write part
of it, because its news that I would agree with Reagan. So they say
Neil Young
supports Reagan, so fuck 'em, I don't care what they do.
I respect the right of others to think he was OK as long as they respect my right to think otherwise (which I would guess you do, bbiggs )
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I don’t know of any President that did everything right. To be fair, I think Reagan did a lot of good during his Presidency as well. An unpopular opinion in these parts, no doubt. I’m sure I’ll be asked to elaborate. If so, I’ll have to do so at a later time. Just taking a couple minute break while at work.
At your leasure, b., but yes, I'd be interested in hearing what you thought Reagan did right.
Reagan had fans or partial fans who were not all right wing republicans, including Neil Young:
AMSTERDAM INTERVIEW - 1989
INT: You have been known to support Reagan, which a lot of fans thought
you were
going right wing, and then I think in Rolling Stone you said you
weren't very
fond of Bush. I was wondering why you apparently changed political
views?
NEIL: Because that's only an apparent thing. I don't have a view, I
have an
opinion that changes because everyday is a different day. I'm not a
liberal or
a conservative. I'm not like that. With Reagan, some things he did were
terrible, some things he did were great. Most people tend to take a
president
and say you hate...he does one thing you really don't like. Like he
builds
excessive amounts of warheads or something. So you write him off
completely.
Which I think is completely stupid. And I think, is very narrow minded.
Anyone
can have an opinion and be right, like you don't want warheads on
earth. I
agree with that, but that is a decision that he made to do that and I
disagree
with that. On the other hand there are other things that he did that I
agreed
with. And because I had the ability to say what I feel, people only
write part
of it, because its news that I would agree with Reagan. So they say
Neil Young
supports Reagan, so fuck 'em, I don't care what they do.
I respect the right of others to think he was OK as long as they respect my right to think otherwise (which I would guess you do, bbiggs )
Interesting Neil Young interview there, Brian. Pretty cool. And I absolutely respect your opinion. You’re one of the biggest class acts on the forums, so you definitely get my respect.
I was just about to turn 8 years old when Reagan’s second term ended, so my views are more based on what I’ve pulled from history than my first hand accounts as a little guy. Although, I do have fond memories of him as President and remember having a sense of pride that he was the leader of our country.
To get to the point though, I give him credit for his part in ending the Cold War, first and foremost. Second, I do think his economic policies had a positive impact overall. He inherited near-record inflation levels and successfully brought them down along with unemployment. Millions (16ish?) of jobs were added on his watch. It was mentioned that he contributed to widening the wealth gap. I haven’t seen the metrics on this, but I’d like to see how that gap stacks up to today. Not just under Trump, but under Obama as well, to be fair. I feel there was more of a middle class in Reagan’s era than we’ve had in the last 10 years.
To sum it up, I think he carried himself with dignity as President (despite the recent comments that surfaced), which doesn’t mean shit for his accomplishments, but it sure beats the alternative of the behavior of the jack ass in office today.
I don’t know of any President that did everything right. To be fair, I think Reagan did a lot of good during his Presidency as well. An unpopular opinion in these parts, no doubt. I’m sure I’ll be asked to elaborate. If so, I’ll have to do so at a later time. Just taking a couple minute break while at work.
At your leasure, b., but yes, I'd be interested in hearing what you thought Reagan did right.
Reagan had fans or partial fans who were not all right wing republicans, including Neil Young:
AMSTERDAM INTERVIEW - 1989
INT: You have been known to support Reagan, which a lot of fans thought
you were
going right wing, and then I think in Rolling Stone you said you
weren't very
fond of Bush. I was wondering why you apparently changed political
views?
NEIL: Because that's only an apparent thing. I don't have a view, I
have an
opinion that changes because everyday is a different day. I'm not a
liberal or
a conservative. I'm not like that. With Reagan, some things he did were
terrible, some things he did were great. Most people tend to take a
president
and say you hate...he does one thing you really don't like. Like he
builds
excessive amounts of warheads or something. So you write him off
completely.
Which I think is completely stupid. And I think, is very narrow minded.
Anyone
can have an opinion and be right, like you don't want warheads on
earth. I
agree with that, but that is a decision that he made to do that and I
disagree
with that. On the other hand there are other things that he did that I
agreed
with. And because I had the ability to say what I feel, people only
write part
of it, because its news that I would agree with Reagan. So they say
Neil Young
supports Reagan, so fuck 'em, I don't care what they do.
I respect the right of others to think he was OK as long as they respect my right to think otherwise (which I would guess you do, bbiggs )
Interesting Neil Young interview there, Brian. Pretty cool. And I absolutely respect your opinion. You’re one of the biggest class acts on the forums, so you definitely get my respect.
I was just about to turn 8 years old when Reagan’s second term ended, so my views are more based on what I’ve pulled from history than my first hand accounts as a little guy. Although, I do have fond memories of him as President and remember having a sense of pride that he was the leader of our country.
To get to the point though, I give him credit for his part in ending the Cold War, first and foremost. Second, I do think his economic policies had a positive impact overall. He inherited near-record inflation levels and successfully brought them down along with unemployment. Millions (16ish?) of jobs were added on his watch. It was mentioned that he contributed to widening the wealth gap. I haven’t seen the metrics on this, but I’d like to see how that gap stacks up to today. Not just under Trump, but under Obama as well, to be fair. I feel there was more of a middle class in Reagan’s era than we’ve had in the last 10 years.
To sum it up, I think he carried himself with dignity as President (despite the recent comments that surfaced), which doesn’t mean shit for his accomplishments, but it sure beats the alternative of the behavior of the jack ass in office today.
Thanks for kind words, b. I often feel like my jerky side shows up to often so I keep trying to be better.
What's kind of sad to me about Reagan is that even back at that time, I really wanted to like the guy. He had a nice smile, a warmth to his voice, a pleasantness to his demeanor much of the time. I kind of felt like if he had come from a different time and place and had different influences throughout his life, maybe he would have been someone who truly did do great things. It's like I want to like him in a different dimension or an alternate universe. But his record stands and as a public figure I think he was (at least mostly) a failed leader. But outside public life- who could ask for a better dad or mate?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
People in here defacto defending and wanting news to not cover the Governor of California calling the President of the USA being racist as fuck and the President laughing.
Amazing.
Talk about regressive.
Correction. The CA Governor and President in 1971. No one (that I’ve seen) is condoning his comments. I just think most people don’t see how comments from 50 years ago are relevant today.
Sounds like racism apologists to me. What does it matter if it was in 1971? It is still an unheard recording of the President laughing while the then future President is being a big ol´racist.
Ofc its news. Unless one has murky reasons for feeling the need to downplay it.
Historical perspective. Learn something about the academic side.
Racism apologists.
You keep using that term, yet I haven’t seen anyone apologize for his awful comments. So why do you insist on using that term and painting everyone with a broad brush? Oh yeah...you enjoy stirring the pot. That’s why. Raegan’s comments were terrible. My point is, why is this a story in 2019 when he said it in 1971? We have enough other shit to focus on and fix in present day.
Why was Shadow of your Love a story in 2018 when it was recorded in 86-87?
Didn't get an answer from you?
I don’t follow the question. If you want a question answered, be direct and I’ll answer it. If not, go stir another pot. I have work to do.
What is there not to follow.
You stirred this pot you keep referring to by asking, and I quote, "why is this a story in 2019 when he said it in 1971?
And I then I answered with a question back which was, and I quote, "Why was Shadow of your Love a story in 2018 when it was recorded in 86-87?"
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Comments
https://news.gallup.com/poll/146183/americans-say-reagan-greatest-president.aspx
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2017/?personid=337 (2017)
A little more recent data: One definitely seems high, Reagan went from 11 best to 9th in the past 17 years.
I don't believe this usage of the word "monkey" will effect his legacy.
.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
AMSTERDAM INTERVIEW - 1989
INT: You have been known to support Reagan, which a lot of fans thought you were going right wing, and then I think in Rolling Stone you said you weren't very fond of Bush. I was wondering why you apparently changed political views?
NEIL: Because that's only an apparent thing. I don't have a view, I have an opinion that changes because everyday is a different day. I'm not a liberal or a conservative. I'm not like that. With Reagan, some things he did were terrible, some things he did were great. Most people tend to take a president and say you hate...he does one thing you really don't like. Like he builds excessive amounts of warheads or something. So you write him off completely. Which I think is completely stupid. And I think, is very narrow minded.
Anyone can have an opinion and be right, like you don't want warheads on earth. I agree with that, but that is a decision that he made to do that and I disagree with that. On the other hand there are other things that he did that I agreed with. And because I had the ability to say what I feel, people only write part of it, because its news that I would agree with Reagan. So they say Neil Young supports Reagan, so fuck 'em, I don't care what they do.
I respect the right of others to think he was OK as long as they respect my right to think otherwise (which I would guess you do, bbiggs
)
Patti Davis: The Ronald Reagan who raised me would want forgiveness for his ‘monkeys’ remark -
I was just about to turn 8 years old when Reagan’s second term ended, so my views are more based on what I’ve pulled from history than my first hand accounts as a little guy. Although, I do have fond memories of him as President and remember having a sense of pride that he was the leader of our country.
To get to the point though, I give him credit for his part in ending the Cold War, first and foremost. Second, I do think his economic policies had a positive impact overall. He inherited near-record inflation levels and successfully brought them down along with unemployment. Millions (16ish?) of jobs were added on his watch. It was mentioned that he contributed to widening the wealth gap. I haven’t seen the metrics on this, but I’d like to see how that gap stacks up to today. Not just under Trump, but under Obama as well, to be fair. I feel there was more of a middle class in Reagan’s era than we’ve had in the last 10 years.
To sum it up, I think he carried himself with dignity as President (despite the recent comments that surfaced), which doesn’t mean shit for his accomplishments, but it sure beats the alternative of the behavior of the jack ass in office today.
You stirred this pot you keep referring to by asking, and I quote, "why is this a story in 2019 when he said it in 1971?
And I then I answered with a question back which was, and I quote, "Why was Shadow of your Love a story in 2018 when it was recorded in 86-87?"