Ronald Reagan Dies at 93

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Yikes. I'll be the unpopular guy who posts this rant....

KILLER, COWARD, CONMAN -
GOOD RIDDANCE, RONNIE REAGAN
MORE PROOF ONLY THE GOOD DIE YOUNG
Sunday, June 6, 2004
by Greg Palast


You're not going to like this. You shouldn't speak ill of the dead. But in this
case, someone's got to.

Ronald Reagan was a conman. Reagan was a coward. Reagan was a killer.

In 1987, I found myself stuck in a crappy little town in Nicaragua named
Chaguitillo. The people were kind enough, though hungry, except for one surly
young man. His wife had just died of tuberculosis.

People don't die of TB if they get some antibiotics. But Ronald Reagan, big
hearted guy that he was, had put a lock-down embargo on medicine to Nicaragua
because he didn't like the government that the people there had elected.

Ronnie grinned and cracked jokes while the young woman's lungs filled up and she
stopped breathing. Reagan flashed that B-movie grin while they buried the mother
of three.

And when Hezbollah terrorists struck and murdered hundreds of American marines
in their sleep in Lebanon, the TV warrior ran away like a whipped dog ... then
turned around and invaded Grenada. That little Club Med war was a murderous PR
stunt so Ronnie could hold parades for gunning down Cubans building an airport.

I remember Nancy, a skull and crossbones prancing around in designer dresses,
some of the "gifts" that flowed to the Reagans -- from hats to million-dollar
homes -- from cronies well compensated with government loot. It used to be
called bribery.

And all the while, Grandpa grinned, the grandfather who bleated on about "family
values" but didn't bother to see his own grandchildren.

The New York Times today, in its canned obit, wrote that Reagan projected,
"faith in small town America" and "old-time values." "Values" my ass. It was
union busting and a declaration of war on the poor and anyone who couldn't buy
designer dresses. It was the New Meanness, bringing starvation back to America
so that every millionaire could get another million.

"Small town" values? From the movie star of the Pacific Palisades, the Malibu
mogul? I want to throw up.

And all the while, in the White House basement, as his brain boiled away, his
last conscious act was to condone a coup d'etat against our elected Congress.
Reagan's Defense Secretary Casper the Ghost Weinberger with the crazed Colonel,
Ollie North, plotted to give guns to the Monster of the Mideast, Ayatolla
Khomeini.

Reagan's boys called Jimmy Carter a weanie and a wuss although Carter wouldn't
give an inch to the Ayatolla. Reagan, with that film-fantasy tough-guy con in
front of cameras, went begging like a coward cockroach to Khomeini pleading on
bended knee for the release of our hostages.

Ollie North flew into Iran with a birthday cake for the maniac mullah -- no
kidding --in the shape of a key. The key to Ronnie's heart.

Then the Reagan roaches mixed their cowardice with crime: taking cash from the
hostage-takers to buy guns for the "contras" - the drug-runners of Nicaragua
posing as freedom fighters.

I remember as a student in Berkeley the words screeching out of the bullhorn,
"The Governor of the State of California, Ronald Reagan, hereby orders this
demonstration to disburse" ... and then came the teargas and the truncheons. And
all the while, that fang-hiding grin from the Gipper.

In Chaguitillo, all night long, the farmers stayed awake to guard their kids
from attack from Reagan's Contra terrorists. The farmers weren't even
Sandinistas, those 'Commies' that our cracked-brained President told us were
'only a 48-hour drive from Texas.' What the hell would they want with Texas,
anyway?

Nevertheless, the farmers, and their families, were Ronnie's targets.

In the deserted darkness of Chaguitillo, a TV blared. Weirdly, it was that
third-rate gangster movie, "Brother Rat." Starring Ronald Reagan.

Well, my friends, you can rest easier tonight: the Rat is dead.

Killer, coward, conman. Ronald Reagan, good-bye and good riddance.

###

Greg Palast is author of the New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money
Can Buy. www.GregPalast.com

[GAsux]

Why Kevin you brute!

My favorite part of that whole speil was the part about "while as a student at Berkley...". What? Who would have guessed it! Can it be!

If it weren't so partisan and hateful perhaps some of the arguments would hold merit but it gets lost in petty name calling and slander. For shame Kevin, for shame!

[Dole]

I remember seeing a national enquirer story about reagan and alzheimers years ago, and the headline read 'He doesnt remember being President, but his warmth and humour shine through' - I had that on my wall for years.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by GAsux

My favorite part of that whole speil was the part about "while as a student at Berkley...". What? Who would have guessed it! Can it be!

If it weren't so partisan and hateful perhaps some of the arguments would hold merit but it gets lost in petty name calling and slander. For shame Kevin, for shame!

Well, FYI, Greg Palast is the guy who broke the bogus Florida voting list story in 2000. He''s essentially the Matt Drudge of the Left, except he just doesn't have as many tabloid journalism points.

And you can't blame someone for coming across as partisan regarding Reagan. Reagan was a polarizing figure, he was one of those "love him, or hate him"kind of people. He had a very partisan platform. Some saw it as visionary, others saw it as destructive.

[The One and Only...]

That article is absolutely laughable. He really needs to read up on Nicaraguan history.

The Sandinistas weren't even supported by the majority of their own people during Reagan's age, and it took the Contra rebels to open up elections. This guy doesn't even mention that the Sandinista's gained power through a bloody revolt.

Not to mention that many of the Nicaraguan people could hardly afford antibiotics in the first place.

Also, I think you missed the point of my post. Political doctrines, no matter what name you give them, can't be opposites of one another if they share something in common.

And the first neocons were Trotskyites.

[Dole]

Maybe you need to look at more than one source for your history, dickhead.

[mburbank]

Here's a link to an article I wrote back in 2001 about Reagan's impending demise. Interestingly, it's title uses the term 'revisionist history' before W and company abused the term into meaninglessnes.

http://www.forbisthemighty.com/acidl...ry_shelter.htm

[ranxer]

i dealt with a few days of idiots cooing about how great reagan was but now i'm just sick of it, damn, when's it going to stop?!

his coffins' on tour now, what fuggin lunacy.

most americans really don't have a clue how our foriegn policy affects the rest of the world, this reagan bullcrap is another example of how many brainwashed idiots we have here.

[sspadowsky]

ARE THEY SELLING CASKET TOUR T-SHIRTS?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

The Sandinistas weren't even supported by the majority of their own people during Reagan's age, and it took the Contra rebels to open up elections. This guy doesn't even mention that the Sandinista's gained power through a bloody revolt.

Yeah, and the jackass hardly even touches upon how useful the Contras were at bashing in the skulls of religious missionaries. Those things are like fucking 2 week old grapefruits!

Also, I think you missed the point of my post. Political doctrines, no matter what name you give them, can't be opposites of one another if they share something in common.

That's the most absurd thing I've heard you say in this thread, today. They can't be polar if they share commonalities? Is that merely in theory, or in practice as well? If Reagan wasn't a conservative, who was? What then was FDR? You need to think before you post, b/c you don't know nearly as much as you'd like to pretend....

And the first neocons were Trotskyites.

Wrong. Read some Metternich, or maybe even some Cortes. Conservatism in the 18th and 19th Centuries was divided into various camps. Before what had been called the "great reversal," conservatives espoused "aristocratic internationalism," and interventionism. Later, Cortes saw the battle lines between Catholocism and early Socialism (he thought liberalism would be the first to go). Catholocism and socialism were both interventionist doctrines that transcended national boundaries.

You'd be surprised to discover that the little "ideology quiz" made up on the internet doesn't quite suffice in the grand scheme of things.

[Stabby]

Originally Posted by ranxer

i dealt with a few days of idiots cooing about how great reagan was but now i'm just sick of it, damn, when's it going to stop?!

his coffins' on tour now, what fuggin lunacy.

most americans really don't have a clue how our foriegn policy affects the rest of the world, this reagan bullcrap is another example of how many brainwashed idiots we have here.

I feel ya brotha.

Reagans legacy continues to haunt the United States. The celebration of crass consumerism, greed and intolerance.

and we now have at least until Friday of media coverage of the "great communicator" ends. kinda surprising seing as how the media is liberaly biased right? I mean, that's what all the republicans I know tell me.

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Yeah, and the jackass hardly even touches upon how useful the Contras were at bashing in the skulls of religious missionaries. Those things are like fucking 2 week old grapefruits!

Point being...?

AlsThat's the most absurd thing I've heard you say in this thread, today. They can't be polar if they share commonalities? Is that merely in theory, or in practice as well? If Reagan wasn't a conservative, who was? What then was FDR? You need to think before you post, b/c you don't know nearly as much as you'd like to pretend....

Who said liberals and conservatives are polar opposites?

Wrong. Read some Metternich, or maybe even some Cortes. Conservatism in the 18th and 19th Centuries was divided into various camps. Before what had been called the "great reversal," conservatives espoused "aristocratic internationalism," and interventionism. Later, Cortes saw the battle lines between Catholocism and early Socialism (he thought liberalism would be the first to go). Catholocism and socialism were both interventionist doctrines that transcended national boundaries.

Neoconservatives aren't only characterized by interventionalism. Those were not neocons.

[ItalianStereotype]

stabby, the fact that you identify yourself so readily with ranxer strips you of any credibility you may have had.

[Miss Modular]

As much as I have grown to deplore the actions he made during his presidency, I'm getting sick and tired of people ripping the guy apart.

As for the death itself, I'm indifferent. He had Alzheimer's. It was inevitable.

[Anonymous]

Um, isn't death always inevitable?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Point being...?

The point being that they were savage fucking killers with no respect for human life, but I'm sure you knew that already......

AlsThat's the most absurd thing I've heard you say in this thread, today. They can't be polar if they share commonalities? Is that merely in theory, or in practice as well? If Reagan wasn't a conservative, who was? What then was FDR? You need to think before you post, b/c you don't know nearly as much as you'd like to pretend....

Who said liberals and conservatives are polar opposites?[/quote]

You haven't answered a single question I've asked you, however, I'll answer this:

Since the development of our nation, there has been one big question. This question is essentially (in a very paraphrased text version) what formed the original two-faction divide in our country. Even in voting patterns in the first and second U.S. Congress, you can see the debate over how active our government should be developing.

The "Liberalism" that was applied by FDR, and originated by those before him, such as Al Smith and the progressives, called for an interventionist government. To cut things short, Reagan is the electoral result of the forces that worked against that philosophy.

So, in this country, since we have a two-party system ultimately brought about due to one big debate, then Liberalism and conservatism do in fact oppose each other.

Neoconservatives aren't only characterized by interventionalism. Those were not neocons.

You are wrong. Elaborate, or go away. Those men were interventionists, internationalists, and many supported internationalism as a rejection of leftist doctrine, seeing the world divided in half (much like the machtpolitikers of the 10970s).

[mburbank]

I've decided not to encourage OAO

As fate would hve it, I'm forced to be driving through the DC area on the day of the state funeral. As I'm mired in traffic I will think of this as one more reason I don't like Reagan.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

too bad that alzheimer's doesn't hurt like a motherfucker...then maybe justice would be served.

[glowbelly]

Originally Posted by Dr. Boogie

Um, isn't death always inevitable?

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by Stabby

I feel ya brotha.

Reagans legacy continues to haunt the United States. The celebration of crass consumerism, greed and intolerance.

and we now have at least until Friday of media coverage of the "great communicator" ends. kinda surprising seing as how the media is liberaly biased right? I mean, that's what all the republicans I know tell me.

Are you two honestly that dumb? You two can't possibly be bitching and moaning that the man who was president for 8 years, won two landslide victories, credited for ending the Cold War (whether he did or not, he gets the credit), and reshaped the face of American politics is getting extensive media coverage days after his death.

A lot fo people disagree with his politics. Thats their right and it should be encouraged. But there is no disputing the fact that he changed the coruse of this country and probably the world.

And since you two are such anti-consumerism, counterculturalists, why are you watching all this TV, let alone the major networks?

Oh well, I don't have much else to say, those statements just struct me as profoundly stupid.

[Spectre X]

Hitler also changed the course of his country and the world's history.

Just thouhgt you'd like to know that when you go on about 'stupid statements'.

[GAsux]

That's an excellent point. Remember that one time when Reagan decided to kill all the Jews in horribly violent, evil ways? And that other time that he decided that he wanted to take over the world?

Much like Hitler, clearly Rondal Reagan's impact on the course of world history was brutal and devastating.

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by Spectre X

Hitler also changed the course of his country and the world's history.

Just thouhgt you'd like to know that when you go on about 'stupid statements'.

And Hitler got plenty of coverage, and still does to this day. I'm not putting a moral value on Reagan's presidency, but who hear is blind enough to say that his demise isn't a rather large news story?

Do I think the world is abetter place because of Reagan, yes. Even if you don't, how the hell do you ignore his impact?

[Stabby]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

But there is no disputing the fact that he changed the coruse of this country and probably the world.

You are absolutly right. He changed the world.

The selling of weapons to Iran and Iraq changed the world.

The second greatest loss of Marines (since Iwo Jima) in Lebanon did too.

The invasion of Grenada surely inspired changed.

Arming and training the Mujahideen from whence the Taliban and Al Qaeda have flowered changed the world as we can all see.

The extrememly costly and highly ineffective establishment of the War on Drugs had a great impact.

His reckless building up of the national debt and tearing down social systems seems to have changed the face of the Presidency. As did his constant lying, denial and projected stupidity. That changed the way we seem to hold those in power accountable.

No doubting the fact that he changed the world over here.

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

The point being that they were savage fucking killers with no respect for human life, but I'm sure you knew that already......

I never said that the Contras were good, I said that the author's article is laughable. He's too one-sided.

So, in this country, since we have a two-party system ultimately brought about due to one big debate, then Liberalism and conservatism do in fact oppose each other.

I never said they didn't oppose each other. I said that they aren't polar opposites.

You are wrong. Elaborate, or go away. Those men were interventionists, internationalists, and many supported internationalism as a rejection of leftist doctrine, seeing the world divided in half (much like the machtpolitikers of the 10970s).

Neocons are not only typified by being war hawks, but also by stronger support for social welfare programs (though still far less than the left). They also tend to be stronger in their advocation for government involvement in the preservation of moral standards than their predecessors.

And besides, Irving Kristol is considered the founder of neoconservatism.