| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"papa jack" |
| Date: |
08 Jun 2004 01:23:41 PM |
| Object: |
Reagan's Views on Abortion |
http://www.humanlifereview.com/reagan/reagan_conscience.html
ABORTION AND THE CONSCIENCE OF THE NATION
RONALD REAGAN
Ronald Reagan, while sitting as the fortieth president of the United
States, sent us this article shortly after the tenth anniversary of
Roe v. Wade; we printed it with pride in our Spring, 1983 issue, and
reprint it now, after Roe's twentieth anniversary, just as proudly.
The 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade is a
good time for us to pause and reflect. Our nationwide policy of
abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither
voted for by our people nor enacted by our legislators— not a single
state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed
it to be national policy in 1973. But the consequences of this
judicial decision are now obvious: since 1973, more than 15 million
unborn children have had their lives snuffed out by legalized
abortions. That is over ten times the number of Americans lost in all
our nation's wars.
Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the
Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with
the Court's result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution
intended to create such a right. Shortly after the Roe v. Wade
decision, Professor John Hart Ely, now Dean of Stanford Law School,
wrote that the opinion "is not constitutional law and gives almost no
sense of an obligation to try to be." Nowhere do the plain words of
the Constitution even hint at a "right" so sweeping as to permit
abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born. Yet that is
what the Court ruled.
As an act of "raw judicial power" (to use Justice White's biting
phrase), the decision by the seven-man majority in Roe v. Wade has so
far been made to stick. But the Court's decision has by no means
settled the debate. Instead, Roe v. Wade has become a continuing prod
to the conscience of the nation.
Abortion concerns not just the unborn child, it concerns every one of
us. The English poet, John Donne, wrote: ". . . any man's death
diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never
send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life— the
unborn—without diminishing the value of all human life. Wesaw tragic
proof of this truism last year when the Indiana courts allowed the
starvation death of "Baby Doe" in Bloomington because the child had
Down's Syndrome.
Many of our fellow citizens grieve over the loss of life that has
followed Roe v. Wade. Margaret Heckler, soon after being nominated to
head the largest department of our government, Health and Human
Services, told an audience that she believed abortion to be the
greatest moral crisis facing our country today. And the revered Mother
Teresa, who works in the streets of Calcutta ministering to dying
people in her world-famous mission of mercy, has said that "the
greatest misery of our time is the generalized abortion of children."
Over the first two years of my Administration I have closely followed
and assisted efforts in Congress to reverse the tide of abortion—
efforts of Congressmen, Senators and citizens responding to an urgent
moral crisis. Regrettably, I have also seen the massive efforts of
those who, under the banner of "freedom of choice," have so far
blocked every effort to reverse nationwide abortion-on-demand.
Despite the formidable obstacles before us, we must not lose heart.
This is not the first time our country has been divided by a Supreme
Court decision that denied the value of certain human lives. The Dred
Scott decision of 1857 was not overturned in a day, or a year, or even
a decade. At first, only a minority of Americans recognized and
deplored the moral crisis brought about by denying the full humanity
of our black brothers and sisters; but that minority persisted in
their vision and finally prevailed. They did it by appealing to the
hearts and minds of their countrymen, to the truth of human dignity
under God. From their example, we know that respect for the sacred
value of human life is too deeply engrained in the hearts of our
people to remain forever suppressed. But the great majority of the
American people have not yet made their voices heard, and we cannot
expect them to—any more than the public voice arose against
slavery—until the issue is clearly framed and presented.
What, then, is the real issue? I have often said that when we talk
about abortion, we are talking about two lives—the life of the mother
and the life of the unborn child. Why else do we call a pregnant woman
a mother? I have also said that anyone who doesn't feel sure whether
we are talking about a second human life should clearly give life the
benefit of the doubt. If you don't know whether a body is alive or
dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself
should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn.
The case against abortion does not rest here, however, for medical
practice confirms at every step the correctness of these moral
sensibilities. Modern medicine treats the unborn child as a patient.
Medical pioneers have made great breakthroughs in treating the
unborn—for genetic problems, vitamin deficiencies, irregular heart
rhythms, and other medical conditions. Who can forget George Will's
moving account of the little boy who underwent brain surgery six times
during the nine weeks before he was born? Who is the patient if not
that tiny unborn human being who can feel pain when he or she is
approached by doctors who come to kill rather than to cure?
The real question today is not when human life begins, but, What is
the value of human life? The abortionist who reassembles the arms and
legs of a tiny baby to make sure all its parts have been torn from its
mother's body can hardly doubt whether it is a human being. The real
question for him and for all of us is whether that tiny human life has
a God-given right to be protected by the law— the same right we have.
What more dramatic confirmation could we have of the real issue than
the Baby Doe case in Bloomington, Indiana? The death of that tiny
infant tore at the hearts of all Americans because the child was
undeniably a live human being—one lying helpless before the eyes of
the doctors and the eyes of the nation. The real issue for the courts
was not whether Baby Doe was a human being. The real issue was whether
to protect the life of a human being who had Down's Syndrome, who
would probably be mentally handicapped, but who needed a routine
surgical procedure to unblock his esophagus and allow him to eat. A
doctor testified to the presiding judge that, even with his physical
problem corrected, Baby Doe would have a "non-existent" possibility
for "a minimally adequate quality of life"—in other words, that
retardation was the equivalent of a crime deserving the death penalty.
The judge let Baby Doe starve and die, and the Indiana Supreme Court
sanctioned his decision.
Federal law does not allow federally-assisted hospitals to decide that
Down's Syndrome infants are not worth treating, much less to decide to
starve them to death. Accordingly, I have directed the Departments of
Justice and HHS to apply civil rights regulations to protect
handicapped newborns. All hospitals receiving federal funds must post
notices which will clearly state that failure to feed handicapped
babies is prohibited by federal law. The basic issue is whether to
value and protect the lives of the handicapped, whether to recognize
the sanctity of human life. This is the same basic issue that
underlies the question of abortion.
The 1981 Senate hearings on the beginning of human life brought out
the basic issue more clearly than ever before. The many medical and
scientific witnesses who testified disagreed on many things, but not
on the scientific evidence that the unborn child is alive, is a
distinct individual, or is a member of the human species. They did
disagree over the value question, whether to give value to a human
life at its early and most vulnerable stages of existence.
Regrettably, we live at a time when some persons do not value all
human life. They want to pick and choose which individuals have value.
Some have said that only those individuals with "consciousness of
self" are human beings. One such writer has followed this deadly logic
and concluded that "shocking as it may seem, a newly born infant is
not a human being."
A Nobel Prize winning scientist has suggested that if a handicapped
child "were not declared fully human until three days after birth,
then all parents could be allowed the choice." In other words,
"quality control" to see if newly born human beings are up to snuff.
Obviously, some influential people want to deny that every human life
has intrinsic, sacred worth. They insist that a member of the human
race must have certain qualities before they accord him or her status
as a "human being."
Events have borne out the editorial in a California medical journal
which explained thr€e years before Roe v. Wade that the social
acceptance of abortion is a "defiance of the long-held Western ethic
of intrinsic and equal value for every human life regardless of its
stage, condition, or status."
Every legislator, every doctor, and every citizen needs to recognize
that the real issue is whether to affirm and protect the sanctity of
all human life, or to embrace a social ethic where some human lives
are valued and others are not. As a nation, we must choose between the
sanctity of life ethic and the "quality of life" ethic.
I have no trouble identifying the answer our nation has always given
to this basic question, and the answer that I hope and pray it will
give in the future. American was founded by men and women who shared a
vision of the value of each and every individual. They stated this
vision clearly from the very start in the Declaration of Independence,
using words that every schoolboy and schoolgirl can recite:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.
We fought a terrible war to guarantee that one category of mankind—
black people in America—could not be denied the inalienable rights
with which their Creator endowed them. The great champion of the
sanctity of all human life in that day, Abraham Lincoln, gave us his
assessment of the Declaration's purpose. Speaking of the framers of
that noble document, he said
:
This was their majestic interpretation of the economy of the Universe.
This was their lofty, and wise, and noble understanding of the justice
of the Creator to His creatures. Yes, gentlemen, to all his creatures,
to the whole great family of man. In their enlightened belief, nothing
stamped with the divine image and likeness was sent into the world to
be trodden on. . . They grasped not only the whole race of man then
living, but they reached forward and seized upon the farthest
posterity. They erected a beacon to guide their children and their
children's children, and the countless myriads who should inhabit the
earth in other ages.
He warned also of the danger we would face if we closed our eyes to
the value of life in any category of human beings:
I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of
Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and
making exceptions to it where will it stop. If one man says it does
not mean a Negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man?
When Congressman John A. Bingham of Ohio drafted the Fourteenth
Amendment to guarantee the rights of life, liberty, and property to
all human beings, he explained that all are "entitled to the
protection of American law, because its divine spirit of equality
declares that all men are created equal." He said the right guaranteed
by the amendment would therefore apply to "any human being." Justice
William Brennan, writing in another case decided only the year before
Roe v. Wade, referred to our society as one that "strongly affirms the
sanctity of life."
Another William Brennan—not the Justice—has reminded us of the
terrible consequences that can follow when a nation rejects the
sanctity of life ethic:
The cultural environment for a human holocaust is present whenever
any society can be misled into defining individuals as less than human
and therefore devoid of value and respect.
As a nation today, we have not rejected the sanctity of human life.
The American people have not had an opportunity to express their view
on the sanctity of human life in the unborn. I am convinced that
Americans do not want to play God with the value of human life. It is
not for us to decide who is worthy to live and who is not. Even the
Supreme Court's opinion in Roe v. Wade did not explicitly reject the
traditional American idea of intrinsic worth and value in all human
life; it simply dodged this issue.
The Congress has before it several measures that would enable our
people to reaffirm the sanctity of human life, even the smallest and
the youngest and the most defenseless. The Human Life Bill expressly
recognizes the unborn as human beings and accordingly protects them as
persons under our Constitution. This bill, first introduced by Senator
Jesse Helms, provided the vehicle for the Senate hearings in 1981
which contributed so much to our understanding of the real issue of
abortion.
The Respect Human Life Act, just introduced in the 98th Congress,
states in its first section that the policy of the United States is
"to protect innocent life, both before and after birth." This bill,
sponsored by Congressman Henry Hyde and Senator Roger Jepsen,
prohibits the federal government from performing abortions or
assisting those who do so, except to save the life of the mother. It
also addresses the pressing issue of infanticide which, as we have
seen, flows inevitably from permissive abortion as another step in the
denial of the inviolability of innocent human life.
I have endorsed each of these measures, as well as the more difficult
route of constitutional amendment, and I will give these initiatives
my full support. Each of them, in different ways, attempts to reverse
the tragic policy of abortion-on-demand imposed by the Supreme Court
ten years ago. Each of them is a decisive way to affirm the sanctity
of human life.
We must all educate ourselves to the reality of the horrors taking
place. Doctors today know that unborn children can feel a touch within
the womb and that they respond to pain. But how many Americans are
aware that abortion techniques are allowed today, in all 50 states,
that burn the skin of a baby with a salt solution, in an agonizing
death that can last for hours?
Another example: two years ago, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran a Sunday
special supplement on "The Dreaded Complication." The "dreaded
complication" referred to in the article—the complication feared by
doctors who perform abortions—is the survival of the child despite all
the painful attacks during the abortion procedure. Some unborn
children do survive the late-term abortions the Supreme Court has made
legal. Is there any question that these victims of abortion deserve
our attention and protection? Is there any question that those who
don't survive were living human beings before they were killed?
Late-term abortions, especially when the baby survives, but is then
killed by starvation, neglect, or suffocation, show once again the
link between abortion and infanticide. The time to stop both is now.
As my Administration acts to stop infanticide, we will be fully aware
of the real issue that underlies the death of babies before and soon
after birth.
Our society has, fortunately, become sensitive to the rights and
special needs of the handicapped, but I am shocked that physical or
mental handicaps of newborns are still used to justify their
extinction. This Administration has a Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett
Koop, who has done perhaps more than any other American for
handicapped children, by pioneering surgical techniques to help them,
by speaking out on the value of their lives, and by working with them
in the context of loving families. You will not find his former
patients advocating the so-called "quality-of-life" ethic.
I know that when the true issue of infanticide is placed before the
American people, with all the facts openly aired, we will have no
trouble deciding that a mentally or physically handicapped baby has
the same intrinsic worth and right to life as the rest of us. As the
New Jersey Supreme Court said two decades ago, in a decision upholding
the sanctity of human life, "a child need not be perfect to have a
worthwhile life."
Whether we are talking about pain suffered by unborn children, or
about late-term abortions, or about infanticide, we inevitably focus
on the humanity of the unborn child. Each of these issues is a
potential rallying point for the sanctity of life ethic. Once we as a
nation rally around any one of these issues to affirm the sanctity of
life, we will see the importance of affirming this principle across
the board.
Malcolm Muggeridge, the English writer, goes right to the heart of the
matter: "Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred, or
intrinsically of no account; it is inconceivable that it should be in
some cases the one, and in some the other." The sanctity of innocent
human life is a principle that Congress should proclaim at every
opportunity.
It is possible that the Supreme Court itself may overturn its abortion
rulings. We need only recall that in Brown v. Board of Education the
court reversed its own earlier "separate-but-equal" decision. I
believe if the Supreme Court took another look at Roe v. Wade, and
considered the real issue between the sanctity of life ethic and the
quality of life ethic, it would change its mind once again.
As we continue to work to overturn Roe v. Wade, we must also continue
to lay the groundwork for a society in which abortion is not the
accepted answer to unwanted pregnancy. Pro-life people have already
taken heroic steps, often at great personal sacrifice, to provide for
unwed mothers. I recently spoke about a young pregnant woman named
Victoria, who said, "In this society we save whales, we save timber
wolves and bald eagles and Coke bottles. Yet, everyone wanted me to
throw away my baby." She has been helped by Save-a-Life, a group in
Dallas, which provides a way for unwed mothers to preserve the human
life within them when they might otherwise be tempted to resort to
abortion. I think also of House of His Creation in Catesville,
Pennsylvania, where a loving couple has taken in almost 200 young
women in the past ten years. They have seen, as a fact of life, that
the girls are not better off having abortions than saving their
babies. I am also reminded of the remarkable Rossow family of
Ellington, Connecticut, who have opened their hearts and their home to
nine handicapped adopted and foster children.
The Adolescent Family Life Program, adopted by Congress at the request
of Senator Jeremiah Denton, has opened new opportunities for unwed
mothers to give their children life. We should not rest until our
entire society echoes the tone of John Powell in the dedication of his
book, Abortion: The Silent Holocaust, a dedication to every woman
carrying an unwanted child: "Please believe that you are not alone.
There are many of us that truly love you, who want to stand at your
side, and help in any way we can." And we can echo the
always-practical woman of faith, Mother Teresa, when she says, "If you
don't want the little child, that unborn child, give him to me." We
have so many families in America seeking to adopt children that the
slogan "every child a wanted child" is now the emptiest of all reasons
to tolerate abortion.
I have often said we need to join in prayer to bring protection to the
unborn. Prayer and action are needed to uphold the sanctity of human
life. I believe it will not be possible to accomplish our work, the
work of saving lives, "without being a soul of prayer." The famous
British Member of Parliament, William Wilberforce, prayed with his
small group of influential friends, the "Clapham Sect," for decades to
see an end to slavery in the British empire. Wilberforce led that
struggle in Parliament, unflaggingly, because he believed in the
sanctity of human life. He saw the fulfillment of his impossible dream
when Parliament outlawed slavery just before his death.
Let his faith and perseverance be our guide. We will never recognize
the true value of our own lives until we affirm the value in the life
of others, a value of which Malcolm Muggeridge says:. . . however low
it flickers or fiercely burns, it is still a Divine flame which no man
dare presume to put out, be his motives ever so humane and
enlightened."
Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land
when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and
should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free
nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should
be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is
dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is
no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the
transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without
which no other rights have any meaning.
Published by:
The Human Life Foundation, Inc.
215 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10016
.
|
|
| User: "M is for Malapert" |
|
| Title: Re: Reagan's Views on Abortion |
08 Jun 2004 03:25:59 PM |
|
|
"papa jack" <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:bd9f1f6b.0406081023.3c5ad7e1@posting.google.com...
http://www.humanlifereview.com/reagan/reagan_conscience.html
ABORTION AND THE CONSCIENCE OF THE NATION
RONALD REAGAN
Spoken by Ronald Reagan but written by someone else. Notice that Reagan
didn't do a damn thing to actually stop anyone from getting an abortion. As
a commen"ta"tor said after his death, "Reagan was a practicalist. When it
became clear that David Stockman's budget cuts were a disaster in the first
year of his presidency, Stockman and Reagan worked together every year to
come up with fewer cuts and compromise even further with congress."
(Paraphrasing.)
Reagan was a practical man. He had had starlet girlfriends who had
abortions themselves. He knew perfectly well that there would never be a
"Human Life Amendment" or any such nonsense under his administration. That
didn't stop him from saying what the right wing wanted to hear.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: Reagan's Views on Abortion |
10 Jun 2004 03:33:55 PM |
|
|
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<rhpxc.17254$4S5.2471@attbi_s52>...
"papa jack" <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:bd9f1f6b.0406081023.3c5ad7e1@posting.google.com...
http://www.humanlifereview.com/reagan/reagan_conscience.html
ABORTION AND THE CONSCIENCE OF THE NATION
RONALD REAGAN
Spoken by Ronald Reagan but written by someone else. Notice that Reagan
didn't do a damn thing to actually stop anyone from getting an abortion. As
a commen"ta"tor said after his death, "Reagan was a practicalist. When it
became clear that David Stockman's budget cuts were a disaster in the first
year of his presidency, Stockman and Reagan worked together every year to
come up with fewer cuts and compromise even further with congress."
(Paraphrasing.)
Not a damn thing? Really? I never tire of Malapert ridiculous
assertions.
Ever heard of the Mexico City policy? In 1984, Reagan stopped our
taxdollars from being sent to organizations that promote and perform
abortion overseas.
Or maybe the Hyde Amendment (signed by Reagan) to make sure that
federal tax dollars weren't used to pay for abortions?
Or the fact that the Republican plank against abortion was
strengthened in 1980?
What about placing Anton Scalia on the Supreme Court? - something I
know you hate - didn't stop any abortions but a step toward a Supreme
Court that would overturn Roe v. Wade
Malapert also glosses over the fact that a President can only sign
legislation not pass it - The Democrats controlled Congress throughout
Reagan's presidency with the exception of the Senate from 1980-1986
Reagan was a practical man. He had had starlet girlfriends who had
abortions themselves. He knew perfectly well that there would never be a
"Human Life Amendment" or any such nonsense under his administration. That
didn't stop him from saying what the right wing wanted to hear.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "papa jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Reagan's Views on Abortion |
09 Jun 2004 06:29:50 PM |
|
|
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote
in message news:<rhpxc.17254$4S5.2471@attbi_s52>...
"papa jack" <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
==========================================================================
http://www.humanlifereview.com/reagan/reagan_conscience.html
ABORTION AND THE CONSCIENCE OF THE NATION
RONALD REAGAN
[BIG snip by MINXS]
==========================================================================
MINXS wrote:
Spoken by Ronald Reagan but written by someone else.
==========================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
If he spoke it, it was his. All presidents (and other
senior leaders) use staff officers to write speeches
for them. I wrote a few for the generals I workded for.
They might give me a few verbal ideas to start, and I
tried to get them on paper in a logical way. However,
even when they followed my suggested phrasing fairly
closely, great leaders have a way of making the ideas
THEIR IDEAS.
Reagan was one of the best -- often known as the
"Great Communicator."
==========================================================================
MINXS wrote:
Notice that Reagan
didn't do a damn thing to actually stop anyone from getting an abortion. As
a commen"ta"tor said after his death, "Reagan was a practicalist. When it
became clear that David Stockman's budget cuts were a disaster in the first
year of his presidency, Stockman and Reagan worked together every year to
come up with fewer cuts and compromise even further with congress."
(Paraphrasing.)
Reagan was a practical man. He had had starlet girlfriends who had
abortions themselves. He knew perfectly well that there would never be a
"Human Life Amendment" or any such nonsense under his administration. That
didn't stop him from saying what the right wing wanted to hear.
==========================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
I know it must be really frustrating for you to have to
listen and read all the compliments to Ronald Reagan from
all across the political spectrum. Just to add to your
frustration, here are a few extracts from Mona Charen
who was one of Reagan's speech writers at age 27:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/mc20040608.shtml
_________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
[...]
"When Reagan took the oath of office in 1981, the
U.S. economy was in a tailspin. Interest rates
hovered at 20 percent. Inflation, at 15 percent,
was devastating families' life savings. A scholar
at the Brookings Institution coined the term
"misery index" for the combined inflation and
unemployment rates -- and it was soon on everyone's
lips.
"Abroad, American hostages were spending their 444th
day in captivity in Tehran. They would be released 30
minutes after Reagan pronounced "So help me God."
During the decade of the 1970s, the communist world
had added 10 new countries to its orbit: South Viet-
nam, Cambodia, Laos, South Yemen, Angola, Ethiopia,
Mozambique, Grenada, Nicaragua and Afghanistan. Amer-
ica's military prowess was disdained. We had capitu-
lated in South Vietnam and botched a hostage rescue
mission in 1980. In 1976, a triumphant Leonid Brezhnev
had proclaimed: "The general crisis of capitalism
continues to deepen. Events of the past few years are
convincing confirmation of this." Our European allies
were either flirting with "Eurocommunism" or sunk in
"Europessimism."
"Eight years later, the Soviet Union was in its death
throes, Latin America, the Philippines and Eastern
Europe were blooming with freedom, the Berlin Wall
was teetering, the U.S. economy was enjoying the
longest peacetime expansion in history, and American
self-confidence and patriotism were restored.
[...]
"That same fortitude was evident when, in response to
Soviet aggression, NATO placed Pershing missiles in
Europe. Hundreds of thousands of protesters thronged
the streets of Europe and the United States with pos-
ters denouncing the United States and Reagan. They
bore inscriptions like "Better Red Than Dead." The
Democrats were certain that Reagan was endangering
the peace of the world. He was steadfast.
[...]
"It wasn't just that he believed things; it was that he
believed the right things, as history has shown. God
bless him."
_________________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "M is for Malapert" |
|
| Title: Re: Reagan's Views on Abortion |
10 Jun 2004 07:05:51 PM |
|
|
"papa jack" <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:bd9f1f6b.0406091529.450ff4a4@posting.google.com...
"Eight years later,
Read some history. Even the dumbest citizen of the United States of Amnesia
should be able to grasp that it takes a lot longer than eight years to
reverse decades, centuries, and even millenia of prior events - to the
extent that any reversing actually occurred, of course.
Not to mention that no single person is ever responsible for major changes
in world conditions either.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: Reagan's Views on Abortion |
09 Jun 2004 07:52:18 PM |
|
|
On 9 Jun 2004 16:29:50 -0700, (papa jack)
wrote:
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote
in message news:<rhpxc.17254$4S5.2471@attbi_s52>...
"papa jack" < > wrote:
==========================================================================
http://www.humanlifereview.com/reagan/reagan_conscience.html
ABORTION AND THE CONSCIENCE OF THE NATION
RONALD REAGAN
[BIG snip by MINXS]
==========================================================================
MINXS wrote:
Spoken by Ronald Reagan but written by someone else.
==========================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
If he spoke it, it was his. All presidents (and other
senior leaders) use staff officers to write speeches
for them. I wrote a few for the generals I workded for.
They might give me a few verbal ideas to start, and I
tried to get them on paper in a logical way. However,
even when they followed my suggested phrasing fairly
closely, great leaders have a way of making the ideas
THEIR IDEAS.
Reagan was one of the best -- often known as the
"Great Communicator."
==========================================================================
MINXS wrote:
Notice that Reagan
didn't do a damn thing to actually stop anyone from getting an abortion. As
a commen"ta"tor said after his death, "Reagan was a practicalist. When it
became clear that David Stockman's budget cuts were a disaster in the first
year of his presidency, Stockman and Reagan worked together every year to
come up with fewer cuts and compromise even further with congress."
(Paraphrasing.)
Reagan was a practical man. He had had starlet girlfriends who had
abortions themselves. He knew perfectly well that there would never be a
"Human Life Amendment" or any such nonsense under his administration. That
didn't stop him from saying what the right wing wanted to hear.
==========================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
I know it must be really frustrating for you to have to
listen and read all the compliments to Ronald Reagan from
all across the political spectrum. Just to add to your
frustration, here are a few extracts from Mona Charen
who was one of Reagan's speech writers at age 27:
And so you regard his speech writers as objective commentators on his
career? I guess you do.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/mc20040608.shtml
_________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
[...]
"When Reagan took the oath of office in 1981, the
U.S. economy was in a tailspin. Interest rates
hovered at 20 percent. Inflation, at 15 percent,
was devastating families' life savings. A scholar
at the Brookings Institution coined the term
"misery index" for the combined inflation and
unemployment rates -- and it was soon on everyone's
lips.
Actually, Nixon, with his poorly implemented wage-price freeze, had a
lot to do with putting the economy in the dumpster. (Johnson, with
his 'guns and butter', planted lit the fire, and Nixon threw gasoline
on it.)
"Abroad, American hostages were spending their 444th
day in captivity in Tehran. They would be released 30
minutes after Reagan pronounced "So help me God."
This is something those clamoring for the canonization of St. Ronnie
should soft-pedal. There is credible evidence that the Reagan
campaign lobbied the Iranians not to release the hostages, so they
could use the situation to attack Carter. What would wing-nut Charen
say about that if Kerry's campaign did something similar? Would we
hear the word 'treason', perhaps?
During the decade of the 1970s, the communist world
had added 10 new countries to its orbit: South Viet-
nam, Cambodia, Laos, South Yemen, Angola, Ethiopia,
Mozambique, Grenada, Nicaragua and Afghanistan. Amer-
ica's military prowess was disdained. We had capitu-
lated in South Vietnam and botched a hostage rescue
mission in 1980. In 1976, a triumphant Leonid Brezhnev
had proclaimed: "The general crisis of capitalism
continues to deepen. Events of the past few years are
convincing confirmation of this." Our European allies
were either flirting with "Eurocommunism" or sunk in
"Europessimism."
"Eight years later, the Soviet Union was in its death
throes, Latin America, the Philippines and Eastern
Europe were blooming with freedom, the Berlin Wall
was teetering, the U.S. economy was enjoying the
longest peacetime expansion in history, and American
self-confidence and patriotism were restored.
[...]
"That same fortitude was evident when, in response to
Soviet aggression, NATO placed Pershing missiles in
Europe. Hundreds of thousands of protesters thronged
the streets of Europe and the United States with pos-
ters denouncing the United States and Reagan. They
bore inscriptions like "Better Red Than Dead." The
Democrats were certain that Reagan was endangering
the peace of the world. He was steadfast.
[...]
"It wasn't just that he believed things; it was that he
believed the right things, as history has shown. God
bless him."
_________________________________________________________________________
Now some people keep sticking in one-liners about various logical
fallacies, but the wing-nuts never seem to have heard of 'post hoc,
ergo propter hoc'.
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
| User: "papa jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Reagan's Views on Abortion |
10 Jun 2004 05:38:11 PM |
|
|
Lawrence McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote
in message news:<nobfc0t8v229335ri8crdss6rrku2gnso4@4ax.com>...
papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack) wrote:
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote:
in message news:<rhpxc.17254$4S5.2471@attbi_s52>...
"papa jack" <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
==========================================================================
http://www.humanlifereview.com/reagan/reagan_conscience.html
ABORTION AND THE CONSCIENCE OF THE NATION
RONALD REAGAN
[BIG snip by MINXS]
==========================================================================
MINXS wrote:
Spoken by Ronald Reagan but written by someone else.
==========================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
If he spoke it, it was his. All presidents (and other
senior leaders) use staff officers to write speeches
for them. I wrote a few for the generals I workded for.
They might give me a few verbal ideas to start, and I
tried to get them on paper in a logical way. However,
even when they followed my suggested phrasing fairly
closely, great leaders have a way of making the ideas
THEIR IDEAS.
Reagan was one of the best -- often known as the
"Great Communicator."
==========================================================================
MINXS wrote:
Notice that Reagan
didn't do a damn thing to actually stop anyone from getting an abortion. As
a commen"ta"tor said after his death, "Reagan was a practicalist. When it
became clear that David Stockman's budget cuts were a disaster in the first
year of his presidency, Stockman and Reagan worked together every year to
come up with fewer cuts and compromise even further with congress."
(Paraphrasing.)
Reagan was a practical man. He had had starlet girlfriends who had
abortions themselves. He knew perfectly well that there would never be a
"Human Life Amendment" or any such nonsense under his administration. That
didn't stop him from saying what the right wing wanted to hear.
==========================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
I know it must be really frustrating for you to have to
listen and read all the compliments to Ronald Reagan from
all across the political spectrum. Just to add to your
frustration, here are a few extracts from Mona Charen
who was one of Reagan's speech writers at age 27:
==========================================================================
Lawrence McKnight wrote:
And so you regard his speech writers as objective
commentators on his career? I guess you do.
==========================================================================
Papa Jack smiled:
Who said anything about "OBJECTIVE" commentators?
You don't go looking at any president's speech
writers to find "OBJECTIVE" commentators. But,
speech writers do gain special insights into the
peresonality of the leaders they write for.
==========================================================================
Papa Jack cited:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/mc20040608.shtml
_________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
[...]
"When Reagan took the oath of office in 1981, the
U.S. economy was in a tailspin. Interest rates
hovered at 20 percent. Inflation, at 15 percent,
was devastating families' life savings. A scholar
at the Brookings Institution coined the term
"misery index" for the combined inflation and
unemployment rates -- and it was soon on everyone's
lips.
==========================================================================
Lawrence McKnight wrote:
Actually, Nixon, with his poorly implemented wage-price
freeze, had a lot to do with putting the economy in the
dumpster. (Johnson, with his 'guns and butter', planted
lit the fire, and Nixon threw gasoline on it.)
==========================================================================
Papa Jack asked:
So, are you telling us President Carter had nothing what-
soever to do with the state of the economy during his
administration?
Next you'll be telling us Reagan had nothing to do with
the recovery during his administration.
==========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
"Abroad, American hostages were spending their 444th
day in captivity in Tehran. They would be released 30
minutes after Reagan pronounced "So help me God."
==========================================================================
Lawrence McKnight wrote:
This is something those clamoring for the canonization of St. Ronnie
should soft-pedal. There is credible evidence that the Reagan
campaign lobbied the Iranians not to release the hostages, so they
could use the situation to attack Carter. What would wing-nut Charen
say about that if Kerry's campaign did something similar? Would we
hear the word 'treason', perhaps?
==========================================================================
Papa Jack observed
However, Larry doesn't bother to present his so-called
"evidence." He just tells us it is "credible" and it
exists. We're supposed to take his word for that??????
Larry, put up or shut up. Give us names, dates, and
places to document this so-called "evidence."
==========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
During the decade of the 1970s, the communist world
had added 10 new countries to its orbit: South Viet-
nam, Cambodia, Laos, South Yemen, Angola, Ethiopia,
Mozambique, Grenada, Nicaragua and Afghanistan. Amer-
ica's military prowess was disdained. We had capitu-
lated in South Vietnam and botched a hostage rescue
mission in 1980. In 1976, a triumphant Leonid Brezhnev
had proclaimed: "The general crisis of capitalism
continues to deepen. Events of the past few years are
convincing confirmation of this." Our European allies
were either flirting with "Eurocommunism" or sunk in
"Europessimism."
"Eight years later, the Soviet Union was in its death
throes, Latin America, the Philippines and Eastern
Europe were blooming with freedom, the Berlin Wall
was teetering, the U.S. economy was enjoying the
longest peacetime expansion in history, and American
self-confidence and patriotism were restored.
[...]
"That same fortitude was evident when, in response to
Soviet aggression, NATO placed Pershing missiles in
Europe. Hundreds of thousands of protesters thronged
the streets of Europe and the United States with pos-
ters denouncing the United States and Reagan. They
bore inscriptions like "Better Red Than Dead." The
Democrats were certain that Reagan was endangering
the peace of the world. He was steadfast.
[...]
"It wasn't just that he believed things; it was that he
believed the right things, as history has shown. God
bless him."
_________________________________________________________________________
==========================================================================
Lawrence McKnight wrote:
Now some people keep sticking in one-liners about various logical
fallacies, but the wing-nuts never seem to have heard of 'post hoc,
ergo propter hoc'.
==========================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Larry, do you think you're the ONLY educated person
on talk.abortion?
"post hoc, ergo propter hoc."
"After this, therefore because of this."
I know it's difficult for you and the other radical
liberals to watch all the honors being bestowed on
President Reagan, but that's just the way it is.
Here's a few words to cheer you up:
_____________________________________________________________________
THE WORLD ACCORDING TO REAGAN
* I've noticed that everybody who is for abortion has
already been born.
* The most terrifying words in the English language
are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
* Government's view of the economy could be summed up
in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it
keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving,
subsidize it.
* Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with
a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsi-
bility at the other.
* The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the fed-
eral government but doesn't have to take the civil
service examination.
* When you see all that rhetorical smoke billowing up
from the Democrats, well, ladies and gentlemen, I'd
follow the example of their nominee (Bill Clinton):
don't inhale.
* I have wondered at times what the Ten Commandments
would have looked like if Moses had run them through
the U.S. Congress."
* The other day someone told me the difference between
a democracy and a people's democracy. It's the same
difference between a jacket and a straitjacket.
* History teaches that war begins when governments
believe the price of aggression is cheap.
* I hope that when you're my age you'll be able to say,
as I have been able to say: we lived in freedom; we
lived lives that were a statement, not an apology.
- Ronald Reagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: Reagan's Views on Abortion |
10 Jun 2004 07:35:12 PM |
|
|
On 10 Jun 2004 15:38:11 -0700, (papa jack)
wrote:
Lawrence McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote
in message news:<nobfc0t8v229335ri8crdss6rrku2gnso4@4ax.com>...
(papa jack) wrote:
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote:
in message news:<rhpxc.17254$4S5.2471@attbi_s52>...
"papa jack" < > wrote:
==========================================================================
http://www.humanlifereview.com/reagan/reagan_conscience.html
ABORTION AND THE CONSCIENCE OF THE NATION
RONALD REAGAN
[BIG snip by MINXS]
==========================================================================
MINXS wrote:
Spoken by Ronald Reagan but written by someone else.
==========================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
If he spoke it, it was his. All presidents (and other
senior leaders) use staff officers to write speeches
for them. I wrote a few for the generals I workded for.
They might give me a few verbal ideas to start, and I
tried to get them on paper in a logical way. However,
even when they followed my suggested phrasing fairly
closely, great leaders have a way of making the ideas
THEIR IDEAS.
Reagan was one of the best -- often known as the
"Great Communicator."
==========================================================================
MINXS wrote:
Notice that Reagan
didn't do a damn thing to actually stop anyone from getting an abortion. As
a commen"ta"tor said after his death, "Reagan was a practicalist. When it
became clear that David Stockman's budget cuts were a disaster in the first
year of his presidency, Stockman and Reagan worked together every year to
come up with fewer cuts and compromise even further with congress."
(Paraphrasing.)
Reagan was a practical man. He had had starlet girlfriends who had
abortions themselves. He knew perfectly well that there would never be a
"Human Life Amendment" or any such nonsense under his administration. That
didn't stop him from saying what the right wing wanted to hear.
==========================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
I know it must be really frustrating for you to have to
listen and read all the compliments to Ronald Reagan from
all across the political spectrum. Just to add to your
frustration, here are a few extracts from Mona Charen
who was one of Reagan's speech writers at age 27:
==========================================================================
Lawrence McKnight wrote:
And so you regard his speech writers as objective
commentators on his career? I guess you do.
==========================================================================
Papa Jack smiled:
Who said anything about "OBJECTIVE" commentators?
You don't go looking at any president's speech
writers to find "OBJECTIVE" commentators. But,
speech writers do gain special insights into the
peresonality of the leaders they write for.
Is this an admission on your part that you habitually quote biased
sources? Mona Charen is such a wing-nut that she sometimes makes Ann
Coulter look moderate.
==========================================================================
Papa Jack cited:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/mc20040608.shtml
_________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
[...]
"When Reagan took the oath of office in 1981, the
U.S. economy was in a tailspin. Interest rates
hovered at 20 percent. Inflation, at 15 percent,
was devastating families' life savings. A scholar
at the Brookings Institution coined the term
"misery index" for the combined inflation and
unemployment rates -- and it was soon on everyone's
lips.
==========================================================================
Lawrence McKnight wrote:
Actually, Nixon, with his poorly implemented wage-price
freeze, had a lot to do with putting the economy in the
dumpster. (Johnson, with his 'guns and butter', planted
lit the fire, and Nixon threw gasoline on it.)
==========================================================================
Papa Jack asked:
So, are you telling us President Carter had nothing what-
soever to do with the state of the economy during his
administration?
No, I'm not saying he had 'nothing' to do with it. What part of 'a
lot' didn't you understand?
Next you'll be telling us Reagan had nothing to do with
the recovery during his administration.
And just where do you purchase your crystal balls?
==========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
"Abroad, American hostages were spending their 444th
day in captivity in Tehran. They would be released 30
minutes after Reagan pronounced "So help me God."
==========================================================================
Lawrence McKnight wrote:
This is something those clamoring for the canonization of St. Ronnie
should soft-pedal. There is credible evidence that the Reagan
campaign lobbied the Iranians not to release the hostages, so they
could use the situation to attack Carter. What would wing-nut Charen
say about that if Kerry's campaign did something similar? Would we
hear the word 'treason', perhaps?
==========================================================================
Papa Jack observed
However, Larry doesn't bother to present his so-called
"evidence." He just tells us it is "credible" and it
exists. We're supposed to take his word for that??????
Larry, put up or shut up. Give us names, dates, and
places to document this so-called "evidence."
I guess you haven't paid much attention over the years. Here is
someplace for you to start:
http://www.c-spanstore.com/c-spanstore/23038.html
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/coupreaganbush.htm
==========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
During the decade of the 1970s, the communist world
had added 10 new countries to its orbit: South Viet-
nam, Cambodia, Laos, South Yemen, Angola, Ethiopia,
Mozambique, Grenada, Nicaragua and Afghanistan. Amer-
ica's military prowess was disdained. We had capitu-
lated in South Vietnam and botched a hostage rescue
mission in 1980. In 1976, a triumphant Leonid Brezhnev
had proclaimed: "The general crisis of capitalism
continues to deepen. Events of the past few years are
convincing confirmation of this." Our European allies
were either flirting with "Eurocommunism" or sunk in
"Europessimism."
"Eight years later, the Soviet Union was in its death
throes, Latin America, the Philippines and Eastern
Europe were blooming with freedom, the Berlin Wall
was teetering, the U.S. economy was enjoying the
longest peacetime expansion in history, and American
self-confidence and patriotism were restored.
[...]
"That same fortitude was evident when, in response to
Soviet aggression, NATO placed Pershing missiles in
Europe. Hundreds of thousands of protesters thronged
the streets of Europe and the United States with pos-
ters denouncing the United States and Reagan. They
bore inscriptions like "Better Red Than Dead." The
Democrats were certain that Reagan was endangering
the peace of the world. He was steadfast.
[...]
"It wasn't just that he believed things; it was that he
believed the right things, as history has shown. God
bless him."
_________________________________________________________________________
==========================================================================
Lawrence McKnight wrote:
Now some people keep sticking in one-liners about various logical
fallacies, but the wing-nuts never seem to have heard of 'post hoc,
ergo propter hoc'.
==========================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Larry, do you think you're the ONLY educated person
on talk.abortion?
"post hoc, ergo propter hoc."
"After this, therefore because of this."
Hmm. You admit you have heard of it, but that doesn't stop you from
using it. Interesting.
I know it's difficult for you and the other radical
liberals to watch all the honors being bestowed on
President Reagan, but that's just the way it is.
Here's a few words to cheer you up:
_____________________________________________________________________
THE WORLD ACCORDING TO REAGAN
* I've noticed that everybody who is for abortion has
already been born.
Duh. Maybe Reagan thought a zygote was his intellectual equal.
* The most terrifying words in the English language
are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
Good one-line. Too bad he never provided any instances of somebody
being terrified by it.
* Government's view of the economy could be summed up
in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it
keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving,
subsidize it.
Another good one liner. With no sembelence of truth.
* Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with
a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsi-
bility at the other.
* The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the fed-
eral government but doesn't have to take the civil
service examination.
* When you see all that rhetorical smoke billowing up
from the Democrats, well, ladies and gentlemen, I'd
follow the example of their nominee (Bill Clinton):
don't inhale.
* I have wondered at times what the Ten Commandments
would have looked like if Moses had run them through
the U.S. Congress."
* The other day someone told me the difference between
a democracy and a people's democracy. It's the same
difference between a jacket and a straitjacket.
* History teaches that war begins when governments
believe the price of aggression is cheap.
* I hope that when you're my age you'll be able to say,
as I have been able to say: we lived in freedom; we
lived lives that were a statement, not an apology.
- Ronald Reagan
Are you proposing that Reagan was really a standup comedian, and just
posing as a politician? Or what point were you trying to make?
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Reagan's Views on Abortion |
08 Jun 2004 04:53:06 PM |
|
|
(papa jack) wrote...
http://www.humanlifereview.com/reagan/reagan_conscience.html
[...]
You posted that two years ago. As I said at the time,
"Is this the same Ronald Reagan who, as governor of
California, legalized abortion in 1967? The same
Ronald Reagan who didn't do a damned thing about
abortion during his entire tenure in the White
House. I am completely won over by his sincerity.
NOT!"
Or as Ray Fischer said,
"The same Reagan who was funding the murder of people
in Central America. The same Reagan who ordered the
invasion of Grenada. The same Reagan who spent
trillions on weapons of mass destruction while
doing almost nothing to help people in need."
To that, I might add:
The same Reagan who directed Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick to beg the
U.N. to recognize the Pol Pot regime as the legitimate government of
Cambodia.
The same Reagan who got 241 Marines killed in Lebanon, the largest
single-day casualty count since the Battle of Okinawa.
The same Reagan who sold Saddam Hussein the materials to make chemical
weapons and then looked the other way when Hussein used these weapons
against Iran.
I am completely won over by his sincerity. NOT!
.
|
|
|
| User: "papa jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Reagan's Views on Abortion |
09 Jun 2004 12:44:52 PM |
|
|
spartakus@my-deja.com (Spartakus) wrote
in message news:<6ed74dfa.0406081353.73edc44c@posting.google.com>...
papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack) wrote...
========================================================================
Papa Jack quoted:
ABORTION AND THE CONSCIENCE OF THE NATION
RONALD REAGAN
http://www.humanlifereview.com/reagan/reagan_conscience.html
[...]
========================================================================
Spartakus wrote:
You posted that two years ago. As I said at the time,
"Is this the same Ronald Reagan who, as governor of
California, legalized abortion in 1967? The same
Ronald Reagan who didn't do a damned thing about
abortion during his entire tenure in the White
House. I am completely won over by his sincerity.
NOT!"
Or as Ray Fischer said,
"The same Reagan who was funding the murder of people
in Central America. The same Reagan who ordered the
invasion of Grenada. The same Reagan who spent
trillions on weapons of mass destruction while
doing almost nothing to help people in need."
To that, I might add:
The same Reagan who directed Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick to beg the
U.N. to recognize the Pol Pot regime as the legitimate government of
Cambodia.
The same Reagan who got 241 Marines killed in Lebanon, the largest
single-day casualty count since the Battle of Okinawa.
The same Reagan who sold Saddam Hussein the materials to make chemical
weapons and then looked the other way when Hussein used these weapons
against Iran.
I am completely won over by his sincerity. NOT!
========================================================================
Papa Jack smiles:
I'll bet watching all those top Dim Dems leader types
praising President Reagan has really had you growling
and muttering to yourself, Spartakus. Am I right?
How about the pictures of Californians standing in lines
for 10 to 12 hours just to walk past Reagan's flag-draped
coffin. They expect much the same in D.C.. Perhaps you
should just go fishing for a week or so to get your mind
off these "disturbing" events."
There are many good articles on the topic to show what
hate-filled BS your comments are. Here are a few exerpts
from a Washington Times article:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040609-120347-6796r.htm
______________________________________________________________________
[...]
"Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform,
agreed, saying: "Presidents have only so much time and
power. He chose to focus on foreign policy, tax cuts,
appointing conservative judges and promoting economic
growth, all of which made his re-election possible."
"Few conservatives in the 1980s imagined that the Reagan
policy of confronting the Soviet Union would lead to the
collapse of what Mr. Reagan called 'the evil empire.'
"'It is very clear now that, while he always spoke of
negotiations with the Soviets, underneath he was doing
everything imaginable to bring down the evil empire,'
said Paul M. Weyrich, founder of the Free Congress
Foundation. 'He had faith he could accomplish that,
while much of the conservative movement thought he was
utopian.'
[...]
"...Germans dismantled the barrier in 1989, the Soviet
Union collapsed in 1991, and Mr. Reagan's influence
was crucial, Mr. Weyrich said.
[...]
"Mr. Heckman says fellow conservatives still undervalue
Mr. Reagan's contribution when they say that he 'cap-
tured' the Republican Party and moved it to the right...."
______________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
Spartakus, I have no idea how old you are, but I'm old
enough to remember vividly how threatening the Cold War
was to Americans. I joined the Air Force in 1960 and
was a young Lt assigned to supervise security at a
major SAC base during the Cuban Crisis. That was real
-- I read the classified intelligence reports.
I remember the day the USSR fell. We were moving my
youngest son from Texas to New York to attend a grad-
uate program at Rensselaer. He was following us in
his car and he began honking and flashing his lights.
We pulled over and he told us what he'd heard on the
radio.
I really had trouble believing it. For so many years
the threat of the USSR had played such a major part
of my life, that it was difficult to believe the
Cold War was really over. So, when I think of Ronald
Reagan, that is my primary memory.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Reagan's Views on Abortion |
10 Jun 2004 10:51:07 AM |
|
|
(papa jack) wrote...
spartakus@my-deja.com (Spartakus) wrote
I'll bet watching all those top Dim Dems leader types
praising President Reagan has really had you growling
and muttering to yourself, Spartakus. Am I right?
Reagan's politics were detestable but he was well-liked. I think that
the Democrats who are saying nice things about him are showing
remarkable magnanimity. That's fairly commonplace when someone dies -
everyone prefers to dwell on the *good* memories.
How about the pictures of Californians standing in lines
for 10 to 12 hours just to walk past Reagan's flag-draped
coffin. They expect much the same in D.C.. Perhaps you
should just go fishing for a week or so to get your mind
off these "disturbing" events."
Who said anything about these events being disturbing to me?
Alzheimer's is a horrible disease, and I am relieved that the long
ordeal is over for Reagan and his family. As for the 24/7 all-Reagan
news coverage, I'm doing my best to avoid it. Fortunately, my life
doesn't revolve around television.
There are many good articles on the topic to show what
hate-filled BS your comments are.
If you found those *facts* about Reagan's administration to be
hate-filled, maybe you're due for a reappraisal what actually happened
during Reagan's watch. News clips from the Moonie Times featuring
quotes by whack-job Grover Norquist don't count.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob SD" |
|
| Title: Re: Reagan's Views on Abortion |
10 Jun 2004 11:57:01 AM |
|
|
(Spartakus) wrote in
news:6ed74dfa.0406100751.3a861979@posting.google.com:
papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack) wrote...
(Spartakus) wrote
I'll bet watching all those top Dim Dems leader types
praising President Reagan has really had you growling
and muttering to yourself, Spartakus. Am I right?
Reagan's politics were detestable but he was well-liked. I think that
the Democrats who are saying nice things about him are showing
remarkable magnanimity. That's fairly commonplace when someone dies -
everyone prefers to dwell on the *good* memories.
How about the pictures of Californians standing in lines
for 10 to 12 hours just to walk past Reagan's flag-draped
coffin. They expect much the same in D.C.. Perhaps you
should just go fishing for a week or so to get your mind
off these "disturbing" events."
Who said anything about these events being disturbing to me?
Alzheimer's is a horrible disease, and I am relieved that the long
ordeal is over for Reagan and his family. As for the 24/7 all-Reagan
news coverage, I'm doing my best to avoid it. Fortunately, my life
doesn't revolve around television.
There are many good articles on the topic to show what
hate-filled BS your comments are.
If you found those *facts* about Reagan's administration to be
hate-filled, maybe you're due for a reappraisal what actually happened
during Reagan's watch. News clips from the Moonie Times featuring
quotes by whack-job Grover Norquist don't count.
Curiously, Ronald Wilson Reagan had the mark of the beast (666) if you
believe in that buy-bull "revalations" stuff. (Six character in each of
his first, middle and last names.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "papa jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Reagan's Views on Abortion |
11 Jun 2004 10:48:36 AM |
|
|
spartakus@my-deja.com (Spartakus) wrote
in message news:<6ed74dfa.0406100751.3a861979@posting.google.com>...
papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack) wrote...
spartakus@my-deja.com (Spartakus) wrote
========================================================================
[snip]
========================================================================
Spartakus wrote:
Reagan's politics were detestable but he was well-liked. I think that
the Democrats who are saying nice things about him are showing
remarkable magnanimity. That's fairly commonplace when someone dies -
everyone prefers to dwell on the *good* memories.
========================================================================
[snip]
========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
There are many good articles on the topic to show what
hate-filled BS your comments are.
========================================================================
Spartakus wrote:
If you found those *facts* about Reagan's administration to be
hate-filled, maybe you're due for a reappraisal what actually happened
during Reagan's watch. News clips from the Moonie Times featuring
quotes by whack-job Grover Norquist don't count.
========================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Why don't you read:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261es.html
Cato Policy Analysis No. 261 October 22, 1996
Supply Tax Cuts and the Truth About the Reagan Economic Record
by William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore
William A. Niskanen is chairman and Stephen Moore is director
of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute.
Executive Summary
Bob Dole's proposal for a 15 percent income tax cut has reignited the
long-standing debate about the economic impact of Reaganomics in the
1980s. This study assesses the Reagan supply-side policies by
comparing the nation's economic performance in the Reagan years
(1981-89) with its performance in the immediately preceding
Ford-Carter years (1974-81) and in the Bush-Clinton years that
followed (1989-95).
On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy
performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and
post-Reagan years.
* Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan
years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent
during the Bush-Clinton years.
* Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan
period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it
experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
* Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under
Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
* The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period
than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate,
which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in
the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.
This study also exposes 12 fables of Reaganomics, such as that the
rich got richer and the poor got poorer, the Reagan tax cuts caused
the deficit to explode, and Bill Clinton's economic record has been
better than Reagan's.
Read the entire report at:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Reagan's Views on Abortion |
13 Jun 2004 05:09:27 PM |
|
|
(papa jack) wrote...
spartakus@my-deja.com (Spartakus) wrote...
(papa jack) wrote...
If you found those *facts* about Reagan's administration to be
hate-filled, maybe you're due for a reappraisal what actually
happened during Reagan's watch. News clips from the Moonie
Times featuring quotes by whack-job Grover Norquist don't count.
Why don't you read:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261es.html
Cato Policy Analysis No. 261 October 22, 1996
Supply Tax Cuts and the Truth About the Reagan Economic Record
by William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore
Because most of it is incorrect and inaccurate.
Look, Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and when he and David Stockman saw that
the cuts weren't working, they raised taxes again. Reagan was more of
a TaxAndSpendDemocrat than the Real Democrats[tm].
I notice that you have nothing to say about the other issues raised -
his support for Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, the Central American death
squads; how he got 241 Marines killed in Lebanon; arms for hostages,
Iran-Contra Gate. Reagan made people feel good, but he wasn't all
that good a president. Or American, for that matter.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Bernath" |
|
| Title: Re: Reagan's Views on Abortion |
12 Jun 2004 10:55:04 AM |
|
|
(papa jack) wrote:
Why don't you read:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261es.html
Cato Policy Analysis No. 261 October 22, 1996
....
On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy
performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and
post-Reagan years.
* Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan
years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent
during the Bush-Clinton years.
Oh, that's funny. Lump Clinton in with Bush I to drag the average
down, and use that to prove how swell Reagan was.
Just the sort of doctored statistics we've come to expect CATO. And
Papa Jack is stupid enough to fall for it.
Greg Bernath
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Reagan's Views on Abortion |
11 Jun 2004 11:44:24 AM |
|
|
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
spartakus@my-deja.com (Spartakus) wrote
If you found those *facts* about Reagan's administration to be
hate-filled, maybe you're due for a reappraisal what actually happened
during Reagan's watch. News clips from the Moonie Times featuring
quotes by whack-job Grover Norquist don't count.
Why don't you read:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261es.html
Cato Policy Analysis No. 261 October 22, 1996
Supply Tax Cuts and the Truth About the Reagan Economic Record
by William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore
William A. Niskanen is chairman and Stephen Moore is director
of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute.
Executive Summary
[...]
On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy
performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and
post-Reagan years.
The downside, which Jackass forgets to mention, is that the good
economy of the Reagan years cost every American taxpayer 20% of the
federal income taxes last year. If you paid $20,000 in federal income
taxes then $8,000 paid for Reagan's spending spree.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Reagan's Views on Abortion |
10 Jun 2004 09:59:37 PM |
|
|
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
spartakus@my-deja.com (Spartakus) wrote
papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack) wrote...
ABORTION AND THE CONSCIENCE OF THE NATION
RONALD REAGAN
http://www.humanlifereview.com/reagan/reagan_conscience.html
[...]
========================================================================
Spartakus wrote:
You posted that two years ago. As I said at the time,
"Is this the same Ronald Reagan who, as governor of
California, legalized abortion in 1967? The same
Ronald Reagan who didn't do a damned thing about
abortion during his entire tenure in the White
House. I am completely won over by his sincerity.
NOT!"
Or as Ray Fischer said,
"The same Reagan who was funding the murder of people
in Central America. The same Reagan who ordered the
invasion of Grenada. The same Reagan who spent
trillions on weapons of mass destruction while
doing almost nothing to help people in need."
To that, I might add:
The same Reagan who directed Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick to beg the
U.N. to recognize the Pol Pot regime as the legitimate government of
Cambodia.
The same Reagan who got 241 Marines killed in Lebanon, the largest
single-day casualty count since the Battle of Okinawa.
The same Reagan who sold Saddam Hussein the materials to make chemical
weapons and then looked the other way when Hussein used these weapons
against Iran.
I am completely won over by his sincerity. NOT!
I'll bet watching all those top Dim Dems leader types
praising President Reagan has really had you growling
and muttering to yourself, Spartakus. Am I right?
Ad hominem.
How about the pictures of Californians standing in lines
Hitler was popular too, Jackass.
There are many good articles on the topic to show what
hate-filled BS your comments are.
It's the truth, Jackass.
Here are a few exerpts
from a Washington Times article:
It's an OPINION piece, Jackass.
Don't you know the difference between truth an opinion?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040609-120347-6796r.htm
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Reagan's Views on Abortion |
11 Jun 2004 09:14:41 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote...
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Here are a few exerpts
from a Washington Times article:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040609-120347-6796r.htm
It's an OPINION piece, Jackass.
Don't you know the difference between truth an opinion?
The Washington Times is owned by the Unification Church, aka "the
Moonies" who recently crowned "Reverend" Sun Myung Moon as "Messiah":
http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=131
Btw, the Times is losing money, and is currently being subsidized by
Moon.
Not only that, the opinion piece features *Grover Norquist*, a
complete nut case who compared progressive tax rates to the Holocaust
last fall:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1008-07.htm
Ol' PJ sure knows how to pick 'em!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
