sick of hearing about reagan

progmac · June 10, 2004 1:46PM

- his dead body is in washington

- thousands pay tribute. nancy reagan cries and nation is moved

- his body is going to california

- thousands pay tribute. nancy reagan cries and nation is moved

- his body is going back to washington

- thousands pay tribute. nancy reagan cries and nation is moved

- his body is going back to california

- thousands pay tribute. nancy reagan cries and nation is moved

how much longer can they keep this a news story? all this body movement is dragging something that i lost interest in a few days ago on forever.

his dudeness · June 10, 2004 2:02PM

You can always switch to HGTV. Or simply turn the tv off. I'm not tired of hearing about this. I am currently serving in the Navy that Reagan helped build. You know the one, the one that helped the Soviet Union fade into a distant memory.

buonrotto · June 10, 2004 2:14PM

Well, politics aside, the story will pass from the media spotlight after about 2 weeks, when another big story is deemed to be a ratings magnet.

his dudeness · June 10, 2004 2:22PM

I'd hardly call the death of any president to be a ratings magnet. That's big news. Just like the death of Princess Diana was HUGE news in the UK and Canada.

rok · June 10, 2004 2:23PM

hey, everyone's jumping on the bandwagon, even npr with a weeklong review of the reagan legacy. g.w. has patterned a lot of his work off reagan, so it is pretty topical material with the election coming up, but g.w. doesn't have the communications ability or doting ol' charm that reagan did, so w's comments come off far weaker.

the thing that kinda gets me is how there are even more proposals to rename things in reagan's name... the pentagon caught my attention, mostly. yowza. plus, suggestions at putting his image on the ten dollar bill, twenty, and the dime.

i mean, damn, even if you are a reagan fan, there's a point where it gets kinda ridiculous, doesn't it?

existence · June 10, 2004 2:28PM

The right-wing controls the media.

naplesx · June 10, 2004 2:29PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rok

hey, everyone's jumping on the bandwagon, even npr with a weeklong review of the reagan legacy. g.w. has patterned a lot of his work off reagan, so it is pretty topical material with the election coming up, but g.w. doesn't have the communications ability or doting ol' charm that reagan did, so w's comments come off far weaker.

the thing that kinda gets me is how there are even more proposals to rename things in reagan's name... the pentagon caught my attention, mostly. yowza. plus, suggestions at putting his image on the ten dollar bill, twenty, and the dime.

i mean, damn, even if you are a reagan fan, there's a point where it gets kinda ridiculous, doesn't it?

Well I will make a prediction:

That when clinton dies, you will see his supporters and friends and followers will go out of their way to outdo anything that comes of this. I am sure their will be talk of much more outrageous stuff than we hear now. Of course there will large groups of people that will deem it reasonable.

Mark my words.

buonrotto · June 10, 2004 2:45PM

I'd wager a large sum of cash that this thread will degenerate into another nasty little squabble between the usual suspects. It's flamebait. Prove me wrong.

progmac · June 10, 2004 2:50PM

Quote:

Originally posted by His Dudeness

You can always switch to HGTV. Or simply turn the tv off. I'm not tired of hearing about this. I am currently serving in the Navy that Reagan helped build. You know the one, the one that helped the Soviet Union fade into a distant memory.

i wish i had cable

here in cincinnati the conservative press is vomitting all over itself in ecstacy with these reagan stories. another part of the point is that there is only so much to say. he died. he's going back and forth between the coasts. people are moved. he was the great communicator. flag-wavers saying how he transformed the country. et cetera. there isn't much substance to any of the reporting. but then, this is the american press we're talking about

splinemodel · June 10, 2004 3:02PM

Reagan was an effective president. If you don't think so, you're delusional. When effective people who do great things die, people mourn. A lot of times people mourn for royalty who do comparatively little with their lives. (cough, Di, cough).

Now, I'm not really upset, since he was 93, and dying is one of the things old people do best. But I wish there were more presidential candidates like Reagan rather than the trash we get now. No ideas, no personality, no potential.

naplesx · June 10, 2004 3:03PM

Quote:

Originally posted by progmac

i wish i had cable here in cincinnati the conservative press is vomitting all over itself in ecstacy with these reagan stories. another part of the point is that there is only so much to say. he died. he's going back and forth between the coasts. people are moved. he was the great communicator. flag-wavers saying how he transformed the country. et cetera. there isn't much substance to any of the reporting. but then, this is the american press we're talking about

I saw an interview with Michael Reagan, it had my eyes tearing up. I have learned a lot about President Reagan over the past couple of days. He had a lot of influence and was genuinely loved by a lot of people. I don't see it as inappropriate. I think any president deserves to be covered in such a way when he dies. I think that it shows how this country is involved in it's own government. I think overall it's a good thing.

Think of the family's closure in all of this, before you complain. It may help them grasp it and deal with it.

My .02

powerdoc · June 10, 2004 3:06PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BuonRotto

I'd wager a large sum of cash that this thread will degenerate into another nasty little squabble between the usual suspects. It's flamebait. Prove me wrong.

unfortunately nobody had wager that this thread will produce some good. You can only expect to have your cash back. It's one for one here

neutrino23 · June 10, 2004 3:43PM

Reagan was president and it is fitting that he has a public funeral. I agree that this has gone over the top. I think it is unseemly and an insult to Reagan the way the far right is making a public spectacle of this.

sammi jo · June 10, 2004 3:53PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Splinemodel

Reagan was an effective president. If you don't think so, you're delusional. When effective people who do great things die, people mourn. A lot of times people mourn for royalty who do comparatively little with their lives. (cough, Di, cough).

What's the deal with slamming Diana? She was a "commoner" who made a mistake of getting married into the world's most dysfunctional family. Sure, she didn't have the executive power of a US president, but she did her best, under very tough circumstances. (And, no, fabulous wealth and happiness have little correlation). At least she tried her best to understand the suffering of AIDS patients, and do something postive in that direction, unlike Reagan.

All US presidents should be given a send-off that is in keeping with their position as the most prominent political position in the world today. But the one-sided, cloying, sickly-syrupy "All Reagan All The Time" approach of all the networks started getting very old after 48 hours.

northgate · June 10, 2004 4:22PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NaplesX

Well I will make a prediction:

That when clinton dies, you will see his supporters and friends and followers will go out of their way to outdo anything that comes of this. I am sure their will be talk of much more outrageous stuff than we hear now. Of course there will large groups of people that will deem it reasonable.

Mark my words.

Hey Naples, we'll mark your words.

But it's going to be a LOOOOONG wait because Clinton is still young and healthy. Besides, the political environment/state of nation/politics will probably be a very different landscape 20 or so years from now.

Whereas Reagan's funeral coverage has distorted his legacy for the better (most popular, longest financial recovery, etc), I believe Clinton's funeral coverage will be dominated by Monica Lewinsky and his illegal impeachment. So while the airtime will probably be the same, or more, the content of the coverage will definitely be far more negative than Reagan's. Why? Democrats don't take care of their own like Republicans do.

sdw2001 · June 10, 2004 6:43PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Existence

The right-wing controls the media.

Yes, Dan Rather is such a right wing lune. So is Brokaw. Both say there has been too much coverage. Hmmm..

rok: I agree it can get a little overwhelming. The Pentagon? Wow. I had heard that but I think its a little much. I'd be in favor of the $10 bill.

shawnj · June 10, 2004 6:46PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SDW2001

Yes, Dan Rather is such a right wing lune. So is Brokaw. Both say there has been too much coverage. Hmmm..

Keyword: control

(The right-wing controls the media.)

naplesx · June 10, 2004 6:59PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ShawnJ

Keyword: control

(The right-wing controls the media.)

I am sure you are right, if you ignore the facts:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp

sdw2001 · June 10, 2004 7:03PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ShawnJ

Keyword: control

(The right-wing controls the media.)

Control="own" I assume. I can't believe we're going to start this again. The vast majority of TV and print media is extremely biased towards the left. When you claim otherwise, it's nothing but hilarious.

jimmac · June 10, 2004 7:25PM

Yawn!

northgate · June 10, 2004 7:28PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SDW2001

Control="own" I assume. I can't believe we're going to start this again. The vast majority of TV and print media is extremely biased towards the left. When you claim otherwise, it's nothing but hilarious.

Actually the research states that the media is "slightly" biased to the left on social issues and "slightly" biased to the right on the economy. There's nothing "extreme" about it. However, I'm sure that won't convince you.

sick of hearing about reagan

Comments