June 05, 2004

Breaking History: Ronald Reagan dead at 93
Will today be seen as the culmination of his achievements or the "end of the Reagan Era"? Be nice. It's eulogy time.
posted by wendell 19 years ago
  • While I don't agree with Reagan's end of the politics spectrum, I've always had the impression he had a kind heart and really believed in what he was doing. The man had charisma. My hat is off to him.
  • Now that his journey is over, all that comes to mind is the sadness and relief that his family must be feeling. My father also died of Alzheimers, but I can only imagine how difficult this must have been for a family in the public eye. My thoughts are with them. To answer wendell's question: I didn't care for Reagan's ideology, but it's too soon to tell how he will be remembered - check back in a decade or two.
  • I started a thread here, too, (relatively cordial for MetaFlamer), and here is why.
  • reaganomics saved my hometown - whatever anyone else wants to say about it, he made my childhood comfortable instead of one spent collecting government handouts.
  • What I liked best about his administration was the popularization of the term 'plausible deniability.' And what rolypoly said. R.I.P., Ron.
  • Be nice?! If he'd been nice to the country, I'd be nice to him. Getting Alzheimer's doesn't make him a good president or a decent human being. But in deference to those who feel otherwise, I won't say any more.
  • in true empire fashion will the senate decree that Ronald Reagan be made a God? It was the custom to consecrate popular emperors after their deaths, declaring them a minor god. Vestavia (23 AD) was heard to say as he was about to die, "Oh my, I fear I am about to become a god!"
  • I'm not sure what to think about the firing of the 11,000 air traffic controllers though... that is about the only thing that tarnishes my respect for the man, besides the politics.
  • I can't think of Ronald Reagan otherwise. (Apparently they are going to start a new series!)
  • Jeez, finally someone impeached that miserable bastard. Shoulda happened a few decades ago.
  • reaganomics saved my hometown Depends where you live. Aren't there people in the rust belt who would say exactly the opposite -- "Reaganomics destroyed my hometown"?
  • languagehat: I give you dibs on my "Ronald Reagan: Fascist Gun In the West" button and my "The Pope and the Dope" commemorative tshirt from the time he had a short stopover at the local airport and met...er...the Pope. I was thinking of selling them on E-Bay, but since you lived through his Gubernatorial days (me too) I'll let you have first shot. (BTW, I don't believe he was a bad man, just stupid and easily manipulated. I no more blame him for all the stuff that happend during his presidency than I can give George W. total responsibility for what's happening now. It takes more than one person to run a country. And I think that's plenty from me.)
  • reaganomics saved my hometown Depends where you live. Aren't there people in the rust belt who would say exactly the opposite -- "Reaganomics destroyed my hometown"? Thats the thing about personal reminiscences - they aren't about other people in other towns.
  • Good. I'm glad. Old bastard hung around too long as it was. Stupid git.
  • Reading the responses to Reagan's death here and on LA Blue, I'm struck by how many of them offset objecions to his politics by waxing sympathetic about the way he died. Reagan devoted his presidency to eviscerating the very government programs that seek to advance medical research on diseases like Alzheimer's. If Reagan's "vision" had triumphed, there would be very likely be no National Institutes of Health and no CDC, to say nothing of no Medicare and Medicaid for the elderly and the poor. Nancy's after-the-fact plea for stem cell research nonwithstanding does not change this. Neither does Reagan's suffering in the last years of his life.
  • Reagan (or Michael Deaver, your choice) was responsible for the since-then wave of voters who support someone who's policies directly oppose them. That is, the doubletalk, newspeak, television-screwed George W. admin era. "Disinformation", etc. I always thought he'd be a nice next door neighbour but his policies as President sucked ass. I can't disagree more strongly with him but we're all human, we all gotta go, and I hope he left peacefully. we begin the eulogy in five minutes.
  • He was great with monkeys.
  • i tried to think of something nice, but all i can think is, "he had weirdly wavy greasy unnaturally dark hair and strange rosy cheeks." so, um, i guess that's my tribute to him.
  • Well, at least this thread started out trying to be nice...
  • Pete_best, you nailed it. I always thought he'd be a nice next door neighbour .... Which is more than I can say for the current asshole. *frantically trying to think of something positive to say. ummmmmm ... Guess that saves the country some bucks on presidential retirement funds now, eh? Nostril: Please speak your mind instead of pussyfooting around like that.
  • I do feel bad about his incredibly long end. And I think that he and Nancy had a real love affair. I even thought he had some charm as an actor, way back when. I can think of him as a fellow human and be sad for him and his family. But, I think we're still suffering in California from his policies when he was governor, and I seem to remember that inflation was an unacceptable high during his presidency. I never agreed with him, and remember laughing at his statements about not being able to remember anything about Iran Contra. I didn't dislike him as much as I do GWB because there seemed to be a sweet, if dim, guy underneath the presidential aura. So, may he rest in peace.
  • Hopefully we'll begin to see more info surfacing on his actions during the communist-scare era, his dealings during the Iran hostages crisis, etc. That he may had oozed charisma and ended up his days suffering from such a wasting illness doesn't change the past or condones his actions. If there's someone to feel sympathy for, may be those that loved him and struggled during his end. Hope they find some peace of mind.
  • Yes I know my earlier post was harsh, but I grew up watching him 'run' the US and do things like openly try to overthrow the Nicaraguan government, give aid to anti-Sandinista terrorists, not to mention Iran, etc; he really was an ass. He was the right-wing twit who paved the way for the current regime. He was careless, thoughtless, his policies were assinine and he damaged not only America but the world. It was his government which ultimately created the monster known as Osama Bin Laden. He had little or no ethics, as example he happily spilled his guts to McCarthy during the witch-trials and fingered 'commie' folks in Hollywood who were supposed to be his friends, and continued to help foster an irrational hatred of all things socialist in America, a country that deeply needs a socialist element in its politics. He was a fool. I agree with foxy_hedgehog completely. I'm sad for anyone who has loved ones with Alzeimers, and I'm sorry if offend those saddled with this blight with my comments, but in his case I don't give a toss. Good thing he died now and not closer to the election so sympathy wont create votes for the Republicans. /end rant
  • wendell, I'm sorry to hear about the anniversary of your mother's death. In an effort not to speak ill of the dead, in the case of former President Reagan, I will only say .
  • Time passes, hatred fades, but I'm still glad he's gone.
  • Yeah, what Nostril said....... And.... Reagan was the first president who made me aware that being 'president' did not actually mean he was in charge. It seemed glaringly obvious to my teenage mind that he was merely the puppet. And not overly bright (and don't get me started on what a brittle, freaky looking wife he had). People tended to like him, especially big business, because the money really started flowing in the '80's. I remember in college how many meetings were always being held to 'discuss' the whole Iran/Contra thing. So many kids wanted to go to Nicaragua. Reagan also made me aware of what a truly great president Jimmy Carter was. He accomplished so much. Didn't spend a lot of time worrying about the media, wasn't splashy. The man actually worked. A true humanitarian and not nearly recognized enough. /digress:)
  • So does this mean that ketchup is no longer a vegetable?
  • .
  • That's the thing about personal reminiscences -- they aren't about other people in other towns. That's the thing about Reaganomics -- it means not having to care about other people in other towns.
  • Reagan scared me more that the Soviets every did. And it's a real shame the would-be assassin didn't get the bastard.
  • Highlights: the Iceland summit in 1986. Lowlights: everything else. All-in-all, the world's a better place today that it was yesterday.
  • To bad his scriptwriters are still calling the shots.
  • The real world is an imperfect laboratory for judging the success of the vast socioeconomic experiment known as, "Reaganonmics". Also, Congress did not accept all the expenditure reductions which the Reagan administration requested in its program. Finally, the Reagan years witnessed significant declines in inflation and interest rates, a record-long "peacetime" economic expansion, and attainment of full employment. Having acknowledged these points, it is nevertheless fair to say that, as such, supply-side economics largely failed to accomplish its goals. The facts are these:
    1. Any immediate output effects of the Reagan tax cuts were overwhelmed by the tight money policy being undertaken by the Federal Reserve to reduce the then-existing rapid inflation. The economy fell into severe back-to-back recessions in 1980-1982. 2. The inflation rate fell sharply from annual rates of 13.5% in 1980 to 3.2% in 1983. Since 1983, the inflation rate has remained relatively low. However, most economists attribute the decline in inflation to the 1980-1982 recessions, caused by the Federal Reserve's tight money policy, and to declines in oil prices. Rightward shifts in aggregate supply resulting from tax cuts and deregulation were not major factors in reducing inflation. 3. The Reagan tax cuts contributed to burgeoning Federal budget deficits. The prediction of the Laffer Curve that tax cuts would enhance tax revenues beyond those associated with normal economic expansions simply did not bear fruit. These large deficits may have increased interest rates, crowding out some unknown amount of private investment and depressing both export-dependent and import-competing industries. A record high U.S. balance of payments deficit resulted. In 1990, the Bush administration and Congress were forced to enact a tax-spending package designed to reduce the deficit by $500 billion over a five-year period. The top marginal tax rate increased from 28% to 31%. Nevertheless, large deficits persisted, and in 1993 the Clinton administration again raised taxes, pushing the top marginal tax rate to 39.6%. 4. There is little evidence that Reaganomics had any significant positive impacts on saving and investment rates or incentives to work. The savings rate trended downward throughout the 1980s. Productivity growth surged in 1983 and 1984, as is usual during recovery, but was disappointingly low in the rest of the 1980s and early 1990s. 5. Most economists attribute the post-1982 economic recovery to the demand-side expansionary effects of the Reagan tax cuts and not to the use of tax cuts as an antistagflation, supply-side measure.
    In summary, the evidence casts considerable doubt on the central supply-side proposition that tax cuts can directly and significantly shift the nation's production possibilities curve and aggregate supply curve rightward more rapidly than their historical pace. More vehement critiques of supply side economics dismiss the entire project as a complete failure which is "out of touch with reality"; is unworthy of serious economists; and is a mere trojan horse for reducing marginal tax rates on upper income brackets. Does anyone know what Vice President Bush called this in 1980? Anyone? Something-D-O-O economics. 'Voodoo' economics.
  • nice post Wedge. ) "I think that there's nothing wrong with visiting that cemetery [Bitburg], where those young men are victims of Nazism also, even though they were fighting in the German uniform, drafted into service to carry out the hateful wishes of the Nazis. They were victims, just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps." a summary here. I had blocked out of my mind that he declared 1983 "The Year of the Bible". Sheesh.
  • RIP
  • Peggy Noonan on Reagan.
    Late last night on MSNBC, Peggy Noonan was asked for her favorite Reagan remark, she recalled how he could break down things to utter simplicity. He described America this way: "Uncle Sam is a friendly old man, but he has a spine of steel." Noonan said that described Reagan as well as anything.
    That's sounds more like something Peggy would write in one of her columns than what Reagan would say. Remember, she was his speechwriter.
  • (Ouch.)
  • this whole business of giving W a free pass because of lack of "smoking guns" grates on me so much because there were so many smoking guns with Reagan and he was elected twice. I never thought I'd dislike a president as much as I did Reagan, but Li'l Bush reminds me to 'never say never'. Sucks about the OldTimers though. That's a hard disease from what I'm told.
  • What I Learned About Ronald Reagan From This Thread: - He was a dim, but somewhat likeable guy, despite his politics. - He was an evil despot who was personally responsible for birthing, raising, and training Osama Bin Laden. - He was a smarmy governor whose policies are still adversely affecting California today (after the Gray and Schwarzenegger fallout, you guys are positively screwed for decades to come!) - He was a sweet B actor. - Too bad he had Altzheimer's. It should have been cancer. - Reaganomics is a myth perpetrated by "The Man". - Reagan got what he deserved by cutting programs such as the one to study Altzheimer's. Stupid git. - Reagan was an evil precursor to Bush. However, as bad as he was, Bush is far, far worse. - He was a liar. - It's a Good Thing he died now rather than closer to election time. - Reagan was a puppet. But an evil puppet. Who controlled the strings. Nicaragua, yeah. - Reagan was worse than the commies. Bush is too. - Reagan's would-be assassin was doing a Good Thing when he tried to kill Reagan. - He taught Republicans how to do all the things that Democrats hate. No offense, but the majority of you are insufferable asswipes, forgive my French. If this is representative of Liberal thought, well, stop the train, I want off. Some eulogy.
  • No offense, but the majority of you are insufferable asswipes, forgive my French. Why is that no offense there when you clearly mean to offend?
  • Good point, dng. How's this? The majority of you are insufferable asswipes, forgive my French.
  • f8xmulder, there was nothing in my comment that suggested that Reagan "deserved" to get Alzheimer's. Your summary is a rather willful distortion of what I said: that I find it odd that people who otherwise found Reagan's policies objectionable, or even catastrophic, euphemized his political legacy because he died a long and painful death from a degenerative illness. His wife's Johnny-come-lately plea for federal sponsorship of stem-cell research to treat Alzheimer's was ironic, but it was not retribution, divine or otherwise. "Insufferable asswipes"? Thanks for trolling, and have a nice day.
  • Oh, and here's a healthy response to the call for appropriate eulogy. The 10 Legacies of Ronald Reagan
  • f8xmulder, call me an "insufferable asswipe" all you want, that's so very Christian of you. I don't recall when I have ever agreed with anything you have said on Monkeyfilter and I don't think I'll start now.
  • Hey, I thought this page was supposed to be blue? Whahoppend?
  • Its alright, f8xmulder is allowed to call 650 people or more insufferable asswipes, based upon 10 or so comments in a 40 comment thread. I can't remember why exactly, something to do with tolerance and forgiveness. No, wait, that can't be it.
  • Hitler! eyeebita eebita eebbita, that's all folks!
  • That link reads like clippings from The Onion, f8xmulder. "Checking Judicial Activism" - God forbid that the people are given more rights than they are allowed! And how was appointing the biggest activist in the judiciary, Antonin Scalia, checking it? Sorry, but this letter is the real legacy of Reagan. The man was an actor that, with the help of his cabinet of doom, bamboozled the country, bled the poor to feed the rich, pandered to terrorists, and nearly wrecked education, the enivronment, health care, and our economy permanently. You'll see no respect from me. Respect, even in death, needs to be earned. He did not earn any of mine.
  • Actually, f8x is right about me - I really am an insufferable asswipe :(
  • kid i think they have an ointment for that now.
  • All, My apologies on calling the 40 or so people on this thread asswipes. In the heat of the moment I posted something that should have stayed in the preview window. Please forgive me. dng, 650 people haven't posted on this thread. Try to stay in line. I stand by the first part of my statement, and still think that for the most part, you all are lousy at giving eulogies.
  • shawnj, now I know where everyone's rampant Bush hatred comes from. Thank goodness for the one good president in between all the crappy fraudulent, eco-wrecking, terrorist-sympathizing, shyster presidents...otherwise this country would really be sliding down the drain.
  • Ahhhh! Thanks pete! That really does feel good "on the whole". Now I can get back to sympathising with terrorists and hating America - these being my most well-loved pastimes.
  • My favourite pastime is supporting the terrorists by voting in elections for socialists.
  • Snap, dng! I also burn flags and eat babies! Wanna go steady?
  • If by that sarcastic reply you are trying to insinuate that I think that Clinton was a good president, f8xmulder, you're wrong. Give me five minutes, and I could come up with a similar list to my Congressman about Clinton. We've had a long stretch of horrible leaders. It's all about *how* horrible they are, and Reagan was one of the worst.
  • If you dislike a Republican it must be because you love the Democrats. If you dislike a Democrat it must be because you love the Republicans. I think those are the rules.
  • I find the topic of the sanctity of death very interesting. I have an instinctual feeling that death so be revered in some way, if nothing else in respect of the family. I think it might come from the feeling that I wouldn't want people to come out after I or my loved ones died and tell everyone what assholes we were. On the other hand, what is a better remembrance of life? One where my life is glossed over and everything is pretty and shiny and happy or one that tells the truth about me? I think I prefer the truth. I'd love to be remembered with warts and all. I'd love for the real me to be celebrated (or reviled depending on who you are). So I think I land right in the middle of this whole debacle. I think it's just as disengenuous to paint someone as completely evil as it is to paint someone as completely saintly (out of respect for the fact that they do what everone does--namely die). I personally fall on the side of Reagan did more harm than good and I will not remember him fondly, but I also think that things are far more complicated than what has been expressed here.
  • If it's not a 0, it must be a 1. Ahh, binary logic. The cause and solution to most of life's problems.
  • I had my issues with Reagan's tenure. However, the way he could inspire jowl-flapping rage in the Left never ceased to please. Ronnie, here's a [teflon banana] to your memory.
  • Snap, dng! I also burn flags and eat babies! Wanna go steady? How could I say no, quidnunc.
  • I mean to imply, shawnj, that there seems to be an abundance of overreaction to boilerplate politics. "Wrecked the economy", "Wrecked the environment", "Wrecked the military", "Sympathized with terrorists", "Imperialist President". It's all this generic rage that sees no good in anything and imagines the worst of everyone and everything. I may not have liked all of Bill Clinton's policies, but I can certainly tell you the things I think he got right. I doubt you'll be able to find such equalmindedness in any of our Bush-hating friends here.
  • I'll tell you what I think George Bush has done well when George Bush tells me what he thinks he's done wrong?
  • Also, f8xmulder, you're reducing it to nice binary us vs them logic again. You've called me a bush hater before - now, maybe I am, but I don't think so, although I dislike the man and his (international) policies (I know very little about his domestic policies, beyond Steel Tariffs and the Patriot Act). Using Bush-Hater as a term seems to suggest that I disagree with George Bush because I hate him. Surely, isn't it more likely that I dislike George Bush because I disagree with his policies.
  • Is it ironic that Reagan significantly decreased the level of discourse with his over-the-top right-wing policies? Personally I think Reagan was only marginally more involved in the policies of his adminstration than Dubya is. When Michael Deaver bites it - that's the end of an evil tenure. not evil in the way Dubya means it - possessed by demons - but evil as in really really bad
  • Those weren't overreactions. They were merely summaries. In an online forum like this, I would bore you and everyone else if I expanded on each of those points to show you what I meant. The thing is that most of the things that have been gotten right by presidents and administrations the last few decades have almost all been things the Joe Average would have done in the same situation. I can only think of a handful of things in the last 30 years that were extraordinarily good AND caused directly from the executive branch. And most of that was merely the president putting his John Hancock on the bill that dozens of people worked tirelessly on for months. And as far as the specific examples of Bush and Reagan, it is very hard to find anything that off-sets the wrongs that have been committed.
  • He's right again! Not only am I an insufferable asswipe but f8x is infinitely more equalminded than me!
  • "These students want disruption. They seek to prove that this system of ours, when faced with crisis, does not work. If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with!" -California Governor Ronald Reagan, less than one month before four student protesters were killed by the Ohio National Guard at Kent State. This alone tells me what kind of man he was.
  • I don't think it's a question of glossing over his life and treating him as a saint just because he died. I think it's a question of respect for the dead. Maybe that's old fashioned of me, but that's how I was raised. *sips glass of lemonade, rocks thoughtfully on the po'ch* It's all well and good to say that you didn't like the man's policies (I didn't care for several of them), to be critical of his administration, but it bears noting that (a) the man is dead and his administration has been over for a long time, and (b) going on at length about what a "horrible person" he was doesn't really accomplish anything at all. It's in the past. He's dead. He wasn't Hitler or Satan or Albert Schweitzer or Santa Claus. He did some things right and others wrong. But now he's gone, and his family and friends are experiencing a profound mixture of relief and sorrow. That means more to me right now than policies he put into play twenty years ago, all of which can be extended (if they're good) or undone (if they're not). Political indignation and anger are better spent on the current situation, not rehashing the past
  • Saw this thread posted a few days ago. Thought "I think I might avoid that thread". Sensible decision, as it turns out, now utterly spoiled by the fact I've just jumped into it. f8x - you've always been a reasonable, intelligent commenter, unafraid to listen to others' opinions, and to respond forcefully but calmly. Which makes it hard to understand why you decided to act like a dick in this thread. There were several dumb or unpleasant comments made, so I can't understand why you felt the need to make loads of stuff up that nobody said... or why you continued to do so. Understand: acting like a dick in serious threads is my job, and I'll be damned if I'm going to be outsourced. Skrik: I hope you meant that the world is a better place today because one man's suffering is ended. A man who caused great misery, but a man. Even from the point of view of one who opposed just about everything Reagan stood for, what's better? The fact that people are eulogising him? The fact that anybody who voices the opinion that his policies were destructive looks like an insensitve shit? ++Unbetter. I dread the day Thatcher dies, for such reasons.
  • I've never felt elation at the news of anothers death. I'd like to think I never will. I have told my sons that they are not under any circumstances to take part in massacres, and that the news of massacres of enemies is not to fill them with sayisfaction or glee.
  • I'm an insufferable Asshole. And I've had a lot of practice, seeing as I used to vote republican... But enough about me. The man is dead, yes. My condolences to Nancy and the rest of his family on their loss. Alzheimers is truly a shitty way to go for both the sufferer and the sufferer's family. Now, despite the fact that he's dead and he died in that horrible slow-motion, I have no sympathy for the man, policy-wise. He fucked up the country, but good. I know all the rightwingers had him picked out for sainthood the second he left office and more power to them (like they could ever get enough, anyway...) But for a large portion of the world, his policies were downright stupid and dangerous. No, he did not cause the fall of the Soviet Union. No, he did not single-handedly end the cold war. He just happened to be president at the right time when Russia collapsed from the inside.
  • Well said, surlyboi.
  • flashboy, I made up loads of stuff? Okay, no one ever wished he had gotten cancer. Every other point I made is a summary of the previous 40 threads or so. I can link to them if you'd like. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm simply repeating what everyone else already wrote.
  • Perhaps I missed the bit where somebody said something, anything, that could be reasonably interpreted as "He was an evil despot who was personally responsible for birthing, raising, and training Osama Bin Laden." If I have overlooked this apologies (no, Nostrildamus's comment doesn't say this.) Apologies also if I missed the bit where it was said that "Reagan got what he deserved by cutting programs such as the one to study Altzheimer's. Stupid git." (No, foxy-hedgehog's comment doesn't say this). Beyond that, removal of context, turning suggestive points into absolute statements, portraying personal recollections as incoherent argument, sticking in archaic pseudo-lefty cliches like "The Man" when 'summarising' a lengthy, well-researched post... I think it was a dishonest list, f8x, and you're better than that. I counted three, maybe four comments that were deserving of criticism, and everything else was a pretty calm and sensible discussion of Reagan's legacy. But it's not big deal, all told. Sorry for calling you a dick. I should probably have just carried on ignoring the thread, I suspect... having said that, it was a productive way to spend my last 45 minutes at work. I get to go home now.
  • Using Bush-Hater as a term seems to suggest that I disagree with George Bush because I hate him. Surely, isn't it more likely that I dislike George Bush because I disagree with his policies. Point taken, dng. You can't deny that a contigent exists that is very much opposed to the man based upon his person rather than his policies. If you are not in that group then I apologize.
  • Perhaps I missed the bit where somebody said something, anything, that could be reasonably interpreted as "He was an evil despot who was personally responsible for birthing, raising, and training Osama Bin Laden." If I have overlooked this apologies (no, Nostrildamus's comment doesn't say this.) Here's what Nostrildamus wrote: "...but I grew up watching him 'run' the US and do things like openly try to overthrow the Nicaraguan government, give aid to anti-Sandinista terrorists, not to mention Iran, etc; he really was an ass. He was the right-wing twit who paved the way for the current regime...It was his government which ultimately created the monster known as Osama Bin Laden." The 'evil' despot is all but spelled out. No, it doesn't say he was personally responsible for bin Laden, but if he's the mastermind behind all these other evils, Nostril might as well have come out and said it. The intent's the same. Apologies also if I missed the bit where it was said that "Reagan got what he deserved by cutting programs such as the one to study Altzheimer's. Stupid git." (No, foxy-hedgehog's comment doesn't say this). foxy wrote: "Reagan devoted his presidency to eviscerating the very government programs that seek to advance medical research on diseases like Alzheimer's. If Reagan's "vision" had triumphed, there would be very likely be no National Institutes of Health and no CDC, to say nothing of no Medicare and Medicaid for the elderly and the poor. Nancy's after-the-fact plea for stem cell research nonwithstanding does not change this. Neither does Reagan's suffering in the last years of his life." Is that a 'just desserts' comment? I dunno. Seemed like it to me at the time, and I still think it sounds awfully vindictive. Beyond that, removal of context, turning suggestive points into absolute statements, etc...[snip]...I think it was a dishonest list, f8x, and you're better than that. I counted three, maybe four comments that were deserving of criticism, and everything else was a pretty calm and sensible discussion of Reagan's legacy. And being that you're the judge of all things calm and sensible, I guess we'll have to go with that. Do you really think I would post a list like I did just to make you all look like the bad guys? It couldn't be that I genuinely think you all have boiled down Reagan to a bunch of typical Leftist bullets that read no different than today's rants against Bush, could it? Nooo, I'm doing it just to piss everyone off, natch. How can one having meaningful dialogue with stuff like this?
  • Those weren't overreactions. They were merely summaries. In an online forum like this, I would bore you and everyone else if I expanded on each of those points to show you what I meant. I dunno, shawnj. It seems the perfect place and opportunity to out these points. How am I going to be convinced, or at least gotten to the point where I can question Bush's policies (not that I don't now...) if all I get is two word phrase summaries of the bad policies these presidents have wreaked upon our civilization? I'm genuinely interested in knowing.
  • Dot. Dot. Dot.
  • f8x, Please don't let yourself be baited by Nostril's predictable tackiness. The call was for a eulogy, which I think appropriate. How about posting what you see as good things about the man or his legacy? If that gives the lie to others' claims, all the better. He Won The Cold War. nyah, nyah He Inspired a Generation of Grecian-Formula Jokes.
  • f8x, Please don't let yourself be baited by Nostril's predictable tackiness. The call was for a eulogy, which I think appropriate. How about posting what you see as good things about the man or his legacy? If that gives the lie to others' claims, all the better. Well said, goetter, as usual.
  • f8xmulder wrote: Is that a 'just desserts' comment? I dunno. Seemed like it to me at the time, and I still think it sounds awfully vindictive. Vindictive? Maybe ironic at the very most. If you read carefully, you'll see that I was commenting on folks' tendency to focus on how RR died, rather than making a critical appraisal of his legacy. But given the focus on the cause of death, I don't think it's out of line to note that Reagan was opposed to the very types of govt. programs that might have alleviated his suffering, or that he empowered the very political constituency that has made stem-cell research damn near impossible in this country. I don't like putting words in other people's mouths (which you've so kindly done for me) but I think Nostrildamus' point was that the ham-handed way in which US waged war by proxy in Afghanistan funded the rise of both the Taliban and the development of Al-Quaeda. That's a reasonable argument that you're free to contend with, but distorting the argument is not a rebuttal.
  • f8x, I never doubted that your reasons for saying it were honourable, I just thought that the way you did it... [what goetter said]. not worth fighting over, really. *wanders off* *...thinks...* *pops back* MonkeyFilter: Calm and sensible *ducks*
  • flashboy, goetter, et al. OK. I will try and remain calm and sensible. *lowers hackles, hands everyone bananas from stash*
  • MonkeyFilter: Now with Insufferable Asswipes
  • Please do not feed the troll.
  • But he's hungry...
  • Good. All friends again. [reciprocates bananas] Now come on, everyone, there's a fight in thread 2806! Let's go kick some chins! MonkeyFilter: Sufferable asswipes I'll stop now.
  • Move along, nothing to see there... I think it's Narrowly-Aborted Flame War Monday! Let's see if I can keep it going: You know, I hate white people. And Clowns. Really fucking hate clowns. White clowns? Kill 'em, I say. But I like puppies. Take THAT, cat people!!!
  • As everyone knows by my previous posts and comments that I am a die hard Republican and Reagan fan. Curse you monkeys would write bad things about this GOD that walked among us. Reagan rules!!!
  • Um, that should read Narrowly-Averted. I think people who insist on good English should suffer death by marmint.
  • Oh, never mind, Sullivan did the job for me. *runs back to the picture post, screaming*
  • To my dead homie. *pours ketchup on ground*
  • Yes! Here's to a deep breath. I can get very serious, very quickly. Hitler only got mentioned twice, which I think means we are still holding up ok. I'd like to take this chance to saw that I hate kittens, rainbows, Native Americans, and old people.
  • Via Wonkette
    Sometimes a moment calls for silence. And the only response is silence. You see Nancy Reagan there, standing in silence. This is one of those times when silence is called upon. We are going to let the images speak for themselves with silence. . . [Silence]. . . [Silence] . . . You are watching continuing coverage here on Fox. As we bid farewell to President Ronald Reagan. . . a somber scene, felt in the silence.
    Fox News: When saying nothing isn't enough.
  • f8x, I really don't understand why you're so in love with Reagan. While I tried to separate the politician from the human being in my earlier comment, I can tell you from personal experience that he didn't leave things better than he found them, whether in California or as President, in this country. Others have detailed his failings, so I won't reiterate them. Your link to "10 Legacies" seems to indicate that the only reason Reagan was wonderful is that he was the precursor to GWB. Your next (non-apologetic or non-specific) comment says that no president in the interim between Reagan and GWB has done anything good. But the next interesting one talks about all the "crappy fraudulent, eco-wrecking, terrorist-sympathizing, shyster" presidents, and what is this "boilerplate " thing? Many of us would find GWB and pere were "fraudulent, eco-wrecking, terrorist-sympathizing, shyster(s)". but we didn't chose to bring that to this tread, cause it's a whole 'nother discussion. So, dude, you're way too emotional about this, unless Reagan was your secret daddy. In which case, you have my sympathy.
  • MonkeyFilter: Be nice, or the kitty gets it
  • surlyboi is evil. (that picture is excellent)
  • Pat, I really don't understand why you have such a problem wih Reagan. While I've tried to separate the politician from the human being in my earlier comments, I can tell you from personal experience that he left things better than he found them in this country. Others have detailed his many successes, so I won't reiterate them. So, babe, you're way too emotional about this, unless Reagan ran over your puppy. In which case, you have my sympathy. [Now, what's wrong with that?]
  • Where is Ender Wiggin when you need him?
  • goetter: were you an adult when Reagan was in any office? In my opinion (I'm allowed, aren't I?) he wasn't. And I was probably old enough to decide when I came to my conclusions about him. And, if you read my first comment, you'll find that I tried to separate the human being from the politician, babe. But f8s's comments were so far from his usual reasoned responses to other touchy subjects that I found I had to challenge him. I know I went too far in the "who's you Daddy" thingie, but his responses were so far from what I expected from a worthy opponent that I got carried away. So, anyway, do you think that Reagan was a great president, as opposed to a cuddly teddy bear? If you do, give us your best shot.
  • Well, that first part came out a little gnarled. In my opinion, he wasn't good president. "f8x" in the second part. Typing in the dark is really hard.
  • I voted for the man. Whether I was an adult is a separate question.
  • Oh, and PatH, you're of course allowed (there being no statute of limitations on political opinion). What I objected to was the "step off, bitch!" tone of your address to f8x.
  • Your next (non-apologetic or non-specific) comment says that no president in the interim between Reagan and GWB has done anything good. I was being facetious. It seems that everyone, whether Republican or Democrat (or anyone in between) calls the current guy in office the worst plague to bedevil the days of man (to quote a Coen brothers' movie), and imagines that their policies are the worst ever, that they are responsible for all the ills, etc. ad nauseum. My point was meant to be read as sarcasm, but I guess it didn't come through like I intended. I can tell you from personal experience that he didn't leave things better than he found them, whether in California or as President, in this country. As I asked shawnj, this would be a good time to elucidate. What are your personal experiences with the governor/President that affected you so adversely?
  • And path, to answer the question you posed to goetter, I'll supply my response: I believe Reagan was a great President because he knew the pulse of this country the way no other President besides perhaps FDR knew it. He understood what people needed and wanted in a leader, and he understood the principles that made/make the United States a great nation. He strove to instill in Americans a renewed sense of pride in themselves and their country, their industries and jobs. He encouraged private enterprise and yet was not entrapped by an "all or nothing" policy regarding private research, science and medicine, or corporate enterprise. He demonstrated that he was not beyond learning new things--his complete policy reversal on nuclear disarmament is a testament to his ability to hear the American public and the world and to change in accordance with what was best for both. He also knew how to be firm--his demand that the Wall be torn down was both symbolically important and politically strategic. He was far less "dim" than has been implied, instituting an economic policy that, despite how it may have hurt localities and individual sectors, was OVERALL a boost and improvement to the lagging economy left over from Carter's administration and the Vietnam war. In fact, overall real GDP increased from 2.8% during the Ford-Carter years to 3.2% during the Reagan years (this includes the recession of the early 80's from reversal of Carter's anti-inflation policies). During the economic expansion alone, the economy grew by a robust annual rate of 3.8 percent. By the end of the Reagan years, the American economy was almost one-third larger than it was when they began. Adjusting for the economic growth rates to take account of demographic changes, economic expansion in the Reagan years looks even better and 1970's performance looks even worse. GDP growth per adult aged 20-64 in the Reagan years grew twice as rapidly, on average, as it did in the pre- and post-Reagan years. Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency. About the only thing that did not rise was the savings rate, which actually fell from 8% to 6.5% - given the successes of Reagan's economic policy overall, I'd say it's difficult to criticize, even if you were one whose savings suffered under his presidency. Especially given the mitigating circumstances surrounding that decrease in the savings rate. While it appears Reagan did not himself break the law with Iran-Contra, he had tacit knowledge of the various means of contravening civil law designed to limit presidential actions abroad. That was inexcusable and his flagrant disregard for the law set a terrible example and his refusal to admit to wrongdoing put a stain on the White House. Endorsement of his actions by anyone with respect for the law of the United States is simply unconscionable. However, I feel confident in saying his acts of decency, security, and international diplomacy in the face of immense pressures of the Soviet Union, the economic downturn of the late seventies/early eighties, and the growing AIDs crisis (myths that he was homophobic/anti-AIDs research have the same amount of water as a dried up well) demonstrate his strengths as a leader and a communicator, as well as a representative of a nation of people.
  • As an eulogy, it's hard to follow that, F8xmulder. I don't believe I have a panegyric for the man. ...the only reason Reagan was wonderful is that he was the precursor to GWB. On preview, that's where I stand. /damning with faint praise
  • Where is Ender Wiggin when you need him? weird, i just re-read ender's game for the first time in about a decade. as i re-read it i couldn't help thinking, "they let children read this, holy childhood trauma batman!" seriously, that it one disturbing book. metafilter: now with 20% more thread derailments.
  • oh, and margaret thatcher will never die because she (like Strom Thurmond, who faked his death) is a zombie.
  • Your guilty consciences may make you vote Democratic, but secretly you all yearn for a Republican president to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king! /Sideshow_Bob
  • metafilter: now with 20% more thread derailments MonkeyFilter: so much like the real thing, even the experts can't tell the difference!
  • monkeyfilter: now with more embarassed blushing
  • :-)
  • Your guilty consciences may make you vote Democratic, but secretly you all yearn for a Republican president to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king! If I was Republican, that would mean I had a lot more money than I actually have.
  • Your guilty consciences may make you vote Democratic, but secretly you all yearn for a Republican president to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king! I've always wondered what it's like being ruled by a king... If I was Republican, that would mean I had a lot more money than I actually have. I bet you make more than me ;-)
  • Well, assuming being ruled by a king is the same as being ruled by a queen, I doubt it feels any different to being ruled by a President.
  • Bush/Zombie Reagan in 2004. Good stuff.
  • dng: eh?
  • pete_best: I can't remember. I'm sure it made sense at the time...
  • I can't believe I missed this whole thread as it was happening. Poo! *weeps a bitter tear*
  • On the internet, nobody knows what time it is.
  • "Eulogies" from the rest of the world. So not everybody liked him after all.
  • Mark Morford: Enough With Reagan Already
  • Admin's blog, for all your yummy callout goodness. note that the callout wasn't started by me; I just want to see it off the front page.
  • *banana to th'bone*
  • for all the good that did. never let it be said that I didn't try to make this a kinder, gentler monkeyfilter...
  • I just want to tell you both good luck, we're all counting on you.
  • Then it's the pelvic thruuuuuu-uuuuust!
  • That really drives you in-say-yay-yaaaayne. Let us, if you will, do the time warp again.
  • NonSequiturFilter.
  • Meatloaf again!
  • Here's an actual conversation I had with a friend last night at a meeting. The group was about to order pizza... DOUG: I'm not going to have any; I have meatloaf in the oven. BONE: Like a bat out of hell? DOUG (laughing): Yeah, he's in there going, "Let me out!" BONE: He's screaming, "I would do anything for love... but I won't do that!
  • Damn it, Janet, I wanna scroooooooooo!
  • Now let's go fuck the man in the casket...
  • How many times did you folks see Rocky Horror? Did you go in costume? How many of you were on cast? My daughter claims to have coined most of the audience responses that spread from Palo Alto/Santa Cruz (CA) to the rest of the country some years ago. She was on cast and must have seen it at least 300 times. I think I've watched it twice, but have to tell you that sight of Tim Curry in fishnet stockings opened up some neurons that I hadn't recognized before. Or, maybe I didn't have to tell you. Anyway: ALL TOGETHER NOW, "Let's do the Time Warp again."
  • Great Scott!
  • I was on cast in Chula Vista, CA during the summer of 1990 (just before the start of my senioryear of HS). I had been going since 9th grade, and have therefore seen it a shitload of times. Unfortunately that theater closed toward the end of my senior year. I usually played Riff-Raff but did the role of Brad a few times as well. I also memorably did "Sweet Transvestite"- in full drag!- for a musical theatre class in high school (I went to a performing arts magnet where things like that were tolerated).
  • Ok, fess up, the rest of you. And, surlyboi, which thing were you great-scotting about?
  • A Reagan eulogy thread turned into a paean to men running around in fishnets. I love how the universe sometimes gives you a nice pat on the head like that.
  • There are and have been often those that say I look more like Tim Curry than I look like myself. Ergh. At least I didn't star in Congo.
  • if i were tim curry i wouldnt admit to starring in congo either, ergo you must be tim curry.
  • But, PF, how do you look in fishnet? That's the real test.
  • Hey, it's the traditional end-of-thread playground, which dates all the way back to Wolof's (I think) Turkmenbashi anagrams. Eons ago, in monkey years. Maybe it's because we're so sentimental that we can't bear to say "goodby."
  • Never tried fishnet. Here I am in the wild, however, and eighteen years old.
  • A friend of mine dressed up as Frank N. Furter for Halloween several years ago. His wife wouldn't let him out of the house because of what she called a "guppy-eye" problem.
  • Describe your balls!
  • Or should we say, "Dr. VON Scott!!", surlyboi??
  • Describe your balls! Heavy... black... pendulous...
  • Sweaty.
  • It was on a night OUT! it was on a night IN!!
  • Or should we say, "Dr. VON Scott!!", surlyboi?? Busted... Describe your balls! Chocolate, salty...
  • Nooo...surlyboi's...Isaac Hayes?!?
  • No, but he does consult me on all his songwriting...
  • Gee, surlyboi, you're certainly a man of many parts. *scurries off to update bio in Fan Club*
  • That's a rather tender subject . . .
  • Put 'em in your mouth!
  • Chocolate balls? Yummy!!!
  • many parts *members of Fan Club sit, daydreaming of the many, many parts of surly*
  • sheesh way to go OT homunculus . . .
  • From Ron Reagan (Jr) interview: Q: How did your mother feel about being ushered to her seat by President Bush? Reagan: Well, he did a better job than Dick Cheney did when he came to the rotunda. I felt so bad. Cheney brought my mother up to the casket, so she could pay her respects. She is in her 80's, and she has glaucoma and has trouble seeing. There were steps, and he left her there. He just stood there, letting her flounder. I don't think he's a mindful human being. That's probably the nicest way I can put it. snip If you are going to call yourself a Christian -- and I don't -- then you have to ask yourself a fundamental question, and that is: Whom would Jesus torture? Whom would Jesus drag around on a dog's leash? How can Christians tolerate it? It is unconscionable. It has put our young men and women who are over there, fighting a war that they should not have been asked to fight -- it has put them in greater danger.
  • How can Christians tolerate it? Meaning what? That my support of the war also includes tacit support, or at least toleration, of abuse at Abu Ghraib? Obviously, that's a ridiculous thing to say or imply.
  • What Would Black Moses Do?
  • Of course there's no necessary connection between the two, f8x. I think Reagan's statement was pointed more at those so-called Christians who were dismissive of allegations of torture, those who had the gall to try to categorize the abuse as a bunch of "fraternity pranks," as well as those who called themselves Christians and participated in the torture.
  • I for one share Ron Jr.'s outrage at the Mack Glibson movie "Torturing Jesus: Special Victims Unit". It was wholly dismissive of the entire Jesus-not-getting-tortured story. And, let's face it, the star of the film was struck by lightning twice. Helloooooo?
  • Then I absolutely agree with Reagan. I don't believe those who participated or supported what happened there are actually Christians. The question should be: How can those involved sully the name of Christ in such a manner? But then I remember we're all guilty of offense against Christ, and I'm no better than they...
  • Are all offenses created equal? I would hope not. Would suck to be stuck in ice for eternity with Judas and a moneylender for eating meat on a Friday.
  • I worry about people christing the name of Sully.
  • shawnj, interesting you should ask. Just got into this very issue with a Christian friend of mine. In terms of earthly moral weight, I suppose you could consider different sins to be unequal, but the spiritual motivations, or rather ramifications, for both (ergo, sin) are equal in terms of spiritual damage. I like to look at it this way: Say we were all perfect. If you went out and killed someone and I went and stole gum, our respective sins would still net us the same judgment in the eyes of God; that is, eternal damnation and separation from Him. While one sin may "trump" another in terms of temporal weight of consequence, without salvation, the eternal costs of two "unequal" sin are exactly the same.
  • Of course, I would never christ the name of Sully purposely. My apologies :-)
  • Your answer explains volumes about you. And I don't mean that as an attack on your faith. It's more of a realization about how your thought process works.
  • Yeah, I can't believe that it's all the same to God. It's a bit much for me to believe that in the eyes of God, somebody who lied about how many lovers he's had is in the same category as someone who raped his little sister or murdered an old lady or stood by and did nothing while someone else was committing an atrocity.
  • Romans 6:23 states sin's consequences: "For the wages of sin is death..." In the OT, God proscribes different penalties for different sins (see Exodus 22, Leviticus 20, etc). Matthew 11:23-24, Jesus says it would be easier for Sodom on the day of Judgment than for Capernaum because of Capernaum's unbelief. Luke 12:47:48 Jesus says that some who deserve punishment will be "beaten with many blows", and others "with few blows". And Jesus of course was most denuniatory toward the religious leaders than the sexually immoral or the thieves. HOWEVER given that, at the end of the day (as BBF once said), whether our sins are "great" or "small", without accepting salvation from Jesus, our sin separates us from God in a very real way. Hopefully that clarifies where I'm coming from. So yes, I can see the moral difference between stealing gum and killing thousands of people, but it nets me no gain if I do the former and not the latter, but don't accept salvation for it.
  • f8x: actually, wouldn't one be punished for the lack of belief even if he or she had committed no (other) sins? In fact, if you spent your whole like doing nothing but good works, wouldn't you still get a failing grade because of disbelief?
  • I demand more punitive deities!
  • You see this is the problem Wolof. Back in the good old days, any old tribe could come up with a patriarchal sky god and be rest-assured that milennia hence, its followers would have likely increased several-fold. Now it seems that if your not a tawdry sf author or skinny Indian guy, then your lucks out. As for Ron Jr., he must be suffering some congenital Alzheimers himself. After all, the School of Americas was in full effect during dad's Presidency.
  • must... resist... urge... to... respond... to... f8x.... (unplugs keyboard)
  • path: here's the thing: according to Scripture, good works alone can not 'save' you (Ephesians 2:8), but rather faith, ie. belief. So in a sense you are correct. Given that, however, a perfect individual with no sin would by extension believe in Jesus death for his/her salvation, otherwise he/she would be guilty of the sin of disbelief, thus imperfect. So your particular hypothetical couldn't actually exist... (Obviously I'm boiling things down quite a bit here - there's a whole history and theological study behind this issue, and I doubt I've made a very good go of explaining the ins and outs of salvation, etc. Sorry for my lacks, but hopefully it'll still prove useful.)
  • Oh and BTW, these are my personal beliefs that I'm espousing and trying to explain - don't take any of this as condemnation or anything like that; I'm certainly not trying to hijack MoFi with my personal faith. Just tell me when to shut up...
  • So, anyway, if the perfect individual had never heard of Jesus, would he/she still be condemned to hell? Or, if this perfect individual had been raised in another religion, and, even having heard about Jesus, would he/she be condemned, even though the person's faith was as strong as a Christian's in their own diety? I think you'll answer "yes" to both, but does that seem fair? Does it fit in with the "God is love" thing? This is the thing that upsets me most about the Bible religions. I can't believe that a just god would demand a leap of faith that many of us can't make even if we're otherwise good people. Why aren't acts considered? And the original sin thing just convinces me that your God holds a grudge for an incredible anount of time. That's pretty much what turned me away from Christianity when I was a teenager. The whole thing is just too tribal. I've felt weird about posting this since I don't normally take on religious arguments, but since you seem open to debate, is there anything that you can tell me, other than "just believe"?
  • path and f8x, nice derail. Please continue. I'm hooked on.
  • path: Oh goodness, so many good questions, and so little time to give a really adequate response. I'll do my best to address. Please forgive the following for lack of references to Scripture (I'd be here all night, and I should go to bed). Typing, typing...
  • So, anyway, if the perfect individual had never heard of Jesus, would he/she still be condemned to hell? This is open to debate even among Christian theologians. There seems to be enough evidence in the Bible to suggest that God makes a way for people to 'know' of him even if they've never heard of Jesus. I would be remiss to ignore or downplay the role of the Holy Spirit in speaking to people, even those who are not 'believers'. This is how many people came to be saved in various instances told in Acts. In one scripture, it's clear that God weighs the heart when judging the person, so one might surmise that this perfect person would have the kind of heart that God approves of. Again, this is just the sense I get as I read the Bible, but it's by no means the only interpretation. Or, if this perfect individual had been raised in another religion, and, even having heard about Jesus, would he/she be condemned, even though the person's faith was as strong as a Christian's in their own diety? There are stories of cultures of people who grew up worshipping a deity who was not named Jesus or Jehovah, yet exhibited all the characteristics of the Hebrew God. Were they believers? I'd like to think so. Who's to say God isn't called by another name by another tribe or people group? As for people who know the name of Jesus, they are, as Scripture says, "without excuse, for they have heard the truth but hidden from it" (paraphrase). Faith is not necessarily the thing that's in question, it's what the person's faith is in that counts. I think you'll answer "yes" to both, but does that seem fair? Does it fit in with the "God is love" thing? Subjective analysis always leads to flawed determination due to the inherent inability to view things apart from personal prejudices and dogmatic prepossessions. In other words, many just do not have the capacity to comprehend that a God of love can send anybody to hell for an eternity. Fair? Well, I imagine we consider ourselves pretty enlightened (and we are, made in the image and likeness of God). However, can the clay say to the potter, "why have you made me this way?" In the same way, I'm not sure that fairness is really the issue. If God really is the God that's described in the Bible, then He is absolutely the last word in terms of moral authority. The Bible calls God pure love, and pure good, and pure light. That implies a complete and utter lack of the opposite--dark, sin, hate, etc. So from here, we must do a short history lesson. This God (if He exists), created the universe ex nihilo, and as such it was endowed with Godly properties--"and He saw it was good." He also created the earth, water, plants, and finally mankind, which he called good as well. Everything was perfect, in every sense of the word. He endowed mankind with life and with soul and spirit, and a mind to consider all of creation and its Creator. God and man, then. And God created them because he loved them, and He wanted them to love Him too (for what creation doesn't love its Creator?) However, because God above all knows love, He knows it can't be forced (or it's not love). So mankind is given free will, and while this free will covers a lot of ground, for the first two of mankind, it simply meant I have the freedom to choose whether I will follow the Creator and His commandments, or I will not. They chose not. But in so doing, they not only rejected loving God, but they also instigated the domino effect of sin -- that is separation from God and His perfection. Indeed, Genesis tells of Adam and Eve hiding from God as He called out to them after they ate the fruit of the forbidden tree. More-->
  • God, being pure, is unable to violate His own Law ("light hath not fellowship with darkness"). Result: separation and removal. God still is love though, and pure "love doesn't stop loving even when wronged". He made a way for man to recreate the relationship through the sacrifice of innocent blood (only innocence can overturn corruption). Fast forward to Jesus, who as God's Son and God Himself, was perfect - He was Man as man was meant to be. Yes, he was tempted, but He did not choose separation from God, but chose to follow God's Law, and as God, was able to become the sacrifice to end all sacrifices - that's PURITY being sacrificed for all the sins ever, before or ever to come - pure INNOCENCE in place of the corruption of humanity. However, the caveat is that to benefit from this sacrifice which makes a way back to God possible, you must believe A) that Jesus is God, the Son of God, and B) that He really did die for your sins so that you could once again be joined with God. So now we come to your questions: How could a loving God send someone to hell even if they were basically good, if they hadn't 'accepted Christ'? Because their non-acceptance is as good as a rejection, since Jesus' sacrifice was the final word on sacrifices - nothing else suffices for salvation. (Okay, so a lot of that was condensed down, but hopefully that makes sense) More-->
  • This is the thing that upsets me most about the Bible religions. God is the one who has set the values for the function of all matter and forces in the universe - the uncaused cause which caused these effects. He has also set the standards by which men as free moral agents are to govern themselves. He allows men and women to decide for themselves how they will live, and what they will believe. Their choice is made, however, with full knowledge (whether they believe it or not) of the truth of their existence--that they are created beings who must one day answer for their violations against the Law of God. Human nature cannot be a judge of what is right and wrong, since human nature is fallible, flawed, and ultimately unreliable in moral judgments. God's determination, therefore, is what goes. Again, whether you believe it or not, is not the question. The clay may not believe that the potter has designed it a certain way or for a certain function, but that doesn't negate the fact that it has in fact been designed by the potter. And God, as the potter, is the ultimate judge of how well the clay conformed to its designation (obviously this is a limited analogy, so don't take it too far!). Moral absolutism is God's purview. I can't believe that a just god would demand a leap of faith that many of us can't make even if we're otherwise good people. Because God is sovereign and the Absolute, the Standard by which everything else is viewed and judged, He needs to offer no explanation or justification for how things are (even though Scripture is full of explanation). God is a holy and a righteous God who cannot compromise His essence in order to preserve a citizenry that is maladjusted to the demands of His holiness and righteousness - elements of His essence. Therefore, Jesus, who was the visible manifestation of the invisible God, vicariously satisfied the just requirements of the demands of God's holiness and righteousness on our behalf through His death, burial, and resurrection. We are thus afforded an opportunity to adjust to the justice of God, before the justice of God adjusts to us. Why aren't acts considered? And the original sin thing just convinces me that your God holds a grudge for an incredible anount of time. That's pretty much what turned me away from Christianity when I was a teenager. The whole thing is just too tribal. Isn't that the beauty of what God's set up? There is no acts of goodness or anything required for salvation - simply an acknowledgement of Jesus' resurrection and forgiveness. In every way, it really is a free offer. I'm super tired and need to go to bed. I'll catch up with this thread in the morning. Hope this helped...
  • Thank you for responding, F8x. It'll take me a little time to disgest your comments. See you on the flip side.
  • And, by the way, if any of the rest of you are distressed by this dialog, I think f8x and I could take it to email.
  • I'm distressed by religion, but not by your discussion.
  • Feh. Talk on.
  • What dj said. It's great to see a civilized discussion like this unfold. Bananas to you and f8x.
  • (btw, y'all are a couple of smart monkeys, which makes this debate fascinating to read. Thanks for sharing with us.)
  • Actually, f8xmulder, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference whether you have faith in Christ or not, or accept him into your heart, or anything for that matter. Only God decides who is saved and who isn't. Because St. Paul tells us in Romans 8:29 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren", then again in Romans 9:11 "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;", which means, basically, human salvation is predestined: it doesn't matter what you do in this life. So you're shit out of luck, mate. If that weren't the end of it, it turns out that this Jesus character is a false prophet by the standards of measurement the Bible itself uses to identify false prophets. After all, in all three of the Olivet Discourse accounts, Jesus predicts his return in a second coming and fulfillment of prophecy before any of the people living at the time he made the promise died. Most famously noted in Matthew 24:34. That was the first century. They're all dead. Christ didn't return. Only the delusional believe these things. And most Christians don't even understand the texts they supposedly revere as the word of god, let alone the history of the era that gave rise to them. And I can go on and on pointing out errors, logical failings, contradictions and basic historical faults in the bible all day. These are just for starters. Grow up and realise that it is an ancient mythology that failed, the teachings of its founder have been usurped not once, but many times, and that none of its promises will be vouchsafed to you. Belief in the bible created a dark age for humanity that lasted well over a thousand years. Some blessing.
  • Eh, I wouldn't be so quick to trash people's beliefs. Humanity would have had a dark age with or without religion. Humans as a whole are a pretty rotten lot. Religion is just an excuse for some of them to be more rotten to each other than usual. By the same token, if religion makes some of the people on this planet be less rotten to each other, then it's for the good. It's not the belief itself, but the application of said belief that's the problem. This can apply to any religion on Earth.
  • Reagan Sucks!! I would humbly and well-meaningly suggest we start a religion thread so that the sidebar and searches can reveal it more easiliy in the future
  • tres bizarre. thanks homunculus.
  • homunculus: MonkeyFilter's best source for news links.
  • It's hot way down here.
  • homunculus: MonkeyFilter's best source for news goatse links.
  • From Ron Reagan speech at Democratic National Convention.
    Now, there are those who would stand in the way of this remarkable future, who would deny the federal funding so crucial to basic research. They argue that interfering with the development of even the earliest stage embryo, even one that will never he implanted in a womb and will never develop into an actual fetus, is tantamount to murder. A few of these folks, needless to say, are just grinding a political axe and they should he ashamed of themselves. But many are well-meaning and sincere. Their belief is just that, an article of faith, and they are entitled to it. But it does not follow that the theology of a few should be allowed to forestall the health and well-being of the many. And how can we affirm life if we abandon those whose own lives are so desperately at risk?
    George W. Bush: Taking America on the bridge to the 12 century.
  • so that's where the brink of disaster is.
  • He had me at "catheter needle"; he had me at "catheter needle"... /jerry maguire
  • The Case Against George W. Bush, By Ron Reagan
  • Too bad he couldn't have given that as a speech at the DNC. Pretty powerful.
  • He said he actually would have declined if they'd asked him to give a speech like that, but I never did catch the reason why.
  • MCS:
    A few of you may be surprised to see someone with my last name showing up to speak at a Democratic Convention. Apparently some of you are not. Let me assure you, I am not here to make a political speech and the topic at hand should not
  • The Ron Reagan op-ed belongs on the front page.
  • Geez, once again Homunculus beats me to the punch (this time with the Ron Reagan story). Jesus H. Ganesha, are you ever offline? ;) of course; I loves the H-Dogg
  • No. *Cries*
  • *hands nuncly teeny leetle handkerchief*
  • Wedge -- Yeah, I heard that part too, but specifically what I'm wondering is why Reagan is so willing to criticize the Bush's administration in the press, but would have declined to do so for the DNC.
  • it makes sense to me. It's a totally different forum, the convention. He's got a singular agenda and if the spotlight's on, he'll pursue that one - outside of that environment he'll mention other things. Appearing at all was criticism enough, i thought.
  • I rediscovered this recently, and thought it was rather late to be adding it here. When I said as much, however, I was told, "Go thou, and pretend thou art homunculus." So, my favorite thing to come out of the Reagan years has to be this. (mp3) A little walk down Dr. Demento lane.
  • On MoFi, it is never to late to contribute to a thread. "Go thou, and pretend thou art homunculus." Excellent advice for anyone.
  • Freakin' homophobes.