america-james-garner-reagan.jpg (JPEG Image, 919 × 500 pixels)

Posted by MikeGoodman59 9 years, 10 months ago to Politics
104 comments | Share | Flag

Garner, a true American hero, in my book. Any comments on the Reagan "hysteria?" Plenty to disagree with Reagan on. Could have voted for him but didn't. No regrets. Surely better than Mondale/DuKaka.
SOURCE URL: https://sheriffali.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/america-james-garner-reagan.jpg


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 11
    Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 10 months ago
    Could be that the goals of SAG (and perhaps Garner) were not the goals of Reagan.

    Could be that Reagan's political ideas made him a less than perfect fit to run SAG, but made him a much better fit as a conservative POTUS.

    Could be that Reagan cared more about America than he cared about the Screen Actors Guild.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 11
    Posted by JeffG 9 years, 10 months ago
    I always liked Garner but history proves him wrong about Reagan's Presidency. Reagan had a few words about "some wall" over in Europe somewhere. As I recall, the entire world listened to him and our enemies obeyed. Little different than what we see today.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 9 years, 10 months ago
      Iran-Contra.

      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Rocky_Road 9 years, 10 months ago
        I am pasting Hiraghm's hidden comment, since I find it 'dead nuts on target':

        "Yeah... a brilliant strategy.

        Overcharge Iran for weapons to use against Iraq, then use he excess amount to fund the Contras that the communists in Congress wouldn't let us support in their fight against the communists of central America.

        Brilliant."

        P.S. Why is Hiraghm being censored? I find his input very refreshing....

        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by mccannon01 9 years, 10 months ago
        Ollie North is a hero.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by UncommonSense 9 years, 10 months ago
          Negative. Ollie is a puppet, just doing what he is told. Lt. Colonels DO NOT have that much power...ever. I've held that view since Iran-Contra broke out when I was 16. I still hold that view today, being retired military and fully understanding what O-5's are truly responsible for. Again, Ollie is, and always will be a puppet for the elite.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by mccannon01 9 years, 10 months ago
            UncommonSense, I respect your opinion, but puppet or not, I watched him stand before congress and read his book on the matter. To me, he is a hero who stood up for what was right regardless of the crap that could befall him. No different than the trials of Howard Roark or Hank Rearden in our favorite novels.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 10 months ago
      Well...there was that amnesty thing he did.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Rocky_Road 9 years, 10 months ago
        Another insight from silenced Hiraghm:

        "Yup, he made the mistake of making a deal with progressives and expecting them to hold up their end."

        This happened to Reagan more than once...!

        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Rocky_Road 9 years, 10 months ago
          (Posted by Hiraghm 49 minutes ago)

          Happened to Bush more than once too. And Bush senior. And Ford. And Nixon. And Boehner. Seeing a pattern? :)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 10 months ago
            What? That liberal/progressives will say anything to further their agenda? They play "by any means necessary" including lying. They have klansmen, philanderers and outright rapists in their leadership ranks, and see no problem with that, but let one slip into the R ranks and they raise holy hell. Even though David Duke was denounced by nearly every R, anyone who gets within a hundred miles of him is smeared as a racist, and poor old Bob Packwood was drummed out of the Senate.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Rocky_Road 9 years, 10 months ago
              Agreed.

              The Democrats are much better than the Republicans when it comes to "the end justifies the means." They definitely have focus, and a taste for the jugular...!

              It is kind of like dealing with terrorists...the GOP needs to learn from the Democrats, and adapt their methods.

              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 9 years, 10 months ago
      Reagan's words were written for him, decided by a junto of right wing power brokers.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by woodlema 9 years, 10 months ago
        No different than, Nixon, Carter, Clinton, Bush, Obama, or any of the rest...so your point is???
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Rocky_Road 9 years, 10 months ago
          Reagan's most famous line,
          "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" was not provided to him, but adlibbed.

          This was the beginning to the end of the cold war...which Reagan won.

          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by woodlema 9 years, 10 months ago
            I agree, however over the course of history, rarely has any president "adlibbed." The VAST majority are speeches handed to them by speech writers, flossed, and parsed and time spent on "focus groups" to provide the least controversial messaging.
            Also Reagans' "Tear down this wall" was not what won the cold war. It was won when Reagan increased our military spending by a couple percent forcing the Russians into complete insolvency trying to keep up.

            I would venture a guess that you would really have to go back to Lincoln and before to find presidents that gave speeches they themselves wrote and gave.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Rocky_Road 9 years, 10 months ago
              I was agreeing with you comment (that was my Thumbs Up), not arguing.

              And I did say 'This was the beginning to the end of the cold war...', not that the quote finished it.

              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 10 months ago
            Well, not really ad-libbed, but certainly against the advice of all his state dpt advisors.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Rocky_Road 9 years, 10 months ago
              Adlibbed in the sense that it was not in his prepared speech, but added 'on the fly' at the conclusion.

              If history is accurate, no one but Reagan knew this was going to be said...and that fits the definition of adlib perfectly!

              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 10 months ago
                That's not accurate. He went back and forth with the state dpt on whether to push Gorbachev so hard. The state dpt people didn't want to do that and advised against, but Reagan said it anyway and told them to deal with it.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 10 months ago
    I'm not sure we need presidents with original thoughts. They need to be great leaders and surround themselves with great people.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 10 months ago
      I agree, but that isn't what gets elected, because for some reason the populace has been told that our Commander-in-Chief is supposed to be the BEST at a whole litany of things: an absurdity. The President is supposed to be:

      A consummate orator. Yeah, right. That's what teleprompters, pre-written speeches, and media lackeys are for. That's why Obama has never taken questions from the White House Press Corpse. (pun intended)

      A consummate politician. This one's a logical fallacy. You didn't get voted into office to compromise. You ran on a platform of ideas and getting a majority to buy into those ideas. The politicians (see John McCain) who can't differentiate themselves from their opponents universally lose.

      A consummate international negotiator. If you're not getting an "Oslo Accords" done during your Presidency, you're just not successful. Nevermind how well these "treaties" actually work out. Please. Leave such to the State Department and the Senate (for Ratification).

      A movie star. It only really worked with Reagan. But it's great for hosting fundraisers!

      A trial lawyer. Actually, this one is vital if you want to play the system or evade the laws entirely.

      A professional golfer. Obama's lowered his game from an average of 100 strokes to just 80. Of course he's been on the links more than any other President in history...

      A Teacher. Because that seat in the ivory tower is just so compelling as a reason for people to listen to you.

      A Community Organizer. This one is politically necessary because you need to stir up trouble and inflame emotions for your pet cause.

      A Police Chief. Because you know he has to have an opinion on every random legal violation that happens... Please. That's what the Justice Department is for.

      Commander-in-Chief. Now this one actually is part of the real job description. But Hitler lost WW II for Germany because of his constant intervention. Sound familiar? No. The job of the C-in-C is to lobby Congress about when it is necessary to go to war and that's about it. Leave everything about the prosecution of the war to the Pentagon.

      A perfect economist. Actually, of ALL the other jobs, this is the one I wish the President really DID have a sound background in, as it affects EVERYTHING else. What's the #1 predictor in an election year? Hint: it isn't abortion, religion, gay rights, or entitlements... It's the economy, stupid.

      For me, I'd much rather have a President who recognized his/her limitations, had a solid foundation of rational ideals, and knew how to effectively use the CABINET (look up how many times Obama has even met with his Cabinet and compare that to the number of times he's met with Valerie Jarrett...) to come up with courses of action. Of course my idea of a Presidential Cabinet has only about 2-3 members of any import...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 10 months ago
        The part of the populace that believes a single person can embody all this probably also believes in Santa Claus.

        Agree, any good leader (CEO, POTUS, even an engineering manager) recognizes their limitations, and supplements with other smart people.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 9 years, 10 months ago
    Comparing how someone ran a union (which reeks of socialism) with being president, proves, as good an actor as Garner was, he should have stuck to just that.
    Reagan loved this country and warned people before he became president, about communism. Yes, he made concesssions to the CFR, like keeping the Dept. of Education, but he spoke up for this country. No, he did not end the Cold War, it never did end, communists decided to take over from within instead - and have moved into our school systems. Thank you CFR! I loved Ed Asner on Mary Tyler Moore, and the actors loved him as head of their union, but his ideas were pure socialism and really awful. So, how someone tries to appease a union full of socialists and communists is no way to judge a president who should love this country. Reagan was as good as we have seen for many years.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mccannon01 9 years, 10 months ago
    I voted for Reagan twice and have NO apologies for doing so, whatsoever. Good leaders set the tone of their nation and his was strong and positive. The lefties hated him and still do to this day, which is a giant plus in my book! On foreign policy he bowed and apologized to no one for America's role in the world and even pressed the Russians into ending the cold war: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" and down the wall came. Eisenhower blinked to Kruschev, Kruschev blinked to JFK, everyone blinked to Reagan and the guy had a great sense of humor while doing it, too. Domestically, he inherited a mess for a country and set to work fixing it. He didn't waste his time whining, hand wringing, and blaming his predecessors. IMHO, the boom of the 90's rested on the policies he set in the 80's and we all benefited. His tax cuts, hated by the left, meant a bigger paycheck to blue collar workers, including yours truly, which allowed me to start an investment program allowing me to retire above SS beggar status (if I recall at the time the left wasn't concerned with tax cuts for the workers, they wanted more taxes so they could distribute it in the form of bigger welfare checks - glad Reagan got his way). I owe that one to the Gipper, for sure!

    So, although I like Garner's acting abilities, his opinion sucks.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 9 years, 10 months ago
    I recall that as quickly as Reagan was elected president, Iran released the hostages.
    The Iranians were so afraid of Reagan, they did not want to wait for the man to be sworn in.
    Diss Reagan if you want, but just getting that peanut brained Jimmy Carter out of office may be the best thing he ever did.
    Uh, besides freeing millions of East Germans . .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 10 months ago
    Reagan had the talent to gather people around him
    who were strong u.s.-loving constitutionalists, I think,
    with whom he was able to lead this nation. . we need
    that kind of leadership now. -- j

    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by plusaf 9 years, 10 months ago
      Absolutely NEED those people, but I can't seem to find any.... Last 'leader' I recall respecting was Eisenhower. HS Truman was 'better for the Country' than just about anyone who followed....

      ... In My Never-So-Humble Opinion (imnsho)...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 10 months ago
    There was no one then or now that espoused the tenets of Objectivism. Damn few of those who even came close. If others fostered Reagan's ideas or speeches, at least he chose good ones for the most part. In politics, as in every thing else, talk is cheap unless it is acted upon. Reagan acted with courage and consistency. Yes he made mistakes, and when you're president, the slightest error magnifies from a razor's edge into a mountain range. I can admire Garner for his outspokenness, but he is both right and wrong at the same time. As it turns out, it is the right way to run a presidency, at least compared to others.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Rocky_Road 9 years, 10 months ago
      " I can admire Garner for his outspokenness,..."

      Which isn't always a virtue.

      Al Gore is outspoken...as is Al Sharpton...and too many pundits on MSNBC.

      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by plusaf 9 years, 10 months ago
        Rocky, that was great.... admiring Garner for outspokenness...
        Most of the 'actors' of Garner's ilk and after are, on average 'outspoken' about their beliefs AND enjoy the mass media's providing them the bully pulpit to speak from...

        But they are also the epitome of people who "get handed speeches to present," too!

        And then they have the nerve to critique Reagan for having done it? Talk about hypocrisy!

        Obama's TelePromptErs provide better speeches than most actors do today...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Eudaimonia 9 years, 10 months ago
    I looked up Garner on Wikipedia.
    It seems he was a Democrat activist.
    He was so radical that he refused to play one specific role unless the political affiliation of the character was changed from Republican to Democrat.

    Knowing that he was that ideologically driven, it is no surprise that he could find little positive to say about Reagan.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bnew64 9 years, 10 months ago
    Garner is entitled to his opinion. As we all are....I disagree, however....and besides , no one is perfect, Reagan wasn't, but much better then what we have to work with now I'm afraid to say.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Knute1 9 years, 10 months ago
    I encourage everyone to read the book "Reagan in his own hand". It contains many of his radio broadcasts that he did before he became president. I'm sure to many on this site he wasn't enough of a libertarian but I believe he had the right idea about shrinking the size and scope of the federal government His worst mistake was his selection of VP which at the time seemed like the logical choice, but has spawned the big government republican GW43 and now Jeb.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Rocky_Road 9 years, 10 months ago
      Jeb was my governor for two terms, and I can attest to his reducing our government, and educational bureaucracy, to the point that state workers and teachers unions demonized him.

      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Knute1 9 years, 10 months ago
        Common core
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Rocky_Road 9 years, 10 months ago
          States are handling this on an individual basis (as it should be).

          Jeb got many charter schools started, in spite of the rabid attacks from the teacher's union. They have been a godsend....

          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Knute1 9 years, 10 months ago
            I'm glad Jeb did good work in Florida But if it is a Clinton vs Bush in 2016 race I think I may throw up
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by bnew64 9 years, 10 months ago
              I will not vote for another Bush. Period. Nor will my wife...and I think most of the country won't either. Really....is this the best the Republicans have to offer?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Rocky_Road 9 years, 10 months ago
                This is your quote from earlier today:
                "... no one is perfect, Reagan wasn't, but much better then what we have to work with...."

                Now: if it comes down to Jeb vs. Hillary, why wouldn't your above proclamation get you to the polls?





                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by bnew64 9 years, 10 months ago
                  The two comments are not comparable. I also didn't say I wouldn't vote, just not for Bush. And like I said, Reagan was much better then what we have to work with now, including Jeb. I truly hope our country is beyond "Jeb vs Hillary". And to be honest, I have every right to go on Strike when it comes to voting.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Rocky_Road 9 years, 10 months ago
                    No one questioned your "right" to not vote...just your pretzel logic for letting another Progressive into the White House.

                    Rational thought is supposed to reign in here....

                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by bnew64 9 years, 10 months ago
                      Wow...really? LOL....you only seem to read and comprehend what you want....
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by Rocky_Road 9 years, 10 months ago

                        Your exact statements:
                        "I will not vote for another Bush. Period. Nor will my wife...."
                        " I also didn't say I wouldn't vote, just not for Bush."

                        By your own words, if Jeb is running you will not give him your vote. Therefore, you will have given the Progressive candidate a vote.

                        That, my friend, is biting off your nose to spite your face.

                        Illogical...and bordering on childish.

                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 10 months ago
                          No... if it's Jeb or Hillary and one choses not to vote it's called saving yourself 20 minutes. Why vote for Jeb????? Is it principled to vote for evil? I cant even say "the lesser of two evils" in this instance. Either way... evil is evil and I won't vote out of some blinding patriotic duty that would only make me an accomplice. Okay, let me have it rocky.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by Rocky_Road 9 years, 10 months ago
                            There is nothing "evil" about Jeb Bush...he was one of Florida's finest (and conservative) governors.

                            Hillary does, however, fit the evil definition quite well.

                            I saw my first 2016 bumper sticker today: "I am ready for Hillary". I sat behind that Prius and marveled how he could drive bent over, with cheeks spread...!
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 10 months ago
                              Jeb is a strong proponent of Common Core, Rocky! He's a socialist in a "conservative's" clothing. He might be Florida's 'finest' but that's not saying much. By the way, I heard Marco Rubio talking the other day and he's sounded a bit leftist himself..I wish I had a sound bite, but he was THIS close to saying "the greater good". Like I've said before...the only difference between Hillary and Jeb is that one of them is clean shaven.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Rocky_Road 9 years, 10 months ago
              Your vote is needed...bring a barf bag!

              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Knute1 9 years, 10 months ago
                I'm for Rand Paul. I think he is the only candidate who believes and understands the constitution and the limited powers the executive branch holds
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Rocky_Road 9 years, 10 months ago
                  Let's see if he can gain some traction.

                  I 'wasted' my last vote making a 'statement' on Ross Perot...!
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 10 months ago
                    That was NOT a 'wasted' vote! I wasted vote is when you vote for someone because they're not as bad as the other guy.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by Rocky_Road 9 years, 10 months ago
                      Of course it was...I played a part in putting Bill Clinton in power.

                      I voted emotionally...not intelligently.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 10 months ago
                        So you should have voted for someone you didn't believe in then? Voting for the lesser of two evils to keep the bigger evil from getting into office instead of voting for the guy you want to be president is what you SHOULD have done?
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by Rocky_Road 9 years, 10 months ago
                          Of course that would have been in my best interest. I venture to guess that 99.9% of Perot voters would have preferred to see Bill Clinton finish in third place. We managed to move him from losing, to winning.

                          Like I pointed out: I inadvertently (read: stupidly) helped Bill Clinton move into the WH.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 10 months ago
                            Voting for someone you don't want is in your 'best interest'??? You didn't vote for Clinton, so you didn't help him. You voted for Perot. It is not principled to vote for someone for President when you don't want that person to be President. Can you argue that that could be a principled move? A vote for Perot was not a vote for Clinton, it was a vote for Perot. A vote for a person you WANT to be President cannot also be a vote for someone you DON'T want to be President. You can only vote for one person.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by Rocky_Road 9 years, 10 months ago
                              My memory says that Perot either got 12%, or 15% of the total vote...enough to let Clinton win.

                              You are totally wrong to assume that I didn't want Bush Sr. in office. I was simply more attracted to Ross Perot. If I had used my head, and not my heart, I would have realized that the "big sucking sound" Perot was talking about was going to be the 15% conservative vote that would have sent the Clintons back to Hope (or was it Grope) Arkansas....

                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 10 months ago
    I beg to differ. Reagan had the right ideas, except for way too much faith in the Congresscritters and in the prospects of negotiation and compromise with them. Now we know how that turned out, hopefully President Rand Paul will know better.

    And you mention that Reagan had a speechwriter? I can't believe I'm the only one here who's been a libertarian long enough to know the name Karl Hess. Wikipedia has a half-decent page about him, though they don't mention that Hess was a convicted tax resister who avoided ever paying by putting everything he owned in his wife's name. A hero in my book.

    As for Garner, he's just a lefty like everyone else in Hollywood. But at least he's not as loudmouthed as Mel Gibson (or knows better than to drink as much as Gibson does).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 10 months ago
    Whoa...them is some wooords. I always loved James Garner, but I've never heard this quote before...very interesting. I just saw him in the Notebook recently. :(
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 9 years, 10 months ago
    I heard Ronald Reagan's "stump speech" in 1968 at a rally for Ohio congressman John Ashbrook. (William F. Buckley, Jr., was also a speaker at that event.) I even got Reagan's autograph on the program. So, it was hard for me to come to the realization that Reagan's commitment was emotional, not intellectual. His speech writers told him what to say. Ronald Reagan had few, if any, original ideas. Moreover, it is significant that Ayn Rand refused to endorse him specifically because of his liaison with the Christian Right. That was born out in many ways, but for me, chief among them was the fact that James Watt refused a permit for the Beach Boys to play on the Reflecting Pool of the Washington Monument on July 4, calling them "the wrong element." The Beach Boys then pulled their string: Nancy Reagan. They got the gig. But note that Nancy Reagan consulted astrologers. At best, the Reagan Administrations was a mixed bag; and Ronald Reagan was just the "aggie" -- someone else was doing the "shooting."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Ranter 9 years, 10 months ago
      Yes, people wrote speeches for Ronald Reagan, but he never delivered them. He always rewrote them in his own words. Every speech he made he, personally, wrote out by hand. Yes, he was supported by the Christian right. Had he not been, he could neither have been nominated nor elected. No Republican can be nominated or elected without at least the tacit approval of the Christian right. In my opinion, he was the greatest President since Abraham Lincoln.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by plusaf 9 years, 10 months ago
      I also noticed that Reagan's personal beliefs about homosexuals and AIDS probably (in my estimation) delayed research into treatment or cure for the better part of ten years, too! I hated him for that, but could never fault him for his 'love of country.'

      I LOVE the US (too) but don't go to extremes on either side, so I still can't, in good 'faith' (so to speak) vote a conservative OR liberal ticket.

      And most candidates' party platforms prevent them from achieving any 'balanced view' that I COULD support!

      Yes, I feel very lonesome, that way.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo