Reagan-Haters: Bitterness and Hate from the Left
 

These comments were written by leftist columnist/cartoonist/idiot Ted Rall on his website, www.rall.com on October 26, 2003

http://www.rall.com/2003_10_01_archive.html
"Bottom line; Reagan was a stupid, vicious scoundrel who deserved prosecution for his role in Iran-Contra and October Surprise. He hurt America by turning its people against each other, by turning them selfish. He shan't be missed, and he shouldn't be mourned. "

No suprise now that Ted Rall is up to more hateful trash-talking about the late, great Ronald Reagan. If anyone saw the Hannity and Colmes on Tuesday, June 8, you were probably shocked and offended when Rall commented that Reagan was likely burning in hell (can't remember the exact quote, I'll have to wait for foxnews to post transcripts on their website). Ted Rall said some of the meanest, most hateful comments I'd ever heard about Ronald Reagan, all of which had NO factual basis. To say that Ronald Reagan is in hell during a national week of mourning when his family has not yet even buried him is just plain WRONG! Conservatives get accused all the time of being insensitive and judgemental, but liberals need to take a look at some of their own. I know this is one extreme example of hatred and bitterness from the left, and I know that most liberals don't feel that way at all, but the fact is, a lot of negative comments about Pres. Reagan are coming out from the left and are just meant to hurt, and defame this popular President, because they are worried that people remembering how great Reagan was will make George W. Bush look good. I think in the next few days the attacks against Reagan will get even worse because the left is horrified that Reagan's legacy will help George W.
Any other examples of left-wing politicians trying to defame Reagan that you know of? I know of many, and will be posting them soon, but this is already long enough, and I want some feedback. Thanks, and if you see Ted Rall in the streets, Give him a swift kick to the balls, do it for the Gipper!

John Kerry even flip-flops on Reagan
 

John Kerry Quotes about Reagan:

Listened to Rush Limbaugh on Tuesday, June 8 (I can already hear you liberals moaning), and he was commenting on Kerry and the Reagan thing. Very good comments in my book. You can check them out at http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...k_1.guest.html

And please Liberals, before commenting, take the time to read the artical, don't just come whining about Rush not being credible. He uses exact quotes and makes valid arguments.

I don't think I've seen any bitterness or hate from the left. Not really. At least no to the degree that some conservative folks want the public to think there is. Yes, there is always that vocal minority of leftist nutjobs, but I haven't really heard any credible leftist railing on about Reagan's inadequacies.

Jeez Pike,

Consider your sources and their agendas.

Truth is that no Democrats have been invited to speak in any of the activities. That's OK, there's no reason for them to.

But the reaction I heard this morning on NPR was that, while they would have been honored to be asked, it is really up to the Regan family and they respect their decisions and requests.

I remember the day President Kennedy was killed, hearing a guy I knew pretty well say, "Well, that'll teach him for beating Nixon." That was in the hall at our high school.

Anyone with that much passion on either side of the political aisle should see a therapist.

Rush Limbaugh and I have the same disease! Unfortunately his cyst didn't stay put and has invaded his vocal box and brain as well.

Like DeltAlum said, consider the source.

Yes Rush is nobody's favorite character but what are people arguing against? I can't tell because it looks as if people came on to just say consider the source.

-Rudey

Any comments on the Ted Rall issue? They don't come from Rush's website, they come from foxnews. I know Rush is to liberals what garlic is to vampires, so if you don't wanna look at Rush's website, look at my original post about Ted Rall, and tell me what you think about him. Do you condemn his statements?

I've never heard of Ted Rall until your thread. Obviously he's not that prominent of a liberal spokesman.

Rall is pretty much some dick who attempts to grab attention by being shocking.... the man has no grasp of decorum, decency or dignity when trying to express his views or opinions....

If you ever want to "research" him try going to Yahoo.com and looking at the political comics section in the news.

That's how he stays in the limelight though. He doesn't say anything of consequence. He just intentionally tries to make people angry by spouting useless crap. Does he have a real job?

I posted this in the "Desperate Clinton" thread -- so to those of you who read it there, I'm sorry to waste your time. But, because I'm so disgusted with what I'm reading, I'm going to copy it here.

"You know, I don't know why there is so much animosity in these discussions.

I caught a part of George H.W. and Barbara Bush on Larry King last night and he was saying what a nice conversation he, George W. and Bill Clinton had at the opening of the World War II Memorial recently. They just talked about general stuff and some old anecdotes.

Former Presidents of the United States are perhaps the smallest "fraternity" in the world -- and they always seem to value each other views and advice -- no matter which party they represent. That is especially true in times of crisis.

All of the rhetoric during the campaigns is pretty much that. Don't you ever wonder why, as soon as the election is over, usually everyone congratulates everyone else and the Republic goes on?

It's because, in the end, we're a whole lot more alike than different.

Finally, to end my little tirade, I find it disgusting that even the death of a great leader becomes grounds for attacking other leaders and contenders. I think that dilutes all of the good things and memories of the deceased.

For people like Drudge, Limbaugh, and the "liberal" guy (Rall(?), I've never even heard of him) are comtemptable for using this occassion for either political purposes -- or to simply advance their own agenda."

Well since some don't know who this sack of sh*t Rall is... here is a link to his website:

www.rall.com

I would have just posted his latest comic... but I don't care to inflict that on the rest of GC right now.

Here's the transcript of the Hannity and Colmes episode: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122264,00.html


One quote says:

"RALL: If you believe in heaven and hell, you've got to say, if anyone qualifies for hell it's a guy who lets five hundred thousand people died of AIDS. "


Reagan spent 6 BILLION dollars towards AIDS research! To say that Reagan did not do enough on the AIDS subject is ludacrist. And to say he "let" people die of AIDS? I suppose Reagan had the cure for AIDS in a lockbox or something.

I will agree with you all that this loser is a fanatic who just wants attention. I should have titled my thread "Bitterness and Hate from the FAR left." There's been a fair share of bitterness from other liberals, as well, like Dan Rather who commented that he thinks the Reagan coverage is too excessive. I'm sure Dan would much rather be covering Abu Gharib or something than honoring a late president. He's just afraid that remembering Reagan could possibly help out President Bush. There has been so much coverage of the Reagan events because the American people, for the most part, loved Reagan! It's supply and demand! The American people want to honor President Reagan! The American People want to be informed on these historic events. He won 49 States in his second election!

Why you gotta bring LUDACRIS into this? :confused:

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~dwinston/ludacris.jpg

LUDACRIS=the rapper
LUDICROUS=Rall. Rall is the Jerry Falwell of the far left. We all have our bastard cousins we want to keep in hiding 'cause they're just LUDICROUS, and he happens to be one of them. :)

Also, Pike--just so you know, Reagan didn't say the word AIDS in public until '85 as to not ruin his re-election chances with the Radical Reich. The 1980s AIDS discussions in the government were the work of C. Everett Koop.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm a bad speller. That's why I'm a chemistry major, not an English one.

What more do you think Reagan should have done with the AIDS crisis?

I got HOES!

In different area codes, area codes...

HOES HOES HOES!

Not only was he Surgeon General of the United States, but he is an Alpha Sigma Phi (Dartmouth chapter).

Okay, I'm going to double post this, but it's relevant in both threads.

Reagan's government spent almost 6 billion on AIDS research. It would seem to me that the assertion that he just let people die is a myth. If anyone remembers that far back (okay, I was like 5, but I watch the History Channel:p) we didn't even have a name for it at first. No one knew what it was. I've seen news footage where someone with "GRID" had a car wreck and there was blood on the ground, so HAZMAT was called!

Yes, there were (and are) depictions of Ronnie in the media that show him being darth-vaderesque in his approach to gays and AIDS. On that fairly recent CBS special written by Frank Gifford and later showed on Showtime, it had Mr Reagan saying "If you live in sin, you should die in sin" (or something to that effect) when Nancy was trying to convince him to do something about AIDS. And outright, complete, total fabrication.

The truth is that since the disease was discovered in 1982, Reagan gave it a fairly large amount of funding (considering the fact that at the beginning, the disease was not widespread and not very well known). During his administration, 5.727 BILLION dollars were spent on AIDS research. In 1986, he put AIDS In February 1986, President Reagan's blueprint for the next fiscal year stated: "[T]his budget provides funds for maintaining — and in some cases expanding — high priority programs in crucial areas of national interest…including drug enforcement, AIDS research, the space program, nonmilitary research and national security."

In 1989, he had ratcheted the AIDS budget up to 2.32 Billion dollars. I think Frank Gifford's CBS special on Reagan is a good example of why we shouldn't believe everything we see on TV.

That's funny...I've never seen that TV movie. In fact, I don't really watch much network TV, other than the news. I don't base my historical and political views on TV specials--that should be obvious at this point. :p If that's what you were trying to insinuate, well, bully on you.

Reagan's administration did as much as they could at that time--and a lot of the major push to even discuss the disease was because of Dr. Koop. Koop, not Reagan, deserves that credit. I'm sure that's true for any Surgeon General, regardless of political position and administration--in the way that he informs the administration on certain health issues that need to be discussed. The question wasn't "how much," it was "why so late." By the time that Reagan delivered his first speech on the AIDS crisis (it was AIDS by that point, not gay cancer or GRID), it was in response to the fact that much of "middle America" was becoming affected more and more.

I remember that far back pretty well. Hell, I televised the 1980 Republican Convention from Detroit when I worked there.

AIDS wasn't on anyone's radar scope back then. Nobody had even heard of it.

As I posted on another thread, Reagan didn't even know what it was until one of his Hollywood friends died of it and he asked the White House Physician about it according to one of his top aides at the time.

While there are a number of things Ronald Reagan can be taken to task for, I don't think this is one of them. Six Billion Dollars doesn't seem like much in today's government spending -- but it was pretty substantial then.

Remember, the US budget used to be counted in Billions -- not Trillions.

I agree that Reagan did all he could to combat AIDS, especially when there was so little known about it. The fact is, it was gonna spread no matter who was President, and a cure hasn't been found yet and it's 2004.

What gets me is that 'news' and propaganda sources that are just a bit left of center have been spreading the lie that he ignored the AIDS epidemic. And other complete and outright lies -- this is right after the man died by the way. Did anyone watch that joke of a TV special that Frank Gifford produced for CBS?

The only place I've heard the AIDS debate is from a caller (as oppossed to a guest or host) on NPR's "Talk of the Nation." The host and guest pretty well explained that Reagan simply wasn't aware of the disease at first.

As has been mentioned above, it's important to remember the historical context and basic ignorance (even in the medical community to some extent) of AIDS in the early 80's.