Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Townhall)   Reagan would not have supported gay marriage: as the only divorced President, he insisted on teaching youngsters the beauty of a lifelong relationship between husband, wife, and ex-wife   (townhall.com) divider line 101
    More: Ironic, Ronald Reagan, interpersonal relationship, beauty, Patti Davis  
•       •       •

821 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 May 2013 at 10:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



101 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-02 09:24:51 AM  
Of course he would not have supported gay marriage. Although his track record with gay rights during his presidency was hit-or-miss, he was the guy who remained silent while thousands of people died from AIDS because it was thought of as a 'gay disease.'
 
2013-05-02 09:29:05 AM  
Who gives a shiat?
 
2013-05-02 09:30:33 AM  
 
2013-05-02 09:31:31 AM  

James!: Who gives a shiat?


Cultists like this author.
 
2013-05-02 09:34:20 AM  

kronicfeld: James!: Who gives a shiat?

Cultists like this author.


I'm going to start marketing "What would Reagan DO?" t-shirts and nice leather bound pocket editions of his speeches that they can take everywhere.  I'll be rich!
 
2013-05-02 09:39:11 AM  

James!: kronicfeld: James!: Who gives a shiat?

Cultists like this author.

I'm going to start marketing "What would Reagan DO?" t-shirts and nice leather bound pocket editions of his speeches that they can take everywhere.  I'll be rich!


That's actually not a bad idea.
 
2013-05-02 09:44:24 AM  

kronicfeld: Cultists like this author.


Wow, I was joking but this guy works for a school that literally worships Reagan:

Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Vision_and_Values

The Annual Ronald Reagan Lecture series, which is held around Feb. 6 each year, the day of Reagan's birth. The lecture aims to bring to light Ronald Reagan's contributions to America and to history. Each year, the Center hosts an individual who worked for, knew or has produced important work on the 40th President. Michael Reagan, Reagan's adopted son, and nationally syndicated talk show host was the first guest lecturer. Edwin Meese III, Reagan's Chief of Staff, U.S. Attorney General and close friend and advisor, was the second guest lecturer.
 
2013-05-02 09:44:41 AM  

Aarontology: James!: kronicfeld: James!: Who gives a shiat?

Cultists like this author.

I'm going to start marketing "What would Reagan DO?" t-shirts and nice leather bound pocket editions of his speeches that they can take everywhere.  I'll be rich!

That's actually not a bad idea.


I'm actually thinking about this.  All of his speeches with important quotes in red.  A nice gold foil cross on the front because why the fark not?
 
2013-05-02 09:48:57 AM  
Oh shiat! And I'll put out an Annotated Reagan with commentary by republican luminaries for every speech and sell it for $200 bucks a pop.  People will eat that shiat up.
 
2013-05-02 09:50:39 AM  
Ronald Reagan? THE ACTOR?
 
2013-05-02 09:51:38 AM  

James!: I'm actually thinking about this. All of his speeches with important quotes in red. A nice gold foil cross on the front because why the fark not?


I see what you're doing there.

And I love it.
 
2013-05-02 09:54:19 AM  
And competing editions!  It'll be basically the same content but it'll seem as though it's from two companies with the speeches in slightly different orders.
 
2013-05-02 09:55:08 AM  

James!: And competing editions!  It'll be basically the same content but it'll seem as though it's from two companies with the speeches in slightly different orders.


Will there be any versions in the original Arabic?
 
2013-05-02 09:55:15 AM  

James!: And competing editions!  It'll be basically the same content but it'll seem as though it's from two companies with the speeches in slightly different orders.


Break it up by first and second terms so you can sell double the books.
 
2013-05-02 09:56:38 AM  

FirstNationalBastard: James!: And competing editions!  It'll be basically the same content but it'll seem as though it's from two companies with the speeches in slightly different orders.

Will there be any versions in the original Arabic?


SIDE BY SIDE LATIN AND ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS!!  That edition will be $75.
 
2013-05-02 09:57:09 AM  

Aarontology: James!: And competing editions!  It'll be basically the same content but it'll seem as though it's from two companies with the speeches in slightly different orders.

Break it up by first and second terms so you can sell double the books.


I like that.
 
2013-05-02 10:04:54 AM  
Back then a lot of people that now support marriage equality were less evolved. Times change, speculation about a dead guy is just silly.
 
2013-05-02 10:22:07 AM  

Cythraul: Of course he would not have supported gay marriage. Although his track record with gay rights during his presidency was hit-or-miss, he was the guy who remained silent while thousands of people died from AIDS because it was thought of as a 'gay disease.'


it wasn't just because it was a gay disease (although that played a part). It was also an STD. So there was a double stigma whammy. But I understand that Reagan did start to prioritize research funding after Rock Hudson died. And Reagan wasn't the only one to change their views because of Hudson... for a lot of people in America, Hudson's death was the moment when they realized that real people were suffering and would die from AIDS. But for younger people it was Magic Johnson*.

*I'm currently in the process of assisting with the editing for an article on the history of HIV/AIDS in Brazil and had to pick a person that Americans would know as the face that change their perception of AIDS to compare him to the equivalent person in Brazil. I picked Magic, because I figured more people would know about him today than Rock Hudson. BTW. For those of you that may want to know... in Brazil it was a man known as Betinho. He was a renowned political activist that opposed Brazil's military dictarship. He was infected along with his brother because they were both hemophiliacs. His activism cleaned up the blood supply which had been unregulated until then and he also pushed Brazil to have sensible AIDS policies (and he didn't make an issue about how he got the disease from a blood transfusion instead of sex) Brazil is considered one of the best case studies on how to address the spread of HIV in the developing world. </CSB>
 
2013-05-02 10:24:39 AM  
Even when they got older the Reagans would still have fun in bed.  Ron would fart and then hold Nancy's head under the covers.

/good times
 
2013-05-02 10:27:47 AM  

Cythraul: Of course he would not have supported gay marriage. Although his track record with gay rights during his presidency was hit-or-miss, he was the guy who remained silent while thousands of people died from AIDS because it was thought of as a 'gay disease.'


In the early 80's, it WAS a gay disease.

Reagan was pretty tolerant for a man of his generation.  Just remember how much time he spent in Hollywood.

And Reagan was the first (R) to steal a lot of white southern voters from the Dems, so he could hardly appear to support gay rights and still hold that demographic.
 
2013-05-02 10:28:20 AM  
Only brain-dead teatards give a f*ck what Reagan would think.
 
2013-05-02 10:31:21 AM  

James!: Aarontology: James!: And competing editions!  It'll be basically the same content but it'll seem as though it's from two companies with the speeches in slightly different orders.

Break it up by first and second terms so you can sell double the books.

I like that.


I don't, I'll post my complaints on a door proclaiming FDR was the true spirit of 'meruca!
 
2013-05-02 10:39:44 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Even when they got older the Reagans would still have fun in bed. Ron would fart and then hold Nancy's head under the covers.


Ah, so that's where he got the nickname "Dutch" from!
 
2013-05-02 10:46:12 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Cythraul: Of course he would not have supported gay marriage. Although his track record with gay rights during his presidency was hit-or-miss, he was the guy who remained silent while thousands of people died from AIDS because it was thought of as a 'gay disease.'

In the early 80's, it WAS a gay disease.

Reagan was pretty tolerant for a man of his generation.  Just remember how much time he spent in Hollywood.

And Reagan was the first (R) to steal a lot of white southern voters from the Dems, so he could hardly appear to support gay rights and still hold that demographic.


It was not the early 80's, it was 1987 when he finally spoke publicly on the subject. By that time, there were plenty of hemophilia related HIV cases and the virus had made a significant jump to the straight community.
 
2013-05-02 10:48:28 AM  
Newt is my favorite advocate of "family values"
 
2013-05-02 10:51:50 AM  

FirstNationalBastard: Ronald Reagan? THE ACTOR?


He ran a tight fiscal ship with Jack Benny as Secretary of the Treasury.

And Jack Benny always had this gay vibe about him, so Reagan liked gays.
 
2013-05-02 10:52:39 AM  
"I also think because he wanted government out of peoples' lives, he would not understand the intrusion of government banning such a thing. This is not what he would have thought government should be doing."

That's a strange argument.  Applying for a marriage license invites the government into your personal life.  Banning gay marriage does not expand government.  Expanding the definition of marriage expands government and puts government into the lives of more people.
 
2013-05-02 10:56:03 AM  

SkinnyHead: "I also think because he wanted government out of peoples' lives, he would not understand the intrusion of government banning such a thing. This is not what he would have thought government should be doing."

That's a strange argument.  Applying for a marriage license invites the government into your personal life.  Banning gay marriage does not expand government.  Expanding the definition of marriage expands government and puts government into the lives of more people.


Well bless your little heart for making sure homosexuals don't get the government into their lives that they explicitly asked for.
 
2013-05-02 10:56:17 AM  

SkinnyHead: "I also think because he wanted government out of peoples' lives, he would not understand the intrusion of government banning such a thing. This is not what he would have thought government should be doing."

That's a strange argument.  Applying for a marriage license invites the government into your personal life.  Banning gay marriage does not expand government.  Expanding the definition of marriage expands government and puts government into the lives of more people.


No, it doesn't.  Any homosexual in the United States who wants to get married already has the government all up in his shiat.
 
2013-05-02 10:57:33 AM  
What Would Jesus Reagan Do?
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-02 10:57:47 AM  

James!: kronicfeld: James!: Who gives a shiat?

Cultists like this author.

I'm going to start marketing "What would Reagan DO?" t-shirts and nice leather bound pocket editions of his speeches that they can take everywhere.  I'll be rich!



On the back, along the shoulder, you can have things like "Cut and Run in Lebanon." or "Put mentally ill people on the streets."
 
2013-05-02 10:57:50 AM  
"This is not the first time liberals have rushed to recast Reagan according to their policy preferences."

--Deal made to hold hostages until swearing in
--Laying a wreath at a Waffen-SS cemetery AFTER saying the following:
At a press conference on March 21, 1985, Reagan explained that "since the German people have very few alive that remember even the war, and certainly none of them who were adults and participating in any way ... they have a feeling and a guilt feeling that's been imposed upon them."
--selling arms to Iran
--running drugs in Central and South America
--training death squads from Central and South America at US military bases in the United States
--ignoring AIDS since it was the queer flu
--letting hundreds of Marines and other military be blown to bits by terrorists in Lebanon

I could go on but I'm too busy laughing at people who think telling the truth about that incompetent, racist, mentally-deficient criminal is somehow "recasting".

And the GOP, so desperate to find tax-cutting heroes, latched onto and named an airport after him. So sad.
 
2013-05-02 10:58:02 AM  
You know, I understand why some people admire the man, up to a point, but even when you idolize someone, you've got to see them in the context of their times.

Look, on the whole, I respect the hell out of Thomas Jefferson, but I sure as hell wouldn't look to him for his opinions on slavery.
 
2013-05-02 10:58:25 AM  

James!: And competing editions!  It'll be basically the same content but it'll seem as though it's from two companies with the speeches in slightly different orders.


We need to get a kickstarter going on this asap!
 
2013-05-02 10:58:47 AM  

James!: FirstNationalBastard: James!: And competing editions!  It'll be basically the same content but it'll seem as though it's from two companies with the speeches in slightly different orders.

Will there be any versions in the original Arabic?

SIDE BY SIDE LATIN AND ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS!!  That edition will be $75.


You clearly need to put this on Kickstarter with a bunch of flowery language and start sending it to right wing websites. They will finance your exploitation of them.
 
2013-05-02 10:59:00 AM  

SkinnyHead: "I also think because he wanted government out of peoples' lives, he would not understand the intrusion of government banning such a thing. This is not what he would have thought government should be doing."

That's a strange argument.  Applying for a marriage license invites the government into your personal life.  Banning gay marriage does not expand government.  Expanding the definition of marriage expands government and puts government into the lives of more people.


The same argument applies in the opposite direction, to be fair. In either case, either allowing it or prohibiting it, the government is directly involved in the personal lives of its citizens. The solution for it is either (a) government has no role to play in marriage, in which case no heterosexual married couples could receive any tax benefits or anything, and churches and authority figures (e.g. a licensed commissioner of marriage) can marry whomever they wish to marry; or (b) the government recognizes all marriages between two consenting adults so that it is not discriminating against any class of people. Any other position is inherently unfair and discriminatory towards the people who wish to get married and the people who wish to marry two people in love.
 
2013-05-02 11:00:23 AM  

SkinnyHead: "I also think because he wanted government out of peoples' lives, he would not understand the intrusion of government banning such a thing. This is not what he would have thought government should be doing."

That's a strange argument.  Applying for a marriage license invites the government into your personal life.  Banning gay marriage does not expand government.  Expanding the definition of marriage expands government and puts government into the lives of more people.



Applying for a driver's license invites the government into your personal life, too, eh?
 
2013-05-02 11:01:31 AM  
Conservatives only wish to converve, eh?  To maintain the way things have always been done?

Gun laws used to be stricter.  Taxes used to be higher.  Workers rights used to be protected.  National parks were to be left alone.

Whar conservation?

Whar?
 
2013-05-02 11:01:37 AM  
Reagan's legacy is a lot like Bill Clinton's.

The partisan haters will never let go.

The ardent supporters lionize them.

Both rewrite history on the fly.
 
2013-05-02 11:01:48 AM  
Rich Little and his ham radio have been trolling these guys for years.
 
2013-05-02 11:01:56 AM  

Cletus C.: FirstNationalBastard: Ronald Reagan? THE ACTOR?

He ran a tight fiscal ship with Jack Benny as Secretary of the Treasury.

And Jack Benny always had this gay vibe about him, so Reagan liked gays.


Reagan was the FIRST president to invite a GAY COUPLE to STAY at the white house.

Reagan was the president of the ACTORS guild... you have to be elected by actors (who are gay friendly).

But why is this country obsessed with Reagan?
He was a shill. An actor.  A George W. Bush with a better oratory skills.
He did not deliver on his promises.  He raised taxes a dozen times.  He destroyed America fiscally.
Why do the fiscal conservatives love him like G-d again?
 
2013-05-02 11:02:04 AM  
So if I'm reading this right, Reagan would not have supported it because Jesus.

Also, the whole Reagan thing is getting a little ridiculous. What he would or would not have supported has precisely nothing to do with the correct course of action now, 30 damn years since he was President and what, 10 or more years since he croaked.
 
2013-05-02 11:02:23 AM  

Aarontology: James!: And competing editions!  It'll be basically the same content but it'll seem as though it's from two companies with the speeches in slightly different orders.

Break it up by first and second terms so you can sell double the books.


You could call them the Old Testament and the New Testament.
 
2013-05-02 11:03:05 AM  

SkinnyHead: "I also think because he wanted government out of peoples' lives, he would not understand the intrusion of government banning such a thing. This is not what he would have thought government should be doing."

That's a strange argument.  Applying for a marriage license invites the government into your personal life.  Banning gay marriage does not expand government.  Expanding the definition of marriage expands government and puts government into the lives of more people.


So true conservatives who are in favor of small government would never get married?
 
2013-05-02 11:03:16 AM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-05-02 11:06:01 AM  

kbronsito: Cythraul: Of course he would not have supported gay marriage. Although his track record with gay rights during his presidency was hit-or-miss, he was the guy who remained silent while thousands of people died from AIDS because it was thought of as a 'gay disease.'

it wasn't just because it was a gay disease (although that played a part). It was also an STD. So there was a double stigma whammy. But I understand that Reagan did start to prioritize research funding after Rock Hudson died. And Reagan wasn't the only one to change their views because of Hudson... for a lot of people in America, Hudson's death was the moment when they realized that real people were suffering and would die from AIDS. But for younger people it was Magic Johnson*.

*I'm currently in the process of assisting with the editing for an article on the history of HIV/AIDS in Brazil and had to pick a person that Americans would know as the face that change their perception of AIDS to compare him to the equivalent person in Brazil. I picked Magic, because I figured more people would know about him today than Rock Hudson. BTW. For those of you that may want to know... in Brazil it was a man known as Betinho. He was a renowned political activist that opposed Brazil's military dictarship. He was infected along with his brother because they were both hemophiliacs. His activism cleaned up the blood supply which had been unregulated until then and he also pushed Brazil to have sensible AIDS policies (and he didn't make an issue about how he got the disease from a blood transfusion instead of sex) Brazil is considered one of the best case studies on how to address the spread of HIV in the developing world. </CSB>


It was also a sad day (years later) in Brazil when the guy from Legiao Urbana died from AIDS.
 
2013-05-02 11:06:17 AM  

odinsposse: James!: FirstNationalBastard: James!: And competing editions!  It'll be basically the same content but it'll seem as though it's from two companies with the speeches in slightly different orders.

Will there be any versions in the original Arabic?

SIDE BY SIDE LATIN AND ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS!!  That edition will be $75.

You clearly need to put this on Kickstarter with a bunch of flowery language and start sending it to right wing websites. They will finance your exploitation of them.


My only concern is that his estate could swoop in and steal my profits.
 
2013-05-02 11:10:34 AM  

James!: My only concern is that his estate could swoop in and steal my profits.


Presidential speeches are public domain. You can go to a self publishing house so you don't even need to touch the things yourself.

Do it. Do it and donate a portion of the profits to Fark and Planned Parenthood.
 
2013-05-02 11:11:01 AM  
Martin Luther King probably wouldn't have supported gay marriage either. The founding fathers owned slaves. Martin Luther wanted to put the Jews in labor camps unless converted.

You know what, though? None of that matters to what we should do here and now. When your morality is derived from basic principles and reason rather than handed down by an authority figure, there is no contradiction in respecting what a pioneer of liberty go right while acknowleging what they got wrong. Being an inspiration doesn't make you a saint.

/ I'm actually not a huge fan of Martin Luther, though
// And I definitely don't get all hot and bothered over Reagan
 
2013-05-02 11:11:51 AM  

snowshovel: [24.media.tumblr.com image 647x343]


A man who at the end of his presidency obviously was suffering from Alzheimer.

He became lionized after his assassination attempt.

Reagan was an actor who had a few good one liners:
"Nation atop a hill"
"Gov't is the problem, not the solution"


But he STARTED the failed war on drugs.
He circumvented the very gov't he says was the problem and sold weapons to the Contra terrorists.
He gutted the unions by breaking up the air traffic controllers strike.

Reagan was a shill for the ULTRA right.  He was just a much better actor vs. GWBush
 
Displayed 50 of 101 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report