bluelight

Does any of you American remeber how long time after Reagan left office was it made official that he suffered from Alzheimer?As i remeber it it wasnt long after..or am i wrong?


Bluelight

digitalwanderer

Heck, I didn't even think it was during the Bush administration or that it came out during the Bush/Clinton fight....but my memory is a bit blurry of the whole decade.

__________________
WTF is up with the sigs?

JavaFox

From what I can tell, Reagan made the announcement in 1994.

bluelight

Well i was just curious because by the time Alzheimer normally is diagnosed with people it has usually been active for a while ....

It is the case of my father who was diagnosed three years ago.....but he probably had it a long time before it was diagnosed more or less....

Bluelight

JavaFox

Well, this is certainly not new. There has been a lot of speculation that Reagan suffered from it during the tail-end of his administration.

digitalwanderer

Pffffffft! You're being charitable JF.

There's quite a few of us who were pretty bloody convinced he suffered from that when he first announced he intended to run...

__________________
WTF is up with the sigs?

JavaFox

Reagan had nearly ten times the number of electoral votes as Carter, and received over forty times the number of electoral votes that Mondale got. He is, furthermore, widely regarded as the greatest modern American president.

You probably disagree with that, but I'm not being charitable when I say you are in the distinct minority.

digitalwanderer

I think you're trying to be cocky when you say I'm in the minority.

I'm not, there's more people who think he sucked than liked him. You watch WAY too much CNN lately!

__________________
WTF is up with the sigs?

Falstaff

I can remember seeing his movies when I was a kid. he had alot of polish for just a football player turned actor. I always thought of him with reverence, and have no problem going toe to toe with anyone that thought he was unqualified, the 80's were his time, Thatcher, Reagen, and Gorbechev, all great people...would they have been vialble leaders in this day, who knows..

__________________

JavaFox

I'm confused.

Firstly, CNN is no friend to Reagan, conservatives, or --it may be argued-- America. Secondly, on whose authority are you saying that there are more Americans that hated Reagan than liked him, when Gallup polls, as reported by the British Telegraph, reports that Americans voted Reagan as their favorite president.

So please, DW. Saying you dislike him is one thing, but saying that the rest of Americans agree with you is abjectly absurd.

bluelight

The question is....If he had Alzheimer during his last period and....If Alzheimer did what it does to my dad.......then who was running Usa at the time???


Bluelight

ToshiroOC

Reagan

And there are plenty of people who think Reagan wasn't a good president - It is pretty evident that the majority liked Clinton when he ran for his second term, but it might be a different story now... and minority does carry a tinge of illmeaning to it's connotation in that context, don't you think?

__________________
[img][/img]
[color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color]
Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

Zardon

I think reagan always thought he was in a movie when he was President. his acting was on a par with big arnie though, entertaining

Falstaff

for better or worse, he will be remembered fondly by everyone I know, but then hey, I am a republican, ha ha.....

__________________

JavaFox

Yes, but that wasn't my point. I merely was saying that Reagan is regarded by a majority of Americans to be the best president ever. Statistically, this can't be contested.

Clinton may have been popular when he was elected, but his popularity was nowhere near that of Reagan's. Check out these numbers:

In 1992, Clinton beats Bush 370 to 168 (electoral votes). Population-wise, this translates to 44,908,233 and 39,102,282, respectively.
In 1996, Clinton beats Dole 379 to 159. The popular vote was more decisively in Clinton's favor: 47,401,185 to 39,197,469.

In 1980, Reagan snagged 489 electoral votes, versus Carter's 49; 43,267,489 voted for Reagan, 34,964,583 for Carter.
In 1984, Reagan took all but one state, taking 525 electoral votes. Mondale got 13. 53,428,357 for Reagan, 36,930,923 for Mondale.

Roadee

JF........shouldn't you be taking in consideration who it was that he was running against?? Most anyone could of gotten those number's against those canidates, in my opinion. But I for one, have never met anyone that liked Reagan as a President, most people that I know of seem to think that Nancy ran the country and Ronnie was her puppet.

Keep in mind.......I am not looking to start anything or get flamed......just stating my opinion and what I have heard from people that I have known over the years.

__________________


We are born naked, wet, and hungry. Then things get worse.

Falstaff

Quote:

JF........shouldn't you be taking in consideration who it was that he was running against?? Most anyone could of gotten those number's against those canidates, in my opinion. But I for one, have never met anyone that liked Reagan as a President, most people that I know of seem to think that Nancy ran the country and Ronnie was her puppet. Keep in mind.......I am not looking to start anything or get flamed......just stating my opinion and what I have heard from people that I have known over the years.

After Reagan was shot, I recall with some fascination, how much the press remained firmly convinced that Reagan held the reins so to speak, but that just isn't true. Nancy was at his side, but his staff kept the ball rolling, that in my opinion he built such a solid support network that they pretty much ran on automatic till he was lucid again, albiet only for a short time...He was definitely opinionated and bold, but he could turn a phrase or two, after all, he dealt with actors and producers long before he took charge of the nation...he had Hutzpa, Cahones, or whatever you call it. I don't think he was the sharpest tool in the shed, but he could turn a dead end situation as a chance to turn around (so to speak) with diplomacy and he trusted his subordinates, although, now we know that they made some serious blunders...the list is long of course and not worth telling...I like Reagan, I enjoyed his terms in office, and perhaps the fact that their will never be another like him, serves us all well now, I don't think he would have garnered the popular vote today, but as some of you have said, he is still popular....History will be kind to him

__________________

ToshiroOC

Well, as Reagan and now Bush Jr. have proved, surrounding yourself with very smart people IS a good substitute for innate ability in government (I'm half-joking )

__________________
[img][/img]
[color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color]
Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

JavaFox

Yes, yes, the old Great Conservatives Are Dummies speech. I'm surprised you guys don't point out the fact that Lincoln educated himself.

At any rate, you are mostly decent people, and I expect the truth to become apparent to you all eventually. Liberals lack perspective, but that can come to them with time; Eisenhower used to be "stupid," too.

ToshiroOC

No offense man, but that's pretty condesending, expecting us to finally realize what you see as the truth... And it wasn't a speech saying that great conservatives are dummies - just Reagan and Bush Jr. (Bush Jr. counts as a great conservative?) Anyway, since I'm not too interested in debating the relative intelligence of convervatives and liberals, I'll just say that , cough, I disagree

__________________
[img][/img]
[color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color]
Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

Falstaff

I would agree, that regardless of the party in charge, perspective is the only thing that can stop a leader from plunging head long into a major conflict...IRAQ from a logistical standpoint, wasn't major...I know I know...but Rumsfeld made sure he kept the numbers down and we pulled it off...Reagan? yes what would he have done...

__________________

JavaFox

There was no offense intended, I am only speaking on what I have seen to be historical fact. Eisenhower was portrayed by liberals to be a bumbling and senile --if harmless-- old man who happened to be a war hero. At the time, his intelligence was always regarded as lacking. Of course, if you read any history book now, even ones written by leftist radicals as many of them are, you will see Ike characterized as a "hidden hand" president, skilled in behind-the-scenes diplomacy, a smart leader, and a master of handling himself and the press. In fact, history shows that his "stupidity, " which completely confused the press and his detractors, was completely deliberate.

In the same way, Reagan was reviled as a dummy by liberals in America. It is somewhat appalling to me that people bring up --somewhat cheerfully-- that Ron' suffers from Alzheimer's. Read the liberal newspapers from that time period and you will see his mental competency being calling into question constantly. The same goes for his detractors. Yet this "dummy," who helped contribute to the collapse of the USSR, is now regarded as America's finest president. There are still people that think he was unintelligent, but the American people have spoken. I think it's a mark of extreme elitism when liberals show such contempt for the opinion of most average Americans.

So, will history treat Bush as kindly as it has Ike and, to a lesser extent, Reagan? I think so. You may disagree, but time is the only thing that will tell. I think the American people are reassured by having a president who wants strong national defense (unlike, say, Democratic Presidential hopeful Howard Dean, who seems more than content to have America's might deteriorate), has moral clarity, and is a calm reformer.

Again, you may disagree, but I see distinct parallels between Ike and Bush; I am convinced that liberals will come to realize that Bush was a good president and a smart guy.

Of course, I could be wrong.

bluelight

Still it is a fact that Alzheimers disease normally does...break out a long time before it is diagnosed.

Often as early as 10 15 years.The effects seen are small and subtle but still they are there in loss of memory etc etc..

This is what happened to my dad and what happens to most alzheimer patients.


Bluelight

Falstaff

BUSH JR. hasn't developed an organic brain problem because he has lots and lots of really smart people working for him....And mighty Julius Ceasar had syphillus and lead poisening for lead line pipe used to bring water in from the aqueducts.....Bush is from Texas...that has always bothered me......lol

__________________

bluelight

No but then nobody voted for Wolfwitz did they so if a leader goes "Bonkers" (word)...the the sahdow figures takes over..hardly democratic i think...

Wolfwitz was around when Reagan was in office to i think...Funny these type of people....


ad...visooors...advisors.....

They see to it that they close to power but they arent ever confronting the voters...so they can go from oner leader to another..and "serve" with "advice"..

Yeah i figure it was the same in Rome.

Bluey

Vampyromaniac

The link you posted showed 18% voting Reagan as their favourite. That means that 82% disagreed. 82% is not a minority.

Or am I confused?

JavaFox

Yes, you are confused. But maybe it was my fault.

The point of my postings in this thread was to illustrate that Reagan is, statistically, America's favorite president. When I said "majority" I actually meant "plurality," which is what you get when you vote in polls where there is more than one option.

If we took a poll as to what GPU manufacturer was the best, and 5% answered ST Micro, 5% answered SiS, 10% answered Matrox, 31% answered ATi and 49% answered Nvidia... it would be reasonable to state that Nvidia was, in fact, Driverheaven's favorite GPU manufacturer. Someone might say "Well, look, 51% of people voted against Nvidia!" but that isn't the point. A plurality of DHers like Nvidia and that company is, therefore, DH's favorite GPU manufacturer.

JavaFox

Can I ask you something, bluelight? The pure democracy you speak of is widely regarded as a detrimental form of governance. Pure, direct democracy is prone to mob rule. Significant thinkers throughout history, from Aristotle to Jefferson, have realized this. Is that something you support?

America is a representative democracy; we elect representatives to represent us. This is how it is in most legitimate democracies. Wolfowitz was, you are correct, not directly elected, but all presidential appointees are confirmed by democratically elected representatives we call Senators.

bluelight

Where am i speaking of pure democracy?


Regarding your question....i support every form of democracy chosen by the people no matter if it is direct or representative democracy.


And back to the issue...if a leader gets "not fit" and "advisors" take the real power using the "not fit" choosen leader as a "dummy"....then i see that as a loophole in democracy.


Bluelight