Reagan loved beyond expectationsFollow

Zzzzzzzz.

Eb

I expected nothing less from the two of you. Tom Brokaw is vacating his position soon, perhaps both of you should apply for his job?

Totem

Amen to that.

Totem

More proof that Toto ain't black. Unless he's Colin Powell.

Or maybe NPR.

:)

Eb

I think the point Totem was making is that the Liberal News media does typically only look to the views of the poor minorities when coming up with stories for their outlets (cause it's always better to talk about someone hurt by a presidents decisions then those helped by it). That slant to their stories had gotten to the point where they were utterly surprised by the sheer numbers of people who *didn't* think the same way as the people that they cover in most of their news stories.


It's a pretty clear wakeup call that the news is out of touch with what the majority of American's actually think. In their rush to get the story about the poor, downtrodden masses they've missed all the people who's lives were positively impacted by a president like Reagan. This is probably the first time they've bothered to talk to those people (since it's a funeral story after all), and they are surprised at the results.


Seemed pretty straightforward to me.

Ah... But see... You're not living in the ghetto with a 40 in your hand, hanging out at the local barbershop, so you aren't really "Black" anymore. Honest! I heard that was a criteria somewhere...

My slave-owner-whipped-yet-still-proud-of-my-ancestory-scarred visage is set in a stern yet gentle and somber look regardless what location I am getting my haircut in as I fondly remember what the Gipper did for me and my people. He truly set us free with his revolutionary ideas and politics.

Reagan now has his place among the pantheon of Great Men like Martin Luther King, Colin Powell, George Washington Carver, and Snoop Dog. He was truly our first black President!

Totem

Um.... your source is just a breakdown of race in the US... it doesn't have anytthing to do with what they thought about Reagan.



You really are too stupid for words...



So where exactly does it say 2/3 of the population cared for Reagan?

In the exact same place where it says that if you can quote three people who disliked Reagan, that he must have been mostly disliked...

On your side: 3 quotes in an article.

On Stoks side: Um... actual stats

Let me quote a bit for you:




Wow. Stok's "from the hip" stat is virtually spot on...

At the moment I hate the *****. Friday afternoon rush hour traffic plus a dead president getting his *** carted down the only main throughfare (Hwy 101) in your home town equals 2+ hours of sitting on my ***, in my car, for a drive that I could have done without him in 45 minutes. Bleh.

I never said that. Nor implied it, etc. (Do I have to go through that again?). I quoted one article which illustrated that there are people out there that did not like Reagan. That's all. I can see why Smash gets so tired of shooting your arguments all to hell. You must have serious reading comprehension problems if that's what you got out of my post. My point (again) with that post was that if you ask people at a gathering to honor a dead man, their opinion of that dead man, you will probably get a very positive repsonse, and that if you bother to seek out those who think otherwise, you'll get a very different response. I really don't understand why you have such difficulty accepting that.

Nowhere in Stok's link does it say anything about Reagan, its just a link to census data. As you so often point out with your logic 101 ********* nothing about their opinion of Reagan could possibly be inferred from his link.

And as has been pointed out before, Poll's don't necessarily mean much. Especially one more than a decade after he left office. I'd be much more interested in what they thought of him while he was in office.


Reagan's Job Performance

Approve Disapprove
7/30/01 66% 27 (Retrospective)
2/27/00 64 26 (Retrospective)
'81-'88 57 39 (Career average)
2/26/87 44 51 Low — Iran-Contra
4/26/86 70 26 High — Libya bombing
1/22/83 42 54 Low — unemployment
4/22/81 73 19 High — shot by Hinckley

Interesting that his numbers go up so significantly after he's been out of office for so long, become a sympathetic figure due to being afflicted with Alzheimer's and had his supporters relentlessly forward the absurd notion that he was responsible for the collapse of communism worldwide for almost two decades. Also interesting that his highs came after being shot (again, a sympathetic figure), and when he bombed Libya. To quote a forum regular



You're tired of posting facts? Granted you posted facts about the breakdown of race in the US population, but you utterly failed to back up your claim, didn't post any facts relevant to the discussion and you're still too stupid to realize it. It boggles the mind.

You are correct. All you did was quote from an article that illustrated that there are people out there that do not like Reagan. Fine. But when you post that in response to a statement from Stok that more people liked Reagan then the media has given him credit for, it sure sounds like you are "implying" a rebuttal.

You argued about his numbers and pulled out some quotes from people who didn't like Reagan. Exactly what purpose did that serve if you weren't trying to refute Stoks statement? Do you just randomly post stuff with no assumption of relevance to the topic at hand? That seems silly. Of course you can find a quote somewhere from someone who doesn't like Reagan. Heck. I'm pretty sure I can find a quote somewhere from someone who doesn't like Mother Theresa. Does that mean that I should use it as a rebuttle to someone saying she was a great person? And if I did, should I get upset if someone calls me on it?


Pulling out some quotes when arguing a point, and then claiming you weren't really using the quote to support your argument after the fact is a bit silly, don't you agree?