Reagan's dead

[tartanwiz]

Should we shed tears?

[Hippy]

I think we should be sad even if we find it hard to agree with his political opinions and actions. He was not an evil man, indeed, those that met him from whatever political persuasion said that he was a warm and likeable man. It is now over ten years since he was politically active and he had become a shadow of his former self since the onset of Alzheimer's Disease took hold. I think we should be generous and spend a moment reflecting on death and loss then celebrate life and resolve to live it truthfully and with vigour.

[tartanwiz]

Sure, Hippy. Let's forget that he was responsible for the deaths and misery of many people. So what if he was a warmonger and that his social policies caused homeless people to freeze to death or that he squandered millions on nuclear arms that could have been better spent on those in need. He was a nice guy who would ask you in for a cup of tea, that's what matters, eh?

[Hippy]

Tartanwiz, I did not say anything of the sort. I did not encourage us to forget or sanitise his actions or political stance. However, I did say that his death could encourage us to examine our own lives, and I hope to be more truthful and energetic in the future.

[Tat]

NO! of course not! why on earth should/would we!?

[andy hughes]

Should we shed tears for the individual, probably not, at least those of us who did not know him personally. As a political figuree, he was at best inept, and at worst excerable - i always wondered why he was known as a 'grerat communicator', when his unrehearsed comments were usually bumbling and incoherent. I think Hippy has a valid point in seperating the individual from his position and its effect, he is a loss to his family, and no-one else, as indeed will we all be, when our time comes.

[sft42]

Only if you had money on at the bookies that he would live to see 100.

[HappyHobbit]

I'm all with sft42 on that one! ha Though I agree with Hippy in the need to cherish individual life. I think it is unfortunate that the example uses a thoroughly despicable man, who as elegantly described by tartanwiz, had a lot of blood on his hands. I think it would be more appropriate to shed tears over the number people who die of starvation and related causes daily that amount to the same as the Twin Towers falling on the hour, every hour, 24 hours a day. Maybe I'm wrong but to me this seems a way more tragic event? Though doesn't make such good press coverage eh?

[tartanwiz]

Let's also not forget that Reagan was the kind of guy that would give the order to bomb Lybians then go home and pat his dog and kiss his wife and sleep peacefully. To me that is scary. Now don't get me wrong. I am not here to judge his soul, I have no right to do that. But the reason I asked the question was in anticipation of a lot of news and newspaper coverage about what a great statesman and leading figure of the age he was. It turned out I was wrong - there was little media coverage.

[Lyn]

Surely he was better than Bush we have now! He paid for his deeds wth the illness he suffered so long, so I would spare a thought.

[Numbers]

I have to admit that the first thing I did on hearing the news was to listen to Heaven 17's We Don't Need This Fascist Groove Thang.