Reagan on the $10 bill? [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

Mike Teacher

06-08-2004, 04:49 PM

Couldnt find it on cnn; heres an excerpt.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., a speechwriter in the Reagan White House, plans to introduce a bill to put Reagan on the $20 bill, replacing another venerable Democrat, Andrew Jackson.

That would join a previous proposal, by Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., to provide for dimes bearing the likeness of Reagan.

The office of Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he would pursue an idea he has pushed for several years, placing Reagan on the $10 bill now bearing the visage of Hamilton, the first Treasury secretary.

Chris Butler of the Ronald Reagan Legacy Project, which has the goal of seeing a Reagan commemoration in every American county, said its top legislative priority is the $10 bill. He noted that money can be changed administratively without congressional action, and suggested that Reagan dimes could join, rather than replace, FDR dimes.

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/newsig2">

42nd-delay

06-08-2004, 04:58 PM

I doubt that Reagan, a big FDR admirer, would want himself to replace
FDR on the dime. And equating them by having some with one and
some with another isn't right. As for the $10, Hamilton had a huge
impact on the economic system of this country, and should remain on
the bill. Frankly, I think all the people on our money are pretty much
deserving. Well, possibly not Franklin. And there's a few who aren't on
money that are deserving, like Teddy Roosevelt. Still, there's probably
a place for Reagan on money somewhere. Considering his tax policies,
how about we start minting a $1,000,000 bill?

------------------------------
"42nd-delay is the only person who's making sense." - Ron, 3-12-02

This message was edited by 42nd-delay on 6-8-04 @ 9:03 PM

sr71blackbird

06-08-2004, 05:04 PM

http://www.ahajokes.com/cartoon/3bill.jpg

<center>
http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=8 </center>

<center>My Thanks to Just Jon, Reefdwella, ADF, Yerdaddy,Monsterone and Katylina for the sig-pic help and creation!</center>
<marquee behavior=alternate>Amidst the mists and coldest frosts, with stoutest wrists and loudest boasts, he thrusts his
fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.</marquee>

Cybersoldier

06-08-2004, 05:21 PM

I could see them making a new bill like a 3 dollar bill or the 99 cent coin or the trillion dollar bill in honor of Reagan but to replace hamilton not going to happen at least not now or anytime soon.

<IMG SRC="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/cybersoldiernyc/myhomepage/cs_sig.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US">
Thanks for the sig monsterone

HBox

06-08-2004, 05:35 PM

TheMojoPin

06-08-2004, 05:45 PM

There's some kind of young Republicans group that's been around for a few years now, where the entire goal of the organization is to have at least one official Reagan monument/memorial (Park, statue, school, federal building, etc.) named after Ronnie.

I have no problem saying that I think his presidency was the epitome of style of substance, but even someone WITHOUT an "anti-Reagan" stance must think this kind of goal is ridiculous. Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt don't even have monuments/memorials in each of the states...why the hell should Reagan rate?!?

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

grandzu

06-08-2004, 06:03 PM

Stuff is named after him already.

The 40th U.S. president already has a number of major monuments to his name. They include the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier U.S.S. Ronald Reagan, the massive Ronald Reagan Building housing federal offices in Washington and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

TheMojoPin

06-08-2004, 06:06 PM

Dur. I'm obviously not saying NOTHING has been named after him (Yeah, I never know what airport I fly out of when I catch a flight out of Reagan National), or that he shouldn't have stuff named after him...but something in EVERY state?!?

I can't believe I had to just explain this.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 6-8-04 @ 10:07 PM

cheezeemee

06-08-2004, 06:14 PM

Geez so touchy about money
What's next Mount Rushmore?
I vote for Jack Nicholson

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze6pk84/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/jdi.jpg
Funny as Pergatory

Shecky

06-08-2004, 06:15 PM

If we are going to bump anyone off money , I say bump off Andrew Jackson, not Hamilton and certainly not FDR.

I agree.

NewYorkDragons80

06-09-2004, 04:48 AM

[font=Century gothic][color=navy][size=2]If we are going to bump anyone off money , I say bump off Andrew Jackson, not Hamilton and certainly not FDR. No sharing, either. There's a reason FDR is on the dime.
Andrew Jackson is a mutt and should be replaced, but why can't Reagan and FDR share the dime?

As for the dollar coin, I like having some representation for American Indians on our currency.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

Freakshow

06-09-2004, 05:52 AM

I think they could take care of it this way:

Homer: There's a $10,000 bill in it for you.
Barney: Oh yeah? Which president's on it?
Homer: Uh... All of them. They're having a party. Jimmy Carter's passed out on the couch.

And yes, the Reagan on the Rock thing goes way back, maybe to even when he was still president. I can't remember if it was National Review or American Spectator that ran that very thing on their cover (I looked, but couldn't find it online).

<center><img src=http://www.christpuncherrecords.com/sigs/hotrock.gif>
Marge, you're standing in the way of my boyhood dream of managing a beautiful country singer! Your boyhood dream is to eat the world's biggest hoagie! And you did it at the county fair last year, remember!?</center>

curtoid

06-09-2004, 06:56 AM

Didn't the SIMPSONS already make fun of this by naming EVERYTHING after Reagan???

I believe there are four different buildings named after Reagan in and around Washington DC. He has his name on the Airport; his name on the second largest federal office building in the world; on the new George Washington Hospital; and on some GOP headquarters downtown.

The final two I don't have a problem with (the hospital was where they saved his life), but the airport and an enormous federal building?!?!

I agree with shuffling the money around - put Reagan on the dime - FDR on the $20 and get rid of Andrew Jackson.

Reagan on the Rock thing goes way back, maybe to even when he was still president.

That's the way I remember it too. Insanity.

What I would rather see is an enormous, Stalinesque statue of the man erected at Reagan National Airport, holding Nancy to the heavens- his hands around her dainty waist, and her arms stretched out like she was soaring. He should also be wearing over-alls, with one sholder strap undone, so we can all bask in his broad sholders.

(((cooo)))

THAT would be a worthy tribute!

http://img21.photobucket.com/albums/v64/curtoid/44.jpg

"Don't believe everything you read on message boards." - RB

Freakshow

06-09-2004, 07:02 AM

Curtoid, would you settle for a statue of him in a white t-shirt, showing off his massive guns?
<img src=http://www.presidentreagan.info/images/real_reagan_sm.gif>

<center><img src=http://www.christpuncherrecords.com/sigs/hotrock.gif>
Marge, you're standing in the way of my boyhood dream of managing a beautiful country singer! Your boyhood dream is to eat the world's biggest hoagie! And you did it at the county fair last year, remember!?</center>

HBox

06-09-2004, 07:51 AM

Andrew Jackson is a mutt and should be replaced, but why can't Reagan and FDR share the dime?

FDR is on the dime because he started the March of Dimes. And I just think that FDR is such a figure in our history that he shouldn't have to share, just my opinion.

Question: Who's on the $2 bill and the 50 cent piece?

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

Freakshow

06-09-2004, 07:55 AM

The $2 bill is the signing of the Declaration of Independence, on one side--Jefferson on the front, maybe?

The 50 cent piece is JFK.

<center><img src=http://www.christpuncherrecords.com/sigs/hotrock.gif>
Marge, you're standing in the way of my boyhood dream of managing a beautiful country singer! Your boyhood dream is to eat the world's biggest hoagie! And you did it at the county fair last year, remember!?</center>

HBox

06-09-2004, 08:05 AM

The 50 cent piece is JFK.

There you go! Reagan can have that.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

Tall_James

06-09-2004, 08:11 AM

Can Barney Frank be on the $3 bill? That seems kind of appropriate.

<img src=http://home.comcast.net/~jamesgpatton/patton.jpg>
Avoiding household responsibilites...one post at a time
[center]The Best Blog You're Not Reading (http://cheeseeatingbird.blogspot.com)

Shecky

06-09-2004, 08:21 AM

Why not put his face on an I.O.U.?

Shecky

06-09-2004, 08:22 AM

Or put his face on a wooden nickel.

TheMojoPin

06-09-2004, 08:49 AM

Is the fifty cent piece even still in production?

And I agree with NYD...bring back the "Indian" nickel!

Reagan simply has no place on ANY of our money. NO president since FDR deserves that, no matter who they are...JFK included.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

HBox

06-09-2004, 09:04 AM

NO president since FDR deserves that, no matter who they are...JFK included.

I agree wholeheartedly. I just can't shake the feeling that it's inevitable, though, so I just hope they don't bump off somebody really deserving of it.

Let me expand this thread. Which figures currently on currency would you like taken off, and which figures would you like put on. And don't limit yourself to Presidents.

Take off:
JFK (50 cent piece)
Andrew Jackson ($20)
Ulysses Grant ($50)

Put on:
Martin Luther King
Teddy Roosevelt
FDR on one of the bills

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

This message was edited by HBox on 6-9-04 @ 1:31 PM

JerryTaker

06-09-2004, 09:54 AM

How about we stick him on the $1,000,000 bill. This way he only needs to be looked at by the only people he really helped during his administration.

 
Sig Pending...

East Side Dave

06-09-2004, 09:56 AM

Millionaires!!

I gets the points!! Oh, I get the 50 points for the riddle, everybody!! I win!!

<img src=http://www.richstillwell.com/ESD.gif>
Big Ass Mafia

Click this link (http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/thenight/ppr/index.shtml) to hear my show on Jersey's 90.5 The Night FM; (weeknights)-
Sunday night/Monday morning through Thursday night/Friday morning- 3 to 5 AM.

JerryTaker

06-09-2004, 09:59 AM

I gets the points!! Oh, I get the 50 points for the riddle, everybody!! I win!!

Yep, you also win a pencil and a Speed Limit sign!

 
Sig Pending...

Cybersoldier

06-09-2004, 10:04 AM

If we are going to bump anyone off money , I say bump off Andrew Jackson, not Hamilton and certainly not FDR. No sharing, either. There's a reason FDR is on the dime.

This is the least of it too. I've read people who want him on Rushmore. Yikes.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

I agree we could get regret of Jackson or put Reagan on the back of one of the bills.

<IMG SRC="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/cybersoldiernyc/myhomepage/cs_sig.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US">
Thanks for the sig monsterone

furie

06-09-2004, 10:08 AM

john adams is on the $2 and JFK is on the .50

I say bump Lincoln off of the $5. he still has the penny. Grant was worthless as a president, so I'd be ok if he was off.

And I agree T. Roosevelt should be on a bill.

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/furie1335/.Pictures/rfsigs/blazingfurie.jpg">

This message was edited by furie on 6-9-04 @ 2:16 PM

TheMojoPin

06-09-2004, 10:35 AM

Adams? It always has been and still is Jefferson. Neither Adams is on any of our currency.

http://mc.clintock.com/first_floor/study_1/ikea_drawers/cats/two_dollar_bill.jpg

I like the MLK of getting on a coin or bill. He's someone everyone in this country can take pride in, regardless of partisan politics.

Grant and Jackson can both go and not be missed...but there's no reason to replace either with Reagan, or put Reagan on ANY piece of our money. I'd like to see Teddy Roosevelt on something...or more designs as opposed to portraits. Take a cue from the state quarters and design seals that we can put on our money.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

Doctor Manhattan

06-09-2004, 11:07 AM

http://members.cox.net/nicksporsche/24-bill.jpg

I hope they don't replace "ole murder coverup" Palmer.

<a href="http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/show.cgi?show=73"><img src="http://members.cox.net/nicksporsche/KillBillv203.jpg" border=0></a>

ChickenHawk

06-09-2004, 11:09 AM

Why not just a make a $500 bill and put Reagan on that?

<IMG SRC="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=ChickenHawk">
HORDE KING FOREVER!!! ORACLE NEVER!!!
<strike>Shock</strike>
<marquee behavior=alternate>EMFA</marquee>[color=white]

Shecky

06-09-2004, 11:18 AM

People on curency.

http://www.who2.com/OnTheMoney.html

Jefferson is on the 2 dollar bill already, so put Reagan on the nickel if anything.

TheMojoPin

06-09-2004, 11:20 AM

Alright, let me ask this question, since nobody else has yet...WHY put Reagan on our money? And to add that, why him over any of the other U.S. presidents not on our currency?

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

Reephdweller

06-09-2004, 11:31 AM

Alright, let me ask this question, since nobody else has yet...WHY put Reagan on our money? And to add that, why him over any of the other U.S. presidents not on our currency?

Because, he did that cool wavy thing with his hair..and that alone makes him deservant of it.

http://www.jefflarsen.com/portraits/image/reagan.jpg

<center><IMG SRC="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=3">
Reefy's website... (http://www.osirusonline.com/)</center>

<center>Check out The Ron and Fez Show Logs...UPDATED!!!!! (http://www.osirusonline.com/ronfez.htm)</center>
<marquee behavior=alternate bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Right now you could care less about me...
but soon enough you will care, by the time I'm done</marquee>

Freakshow

06-09-2004, 11:41 AM

Alright, let me ask this question, since nobody else has yet...WHY put Reagan on our money? And to add that, why him over any of the other U.S. presidents not on our currency?

Because he just died, silly.

<center><img src=http://www.christpuncherrecords.com/sigs/hotrock.gif>
Marge, you're standing in the way of my boyhood dream of managing a beautiful country singer! Your boyhood dream is to eat the world's biggest hoagie! And you did it at the county fair last year, remember!?</center>

Furtherman

06-09-2004, 11:44 AM

Just put Reagan on the boxes of HIV medicines.

<IMG SRC="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=7">
...with thanks to JustJon

A.J.

06-09-2004, 11:48 AM

NO president since FDR deserves that, no matter who they are...JFK included.

Not even Ike on the One Dollar Coin?

We really haven't changed currency much in the last 50 years or so -- and most of those changes have been to the BACKS of coins and bills. The first time Presidents appeared on coins was (I think) 1909 when Lincoln's image replaced the Indian head penny. After that, the Jefferson nickel debuted in 1938 when it replaced the Buffalo nickel in 1938 and the FDR dime replaced the Mercury dime in 1946. Changing around coins isn't unusual -- it just hasn't been done in a long time.

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

NewYorkDragons80

06-09-2004, 11:48 AM

Is the fifty cent piece even still in production?
I haven't seen any past the 80's
And I agree with NYD...bring back the "Indian" nickel!
Actually I was referring to the current $1 coin. It has Sacajawea, but the only time I ever use it is after hitting up a Metrocard or Stamp vending machine.
Alright, let me ask this question, since nobody else has yet...WHY put Reagan on our money? And to add that, why him over any of the other U.S. presidents not on our currency?
Maybe Theodore Roosevelt is more deserving than Reagan, but that's the only one I can think of.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

This message was edited by NewYorkDragons80 on 6-9-04 @ 3:54 PM

Tall_James

06-09-2004, 11:51 AM

FDR is on the dime because he started the March of Dimes

I did not know that. Thanks for the interesting tidbit.

<img src=http://home.comcast.net/~jamesgpatton/patton.jpg>
Avoiding household responsibilites...one post at a time
[center]The Best Blog You're Not Reading (http://cheeseeatingbird.blogspot.com)

furie

06-09-2004, 02:47 PM

42nd-delay

06-09-2004, 02:54 PM

Just some words about the less popular moneymen:

Jackson was the first non-aristocratic President, rising from humble roots, fighting for the common man and making the system more democratic and populist (extending sufferage for example). He also extended the power of the President, being the first to use the veto and not just let Congress make the laws. He was a popular and important President, his Presidency announcing the beginning of the next era.

Grant was obviously not a very good President, but he was one of our greatest generals, and the North may not have won the Civil War if it weren't for him. He was also tremendously popular among the public.

Kennedy's record is declidedly mixed, but he was assasinated while in office, and the coin was created as a tribute to him. Past assasinated Presidents ended up on money too (Lincoln, McKinley).

------------------------------
"42nd-delay is the only person who's making sense." - Ron, 3-12-02

HBox

06-09-2004, 03:53 PM

He was a popular and important President, his Presidency announcing the beginning of the next era.

He was also particularly brutal on the Native Americans.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

HBox

06-09-2004, 03:57 PM

And here's a link to the March of Dimes' campaign to keep FDR on the dime. (http://www.marchofdimes.com/aboutus/789_10592.asp)

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

furie

06-09-2004, 04:44 PM

the more I think about of it, I wouldn't mind seeing a near total shake up of the currency portraits. get some fresh faces in there.

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/furie1335/.Pictures/rfsigs/blazingfurie.jpg">

Se7en

06-09-2004, 06:18 PM

He was a popular and important President, his Presidency announcing the beginning of the next era.

He was also particularly brutal on the Native Americans.

Absolutely.

Particularly against the Cherokee.

And he was especially involved in allowing the Cherokees of Georgia to be, ultimately, deposed of their land. Jackson's policies ultimately led to the Trail of Tears, which was little more than genocide. All of this is of particular importance to me as a significant percentage of my maternal ancestry is Georgia Cherokee.

Kick the fucker off the twenty. I wouldn't mind the Gipper there in his place.

And while we're at it, knock Hamilton off the ten spot and replace him with Aaron Burr. You history buffs will appreciate that one.

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/7_sig.gif" width="300" height="100">
 
 
Don't blame me....I voted for Kodos.
I look forward to an orderly election that will eliminate the need for a violent bloodbath. </center>

NewYorkDragons80

06-09-2004, 06:28 PM

I like the MLK of getting on a coin or bill. He's someone everyone in this country can take pride in, regardless of partisan politics.
except for the residents of the state of Arizona
MLK's views on Vietnam were very divisive. It's doubtful, in my opinion, that he will end up on currency in our lifetime. However, anyone who opposes his being put on currency will be labeled as a racist, so maybe I'm wrong.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

TheMojoPin

06-09-2004, 08:50 PM

Burr was a thug!

How about Patrick Henry on there somwhere? Franklin shows we don't need presidents.

And shit, I'd put Thomas Paine on the currency before Reagan gets considered...for whom nobody has yet to give me a REAL reason he should be on our money.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

HBox

06-09-2004, 08:56 PM

And if Teddy Roosevelt does get on some currency, I don't want the same old portrait that they use for the rest of the Presidents, I want this:

<img src="http://www.fm.cnyric.org/wellwood/memorials/bigstick.jpg" width=334 height=220>

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

This message was edited by HBox on 6-10-04 @ 12:59 AM

Freakshow

06-10-2004, 05:05 AM

And while we're at it, knock Hamilton off the ten spot and replace him with Aaron Burr. You history buffs will appreciate that one.

Burr should be on currency. Maybe the money of the country he tried to start west of Pennsylvannia, with himself as king.

And the portrait of Roosevelt should be from the first ever Scratchy cartoon that had itchy: 'ahh Manhattan town. A fine sight for a Knickerbocker such as myself.' (before or after they chop off his head--either way)

And a particularly notable quote from Andy Jackson was just after the Marshall and the Surpreme Court decided that the contract the government had with the Cherokee Indians was valid, and the land they claimed in Georgia was indeed theirs: 'The court has made their decision, now lets see them enforce it.' And promptly sent the Cherokees to Oklahoma.

So how about Cheif Justice Marshall on something then?

<center><img src=http://www.christpuncherrecords.com/sigs/hotrock.gif>
Marge, you're standing in the way of my boyhood dream of managing a beautiful country singer! Your boyhood dream is to eat the world's biggest hoagie! And you did it at the county fair last year, remember!?</center>

TooCute

06-10-2004, 05:43 AM

jeffdwright2001

06-10-2004, 06:17 AM

So how about Cheif Justice Marshall on something then?
If you mean Chief Justice John Marshall then . . .
DING DING DING

He's had more impact on the country than all but a few Presidents.

And just for fun, I say we put him on the back of any currency that Jefferson is on.

Tall_James

06-10-2004, 06:23 AM

Here you go Freakshow!

http://www.doheth.co.uk/screenshots/lists/is_179.jpg

<img src=http://home.comcast.net/~jamesgpatton/patton.jpg>
Avoiding household responsibilites...one post at a time
[center]The Best Blog You're Not Reading (http://cheeseeatingbird.blogspot.com)

This message was edited by Tall_James on 6-10-04 @ 10:23 AM

Freakshow

06-10-2004, 06:24 AM

Awesome TJ.

and i before e except after c, right?

<center><img src=http://www.christpuncherrecords.com/sigs/hotrock.gif>
Marge, you're standing in the way of my boyhood dream of managing a beautiful country singer! Your boyhood dream is to eat the world's biggest hoagie! And you did it at the county fair last year, remember!?</center>

jeffdwright2001

06-10-2004, 07:35 AM

and i before e except after c, right?

For the most part yes. Notable exceptions are words that have a long "A" sound. Examples would be "neighbor" and "vein".

A.J.

06-10-2004, 12:41 PM

Past assasinated Presidents ended up on money too (Lincoln, McKinley).

Still no James A. Garfield though.

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

reeshy

06-10-2004, 03:48 PM

How about Jeremiah Johnson....he was a great American...and I dig a guy in leather!!!!!!

[center]<IMG SRC=http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:z0F-oPYq4nYJ:www.astabgay.com/gayicons/qc6.jpg>
[center]

high fly

06-10-2004, 05:39 PM

Grant was obviously not a very good President, but he was one of our greatest generals, and the North may not have won the Civil War if it weren't for him. He was also tremendously popular among the public.

His body is also in the third largest mausoleum in the world!!

Also, perhaps the record has been broken, but the bronze statue of him outside the Capitol Building at least was the largest sculpture of it's type in the world.
Rather than being cast in sections, that mutha was cast in one giant mold.

" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

erole

06-10-2004, 07:33 PM

love the take Jackson off idea, but probably won't happen

and no way anyone is knocking off a democrat for a republican...not in this day and age.

i'd like to see reagan on the penny. lincoln is already on the $5 so he isn't slighted or anything. the penny has gone through so many changes anyway, and it's less of an uproar than any other change. there was a indian head penny, the lincoln with the wreath on the back, then the lincoln with the memorial, and even silver lincoln pennys. put ron on the penny and change the back of the penny to something different.

otherwise, if you really want to put reagan on money, put him on german currency...he did a ton to break the walls there.

TheMojoPin

06-10-2004, 07:36 PM

Why should Reagan be on our currency?

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

Shecky

06-10-2004, 08:14 PM

Why should Reagan be on our currency?

http://publish.hometown.aol.com/jerseypepino/myhomepage/woodenreagan.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

Don't take any.

erole

06-10-2004, 08:39 PM

Why shouldn't he be on our currency?

History is going to treat this man very well, because he was a great man and served our country with a love and zeal that matches any other member of the currency club.
I saw regular people cry in front of the coffin of that great man. No one is going to cry for Clinton, either Bush, or Carter. In my opinon, this was the last great President since Kennedy. He brought a hope to the country and to the world. He brought down walls and ended evil empires. This President was a great President because he had all the ingredients of being beloved by the country. Greatness with humility, optimism in the midst of hopelessness, and a way of speaking to us that made us feel like citizens of something truly amazing. Sure he had some bad moments, but so did the rest of the currency club...it's just that the man and the mission meets all too well in the right moment in time.
He earns it.
We need some good role models, some good icons for this and the coming generations. I'm not saying we should all breathe all of our breaths with Reagan in mind, but changing something like the currency for this man would be a bestowed honor.
To make such a small "change" on our currency would create a significant and tangible link to our nation's roots, history, and tradition. We need that today. Reagan gets my nod. People can certainly disagree, but in the end, would it be that wrong to do?

<IMG SRC="http://members.hometown.aol.com/frigginbooger/myhomepage/rensig.jpg">
~he knows a little

erole

06-10-2004, 08:42 PM

look at this. i come back and leave a post that long already.
i need to go back into hiding.

HBox

06-10-2004, 08:57 PM

No one is going to cry for Clinton

You're wrong there. He was much more popular than people give him credit for these days.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

42nd-delay

06-10-2004, 09:03 PM

Apparently Nancy Reagan opposed the dime idea earlier this year. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-06-10-our-view_x.htm)

Regarding the penny, not a bad idea, but there's also been efforts to eliminate the penny, so its days may be numbered.

And I wasn't necessarily saying Jackson was flawless or even deserving of the twenty, just saying why he was put on there. Apparently previous efforts to remove him didn't happen cause he's a Democratic and Southern icon.

------------------------------
"42nd-delay is the only person who's making sense." - Ron, 3-12-02

BoondockSaint

06-10-2004, 09:21 PM

So Reagan, who I respect and think should be honored, should knock Alexander Hamilton, the creator of the modern banking system, off the $10 bill? No. Find another bill to put him on.

http://img2.photobucket.com/albums/v11/squrl/sogsig2.jpg
Thanks to monsterone for the sig!

TheMojoPin

06-10-2004, 09:30 PM

OK, I've gotten people basically dressing up the idea that Reagan "was a good guy" as the main and only running reason for his face to be added to our money.

I'm not denying he seemed like a decent man. I only disagree with his politics...but people like FDR, Ben Franklin, Washington, Lincoln, Hamilton and Jefferson all DID great things to earn their place in history. Nobody's brought up anything about what Reagan actually DID except vague assertions that he "tore down the Berlin wall" or "ended the Cold War," without any proof or details as to how any of this was done. The rest is all just the notion he was a swell guy...which is fine, but if that's the reason we're putting him on money, you'll only hear people down the line saying he should be taken off like we're talking about tossing "not quite up to snuff" figures like Grant and Jackson.

Being a nice guy doesn't mean you should get this kind of honor. Making people feel good doesn't mean you should get this kind of honor.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

NewYorkDragons80

06-12-2004, 07:05 AM

people like FDR, Ben Franklin, Washington, Lincoln, Hamilton and Jefferson all DID great things to earn their place in history. Nobody's brought up anything about what Reagan actually DID except vague assertions that he "tore down the Berlin wall" or "ended the Cold War," without any proof or details as to how any of this was done.
When he entered office, the momentum was swinging in the Soviets' favor. Communists, trained by Cuba, were taking power in Grenada, Nicaragua, and El Salvador. (What elections they did win were because of their thugs' threats on the population). Carter, in fact, sent aid to the Sandinista government. The Soviets were well on their way to conquering Afghanistan as well as Angola. In 1981, the United States had not made any effort to stop the spread of Communism since the end of the Vietnam War. Reagan changed all that, initiated economic growth, and founded defense programs which Russian funds simply could not keep up with. He won the Cold War.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

A.J.

06-12-2004, 08:21 AM

Making people feel good doesn't mean you should get this kind of honor.

Damn. I was hoping Oprah would appear on some currency.

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

TheMojoPin

06-12-2004, 10:13 AM

Reagan did NOT initiate the Soviet collapse. He helped it along. I HAVE said that he and his administration recognized what was ALREADY happening and did encourage it through what NYD described. The USSR would NOT have, however, survived to the new millenium even without the "spending race." The Soviet collapse was already underway once Reagan took office. The fragmentation of the USSR was something that had been "in the works" for 20 years. You essentially had a superpower in denial until their own failure smacked them right in the face.

When he entered office, the momentum was swinging in the Soviets' favor. Communists, trained by Cuba, were taking power in Grenada, Nicaragua, and El Salvador. (What elections they did win were because of their thugs' threats on the population).

The first sentence sounds incredibly dramatic. Then it's revealed it's Grenada, Nicaragua and El Salvador. The communist attempts to takeover there should have been stopped, but they were "gimme" victories. It's hard to imagine any other president BESIDES Carter not taking the action Reagan did.

Carter, in fact, sent aid to the Sandinista government.

And? Reagan sent aid to the Afghani rebels who became the Taliban and Al Queada, AND aid to Iraq. If Carter is going to take the fall as having created a mess Reagan had to clean up, the Gipper should have to take the "credit" for sowing the seeds of our "war on terror" today.

Should we get into the utter failure of the so-called "war on drugs?"

How about ignoring HIV/AIDS until it literally became an epidemic in this country?

And while I'm pointing out some of his administration's shortcomings, I DON'T think he was a "bad" president. I look at him, Bush I and Clinton all pretty much on the same level...lotsa talk with little real results. I still stand by my statement that no president since FDR has "earned" their place onto our currency.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

NewYorkDragons80

06-12-2004, 05:10 PM

Reagan did NOT initiate the Soviet collapse. He helped it along.
Agreed. By hastening the process, however, he can be credited with saving countless lives and countless time spent in Siberia.

It's hard to imagine any other president BESIDES Carter not taking the action Reagan did.
At that time period, there were few public figures who could have gotten away with promoting anti-Communism in a foreign land.

How about ignoring HIV/AIDS until it literally became an epidemic in this country?
Government Spending on HIV/AIDS
Fiscal Year
($ Millions)
% growth over previous year

1982
8

1983
44
450.00

1984
103
134.09

1985
205
99.03

1986
508
147.80

1987
922
81.50

1988
1,615
75.16

1989
2,322
43.78

Total
5,727

Source: Congressional Research Service
(http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200312030913.asp)

Granted, more could've been done, but it is grossly unfair to say that he did nothing. I'm not trying to direct anger specifically at you, but at the idea that he was this anti-gay bigot who was at best ignorant of AIDS and at worst knowingly chose not to fight it because it affected sinful fornicators.

Reagan sent aid to the Afghani rebels who became the Taliban and Al Queada, AND aid to Iraq. If Carter is going to take the fall as having created a mess Reagan had to clean up, the Gipper should have to take the "credit" for sowing the seeds of our "war on terror" today.
The difference is that Carter overtly sent aid to a Communist government during the Cold War!

The Mujahideen received American support, but it was funneled through the Pakistani ISI. If the Americans had control over the money, it would have gone to the moderates, like Molvi Nabi, Pir Gailani, and Hazrat Mujaddadi more, and the fundamentalists less. However, even the fundamentalists are, in some cases, siding with the United States. Dr. Rabbani, who was head of one of the 4 major fundamentalist parties at the time, was quite opposed to bin Laden and the Taliban. He was President of Afghanistan in the early 1990s and the political leader of the Northern Alliance. Then there is the troublesome Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. No friend of Reagan, he refused to meet with the President during a 1985 visit to the United Nations. However, he wasn't a fan of the Taliban, either. He spent most of the 1990s in Iran and didn't return until the liberation of Kabul by the United States. I must mention that Hekmatyar is currently opposed to the United States and the current Afghan government. But that doesn't affect the fact that he was in exile at the time of 9/11 and was vehemently opposed to the Taliban.

The Taliban itself didn't come around until the early 1990's when its founder Mullah Omar came to prominence. He was pretty much a nobody during the Soviet occupation. Very little is known about him, but he was believed to be a low-level commander.

As for Osama bin Laden, he received little, if any, financial support from the United States. Much of his contributions were self-financed, just as they are today. More importantly, he would have fought in Afghanistan with or without US support.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

This message was edited by NewYorkDragons80 on 6-12-04 @ 9:12 PM

HBox

06-12-2004, 05:19 PM

Granted, more could've been done, but it is grossly unfair to say that he did nothing. I'm not trying to direct anger specifically at you, but at the idea that he was this anti-gay bigot who was at best ignorant of AIDS and at worst knowingly chose not to fight it because it affected sinful fornicators.

A portion of the October 15, 1982 White House press conference:

Q: Larry, does the President have any reaction to the announcement from the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, that AIDS is now an epidemic and have over 600 cases?
MR. SPEAKES: What's AIDS?
Q: Over a third of them have died. It's known as "gay plague." (Laughter.) No, it is. I mean it's a pretty serious thing that one in every three people that get this have died. And I wondered if the President is aware of it?
MR. SPEAKES: I don't have it. Do you? (Laughter.)
Q: No, I don't.
MR. SPEAKES: You didn't answer my question.
Q: Well, I just wondered, does the President ...
MR. SPEAKES: How do you know? (Laughter.)
Q: In other words, the White House looks on this as a great joke?
MR. SPEAKES: No, I don't know anything about it, Lester.
Q: Does the President, does anyone in the White House know about this epidemic, Larry?
MR. SPEAKES: I don't think so. I don't think there's been any ...
Q: Nobody knows?
MR. SPEAKES: There has been no personal experience here, Lester.
Q: No, I mean, I thought you were keeping ...
MR. SPEAKES: I checked thoroughly with Dr. Ruge this morning and he's had no - (laughter) - no patients suffering from AIDS or whatever it is.
Q: The President doesn't have gay plague, is that what you're saying or what?
MR. SPEAKES: No, I didn't say that.
Q: Didn't say that?
MR. SPEAKES: I thought I heard you on the State Department over there. Why didn't you stay there? (Laughter.)
Q: Because I love you Larry, that's why (Laughter.)
MR. SPEAKES: Oh I see. Just don't put it in those terms, Lester. (Laughter.)
Q: Oh, I retract that.
MR. SPEAKES: I hope so.
Q: It's too late.

December 11, 1984:

Q: An estimated 300,000 people have been exposed to AIDS, which can be transmitted through saliva. Will the President, as Commander-in-Chief, take steps to protect Armed Forces food and medical services from AIDS patients or those who run the risk of spreading AIDS in the same manner that they forbid typhoid fever people from being involved in the health or food services?
MR. SPEAKES: I don't know.
Q: Could you -- Is the President concerned about this subject, Larry --
MR. SPEAKES: I haven't heard him express--
Q: --that seems to have evoked so much jocular--
MR. SPEAKES: --concern.
Q: --reaction here? I -- you know --
Q: It isn't only the jocks, Lester.
Q: Has he sworn off water faucets--
Q: No, but, I mean, is he going to do anything, Larry?
MR. SPEAKES: Lester, I have not heard him express anything on it. Sorry.
Q: You mean he has no -- expressed no opinion about this epidemic?
MR. SPEAKES: No, but I must confess I haven't asked him about it. (Laughter.)
Q: Would you ask him Larry?
MR. SPEAKES: Have you been checked? (Laughter.)

He did something, but it certianly wasn't taken seriously, and if AIDS wasn't known as the "gay plague" I highly doubt that would have been the case. If I were to judge solely from these press conferences, it would seem they saw it as one big joke.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

TheMojoPin

06-12-2004, 08:37 PM

NYD, saving lives in Russia is great, but why does that mean he should be on OUR money? Put Reagan on the ruble then. It's like putting Dubya on the quarter for taking out Saddam Hussein. American money should reflect American achievements. And while Reagan did indeed have a role in ending the Cold War, I'd say someone like Kennedy played a much more direct role in saving billions of lives during the Cold War, and yet I don't think he should be on our money...so why should I assume differently with Reagan?

As for AIDS, no, I don't think he was a bigot, but his administration dragged their feet as long as possible before publically addressing and facing the disease. It's a virus that still TODAY is best fought with knowledge and awareness. He could have thrown all the money he wanted at researching it...if people didn't know what it was or how they could get it, the number of sick people was just going to increase...and the reates of AIDS/HIV victims increasing each year during his term was staggering. It was impossible to ignore. It should have been addressed and the public made aware of it in full WAY before he finally even said the WORD "AIDS."

And you're right, Reagan's aid to Afghanistan did not helpt to directly form Al Queda and Taliban. But the people there had no love for us at all, and like Iran vs. Iraq, it was us picking the lesser of two evils without much thought or planning to consequences down the line...as both Iraq and Afghanistan have shown is all too horribly in the last few years. We made little to no effort to rebuild and stabilize Afghanistan after they drove the Soviets back, something they took as nothing short of betrayal since many of them perceived they were fighting "our war" after a while with the amount of CIA and military ops involvement we had going.

And Iraq is MUCH bigger sticking point to me. We had NO reason to support them at all, but we did...and with gusto. And no we're paying the price. All the problems we've had with that country in the last 14 years ALL stem with how much we let them get away with in the 80's.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

Yerdaddy

06-12-2004, 09:43 PM

(disclaimer: I'm tired and I suspect I might regret or have to correct this post tomorrow.)

The Mujahideen received American support, but it was funneled through the Pakistani ISI. If the Americans had control over the money, it would have gone to the moderates, like Molvi Nabi, Pir Gailani, and Hazrat Mujaddadi more, and the fundamentalists less.
I disagree. I don't think its reasonable to assume that we gave to the ISI a blank check for $10 billion. The CIA was deeply involved with the the ISI and its expenditure of those funds. Indeed, much of that money is what built the ISI into the powerful entity it was in Pakistan after the Afghan War. Under that kind of patronage one has immense control. And the use of radical Islamists was an integral part of the strategy of that war because that's what provided the warm bodies from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Chechnya, China... from all over the Arab and Muslim world. We were creating an army to fight our enemy, the conduct of which we would not be accountable for. The systems that were set up to fight and prolong that war included systems of madrassas for propagandizing and recruitment of radicals all over the Muslim world, and transporting them into Afghanistan to fight. The moderates you mentioned would not have been able to provide that kind of army. So I think that if we wanted to fund the moderates, we would have, but we didn't because they wouldn't have served the purpose.

I think it also think you're overlooking Mojo's point that, even if the covert proxy war against the Soviet Union was for the greater good of winning the Cold War, when that objective was completed, we largely abandoned the Afghani people to the armies we largely created. I know you can cite humanitarian aid figures, but those figures won't add up to the damage done by the arming and radicalizing of the entire country, then dragging out the war with the Soviets to "deliver to them their Vietnam," when the Soviets were reluctant to invade in the first place. We left behind the networks of black market weapons and radicalized madrassas that turned the war with the Soviets into a never-ending civil war in which the Afghanis suffered more than the Central Asian states that had been a part of the Soviet Union, like Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. But more to the point, it was the necessary infrastructure that facilitated the creation of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. So even more importantly than the questionable morality of Reagan's conduct of the war, was the lack of foresight of the potential "blowback" from that war and lack of follow-up. Bear in mind also that given the timeframe much of the responsibility for failings after the war would fall on Bush Sr.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

NewYorkDragons80

06-12-2004, 09:54 PM

I disagree. I don't think its reasonable to assume that we gave to the ISI a blank check for $10 billion. The CIA was deeply involved with the the ISI and its expenditure of those funds. Indeed, much of that money is what built the ISI into the powerful entity it was in Pakistan after the Afghan War. Under that kind of patronage one has immense control. And the use of radical Islamists was an integral part of the strategy of that war because that's what provided the warm bodies from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Chechnya, China... from all over the Arab and Muslim world. We were creating an army to fight our enemy, the conduct of which we would not be accountable for. The systems that were set up to fight and prolong that war included systems of madrassas for propagandizing and recruitment of radicals all over the Muslim world, and transporting them into Afghanistan to fight. The moderates you mentioned would not have been able to provide that kind of army. So I think that if we wanted to fund the moderates, we would have, but we didn't because they wouldn't have served the purpose
In his book Afghanistan: The Bear Trap," the former head of the ISI's Afghan desk claims that the CIA preferred the moderates and that the Pakistanis had final say in the flow of money, lest it seem as if the Mujahideen was a branch of US foreign policy. Unless you think he's lying to trump up his own ego (and he very well could be), I consider him to be the authority on the subject.

I think it also think you're overlooking Mojo's point that, even if the covert proxy war against the Soviet Union was for the greater good of winning the Cold War, when that objective was completed, we largely abandoned the Afghani people to the armies we largely created. I know you can cite humanitarian aid figures, but those figures won't add up to the damage done by the arming and radicalizing of the entire country
Yeah, I pretty much agree there. The problem was that in Vietnam you could pinpoint April 30th 1975 as the day Communism took over. In Afghanistan, it was murky as to who was in power after the Soviets left.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

42nd-delay

06-12-2004, 09:58 PM

Regarding Reagan's role in the end of the Cold War, I feel like it would have never happened without Gorbachev in office. I feel like Reagan's arms race raised tensions to the point that, for the first time since the early 60s, people really felt there might be a nuclear war. If hardliners had stayed in office in that country, who knows what might have happened.

Instead, the quick deaths of two Soviet leaders prompted the rise of a younger man, Gorbachev, who decided the system needed to be fixed. Things slowly changed, til the people of those countries felt the old governments held no power over them anymore. Reagan should get credit for his flexibility - being willing to talk with Gorbachev about arms reductions when relations warmed up. But the kind of credit for "winning" the war he's gotten lately is a bit much I think.

------------------------------
"42nd-delay is the only person who's making sense." - Ron, 3-12-02

TheMojoPin

06-12-2004, 10:38 PM

42nd's right...the notion that Reagan "beat" Gorbachev always strikes me as so far off base. They two very much worked together to bring about the end of the "old guard" USSR, even if they weren't actually direct partners in doing so.

NYD and yerdaddy, have either of you guys read the new book "Ghost Wars?" It's all about the CIA's involvement in Afghanistan leading up to 9/11, and it's a pretty extensive and fascinating read on the just the subject we're all discussing.

I read a customer review that summed up the books key points almost perfectly...

1. A policy to trail and kill bin Laden and his associates was undertaken by the Clinton administration. The "wag the dog" BS of the republican zealots after the missile strike of 1998 did not encourage the administration to push using troops of any kind.

2. Pakistan's position today is extrememly delicate. They did a massive amount to aid the Taliban over the Russian invasion and up to 9/11. There should be no surprise in the difficulty that remains in getting to get "full" support on destroying the jihadis crossing the Afghan/Pakistan border. Their intelligence service is about as troubled as our own.

3. Reagan policy of arming Afgans to the teeth then abandoning them completely is one of the biggest mistakes in American foreign policy in history.

4. Clinton policy on bin Laden was scattered and non productive. The C.I.A. did little to earn the full trust of the administration with spotty intel.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1594200076.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Like it's been said, we basically created a Vietcong in Afghanistan by uniting so many of the militias and radicals to fight the Soviets. They were then almost toally left to their own devices, with no support and nothing to keep them in check...and now we have the world today. It's a depressignly straightforward and simple map of events.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

Yerdaddy

06-12-2004, 10:49 PM

In his book Afghanistan: The Bear Trap," the former head of the ISI's Afghan desk claims that the CIA preferred the moderates and that the Pakistanis had final say in the flow of money, lest it seem as if the Mujahideen was a branch of US foreign policy. Unless you think he's lying to trump up his own ego (and he very well could be), I consider him to be the authority on the subject.
I wouldn't outright discount him because I haven't read his book. I'd be interested in doing that but I shouldn't even be in this conversation, (I should be packing my own damn books back up because I'm moving across the country in a few days and I've barely started packing.) But I would just say that I'm going by some long conversations on the subject with a friend who was a diplomatic atache in Afghanistan through the 80s and in Pakistan in the early 90s. So while I know my friend and have a good sense of his integrity and depth of knowledge, but not Mohammad Yousaf I feel comfortable sticking with my friend. The known vs. the unknown, I suppose. I'm sure if I could talk to him again he's also go into the aspect of the 1978-9 Islamic revolution in Iran and how that effected thinking about the usefulness of aiding a radical Wabbism in the region, and the personalities of the participants and on an on with all the cool details that you love to hear but you just know you will never remember in a way that will do it justice. Thanks for reminding me that I'm going to miss that guy in a big big way.

Yeah, I pretty much agree there. The problem was that in Vietnam you could pinpoint April 30th 1975 as the day Communism took over. In Afghanistan, it was murky as to who was in power after the Soviets left.
I wouldn't want to downplay what an enormous job it would have been to try and demobilize the mujaheddin then, but it would have been the moral thing to attempt and the pragmatic thing to do for our own security. That's with the benefit of hindsight, of course, but it shouldn't have been too hard to figure out that that kind of international network of Islamist warriors, left unattended, would eventually come back and bite us in the ass.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

Yerdaddy

06-12-2004, 10:54 PM

NYD and yerdaddy, have either of you guys read the new book "Ghost Wars?"

No. Now come to bed already.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

NewYorkDragons80

06-13-2004, 04:38 PM

NYD and yerdaddy, have either of you guys read the new book "Ghost Wars?" It's all about the CIA's involvement in Afghanistan leading up to 9/11, and it's a pretty extensive and fascinating read on the just the subject we're all discussing.
I just finished Jennifer Government and I'm finishing Why Courage Matters. It's been on my to do list for a while, along with Raid on the Sun.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

CruelCircus

06-18-2004, 02:42 AM

NO president since FDR deserves that, no matter who they are...
I wonder if our Japanese-American friends buy into all the FDR hype. Perhaps he should be put on the Yen?

How about we stick him on the $1,000,000 bill. This way he only needs to be looked at by the only people he really helped during his administration.
Mm-hm. Right. No one else's lives improved under Reagan. You don't have to love the guy, but being ridiculous doesn't help your point, either. Are you even old enough to remember Reagan as prez?

WHY put Reagan on our money? And to add that, why him over any of the other U.S. presidents not on our currency?
It's simple. Reagan was a great President.
You may not like it or agree, but it's that simple. He was great and had a significant impact on the history of this country and the world as a whole.

I will concede that it might be too soon for such a large honor. Also, I wouldn't feel great dumping anyone off entirely, even someone I don't like, like Kennedy. A new piece (a $2 coin, possibly?) or one of the "doubles"- Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, if anyone new goes on.

As for other Presidents not having monuments, that's ridiculous. There's thousands of Washington, Lincoln, and Kennedy schools alone (the town I grew up in had one of each, and a John Qunicy Adams to boot!)- probably in all 50 states, not to mention streets, parks, bridges and tunnels, towns, cities, counties, an entire state, and the nation's capital!

I'd say someone like Kennedy played a much more direct role in saving billions of lives during the Cold War
Please. Kennedy's just lucky he didn't bumble us all into a nuclear war. Not to mention starting that whole Vietnam thing that somehow gets to be known as "Nixon's War."

the notion that Reagan "beat" Gorbachev always strikes me as so far off base
Of course it does.
But that's just your personal, political opinion. Others feel differently, obviously. As you've alluded, you don't like the idea of Reagan on money because you don't like his politics. I have a hunch no amount of debate will convince you of his worthiness, no matter how many times you post "no one has yet to convince me..."

 
<img src="http://pw2.netcom.com/~jjmace/gifs/cruel.jpg"> 
It's your life.
How do you like it so far?

Doctor Manhattan

06-18-2004, 04:12 AM

How about a new $25 bill with Reagan on it?

Don't you always need something to go with your $20 bill when you buy something to cover tax on a $19.99 purchase?

Plus you can have 4 bills to a Hundred instead of 5. That will make those breifcases full of cash that I carry more efficent. leaving room for Jelly Beans.

<a href="http://members.cox.net/cousinken/itsabouttime.mp3"><img src="http://members.cox.net/nicksporsche/vhsig01.jpg" border=0></a>

This message was edited by SKW on 6-18-04 @ 8:40 AM

TheMojoPin

06-18-2004, 05:40 AM

Circus, it may ALL be my opinion, but should my opinion be any less valid than the people that WANT him on the money?

It just pisses me off because you KNOW this is something that's just decided for us, for OR against, and we have little to no say in the matter. Put it up to some kind of vote, and if the voting people choose to have him on there, so be it.

Others feel differently, obviously. As you've alluded, you don't like the idea of Reagan on money because you don't like his politics. I have a hunch no amount of debate will convince you of his worthiness, no matter how many times you post "no one has yet to convince me..."

Nonsense. That's exactly what happened recently with my opinion of the first Bush. If the proof is in the pudding, so to speak, I'll go with it. Reagan's presidency was just the living equivalent of the STP song "Big Empty." You're right, I'm NOT going to be convinced by opinions, rhetoric or sentiment. Give me facts.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 6-18-04 @ 9:42 AM

NewYorkDragons80

06-18-2004, 10:14 AM

Back to the currency, I think Grant's achievements as a general alone entitle him to a place on the $50. He wasn't the best president, but he was an excellent general who won the civil war.

Hamilton absolutely saved our treasury. I think he made a mistake in creating a "district" out of Washington DC, but he has earned his place of the $10, in my opinion.

Jackson, however, was genocidal and a blemish on our history. Reagan should replace him, IMO.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

TheMojoPin

06-18-2004, 11:05 AM

Why the hell was Jackson on there in the first place, and when did he get there?

The only thing I like about Jackson is when someone tried to assassinate him, and both of the killer's pistols misfired, Jackson himself jumped the guy and started beating him with his cane until the assassin was hauled off by the police.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

curtoid

06-18-2004, 12:05 PM

It's too soon - it's too partisan - give it some time for some perspective of his Presidency and let's let our kids or grandkids make the decision after history has judged those 8 years.

Personally I'm in favor of getting rid of all money, or getting rid of dead, white guy's faces from it - with one exception.

http://img21.photobucket.com/albums/v64/curtoid/44.jpg

"Don't believe everything you read on message boards." - RB

NewYorkDragons80

06-18-2004, 01:42 PM

The only thing I like about Jackson is when someone tried to assassinate him, and both of the killer's pistols misfired, Jackson himself jumped the guy and started beating him with his cane until the assassin was hauled off by the police.
Wow, I'd never heard that. My favorite will always be when Theodore Roosevelt was shot, he still gave his speech until he passed out from loss of blood.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

TheMojoPin

06-18-2004, 04:29 PM

Man, I thought Teddy didn't even pass out.

It was always told to me that when he was running for his third term and was about to give a campaign speech in NYC, an assassin shot him in the chest. The bullet was stopped, however, by his glasses case and his speech, which was so long that its size after it was folded over to fit into his breast pocket was enough to slow the bullet so it only just broke the skin. He then went right to the campiagn stop and made the speech, no stopping.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

high fly

08-28-2004, 08:33 PM

Reagan on Rushmore? Our Currency?

Let's see, are we now honoring the man who gave Saddam Hussein WMD?

The man who rewarded terrorists who murdered hundreds of Americans with thousands of anti-tank missiles?

The man whose administration set the record for members convicted of breaking the law?

The man who gave us double-digit unemployment to go with the two recessions and record deficits he dropped on us?

AND ENOUGH OF THIS BRINGING DOWN COMMUNISM SHIT!!

Ronald "Dutch" Reagan did the same as you and I, he watched it on tv.
Communism was a system that didn't work and it eventually collapsed under the weight of it's own contradictions.
The Solidarity Movement stood up to the commies there, and after they threw the bastards out, others followed suit.
"Dutch" Reagan helped them out by sending them pencil boxes for school, but little else.
MX Missiles, Neutron Bombs, 600 ship Navy or the Contras had nothing to do with it.

" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

This message was edited by high fly on 8-29-04 @ 12:36 AM

ChickenHawk

08-28-2004, 08:46 PM

Let's see, are we now honoring the man who gave Saddam Hussein WMD?
SADDAM HAVING WMD'S?! You must be mad.

<IMG SRC="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=ChickenHawk">
HORDE KING FOREVER!!! ORACLE NEVER!!!
<strike>Shock</strike>
<marquee behavior=alternate>EMFA</marquee>[color=white]

high fly

08-28-2004, 11:32 PM

Oh yeah.
He used-em all up on them Kurds and Iranians and shit.

" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

NewYorkDragons80

08-29-2004, 05:03 AM

It was always told to me that when he was running for his third term and was about to give a campaign speech in NYC, an assassin shot him in the chest. The bullet was stopped, however, by his glasses case and his speech, which was so long that its size after it was folded over to fit into his breast pocket was enough to slow the bullet so it only just broke the skin. He then went right to the campiagn stop and made the speech, no stopping.
You pretty much got it right. The big-ass speech and the tin glasses case slowed the bullet, but it still made a wound large enough to draw a non-lethal amount of blood. In fact, the bullet was still in his body when he died of unrelated causes a few years later. He passed out about 45 minutes into the speech.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

Mike Teacher

08-29-2004, 06:46 AM

Well, people are gonna be able to put their pictures on stamps soon, so maybe in a while we can have our own personal currency.

PhotoShop-ers get to work!

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/anisig3">

Mike Teacher

08-29-2004, 07:04 AM

http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/20a

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/anisig3">

LiquidCourage

08-29-2004, 10:03 AM

This message was edited by LiquidCourage on 8-29-04 @ 6:20 PM

theseatbelts

08-29-2004, 12:12 PM

A- The arms sale to Iran, while not a perfect deal by any means, was a last resort to free the hostages who were being held in Iran for year. Many other methods were attempted. including a rescue mission. and none worked. In a perfect world President Reagan would have liked to trade the hostages for used Hewey Lewis albumns, but Islamic fundimentalists aren't into corporate rock and time was running out.

B- It was Reagan's insistence to build up arms and research Strategic Missile Defense that forced the teetering Soviet Union to spend itself to death to try and keep up. His strong personal relationships with world leaders like Margaret Thatcher, Michele Gorbachev and Pope John Paul II also played a major part in containing and defeating the USSR. In short, Reagan rules.

<img src="http://hometown.aol.com/theseatbelts84/images/personal%20sig1.jpg" >

This message was edited by theseatbelts on 8-29-04 @ 4:13 PM

ADF

08-29-2004, 02:18 PM

What happened to Reagan's policy of not negotiating with terrorists? I guess it's ok to make secret arms deals with them if "time is running out."

The arms race was a self-perpetuating spiral of economic blunders that left Russia in a state of ruin that it has not recovered from and has left us with a multi-trillion dollar debt (something which the current president has not helped with in the slightest).

In short, Reagan sucks.

<center><a href="http://somesuch.org" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.somesuch.org/sigpics/heroine.gif"></a> Roses are red... Violets are blue... All of my base... Are belong to you.</center>

high fly

08-29-2004, 06:26 PM

What happened to Reagan's policy of not negotiating with terrorists?

Here it is!

June18, 1985 "America will never make concessions to terrorists. To do so would only invite more terrorism...Once we head down that path, that would be the end of it."
----Ronald "Dutch" Reagan, ; while negotiations with Manucher Ghorbanifar were underway to do just that.

June 30, 1985 "The United States gives terrorists no rerwards and no guaruntees...we make no concessions, we make no deals."
----Ronald "Dutch" Reagan, as talks with Ghorbanifar continue and the U.S. gives an increase from $345 million to $675 million in food and agricultural credits to Iraq.

July 1, 1985, The U.S. pressured Israel to release 766 prisoners in exchange for 39 U.S. hostages held in Beirut by terrorists.

July 3, 1985 "Bud" McFarland meets with the Israel foreign minister to discuss the "initiative" to Iran.

July 18, 1985 Ronald "Dutch" Reagan authorizes the sale of 2,004 TOW anti-tank missiles and 18 Hawk anti-aircraft missiles to Iran.
Same day his diary entry speaks of the negotiations.

Aug. 6, 1985 Meeting in White House quarters of National Security Planning Group - "Dutch," Bush41, Casey, Regan, Schultz and Wewinburger.
They are briefed on arms for hostages deal.
Only Schultz and Weinberger object.

Sept 14, 1985 408 more TOWs shipped from Israel to Iran.

Sept 15, 1985 Hostage Benjamin Weir released in Lebannon.

Nov. 2, 1985 Hostage David Jacobsen released by terrorists.

Nov 24, 1985 18 Hawk missiles shipped from Israel to Iran.

Dec 5, 1985 After finding out they'd broken the law, "Dutch" Reagan signs a Presidential finding that retroactively authorizes the CIA deal to free the hostages by selling Hawk missiles to Iran.

Jan, 1986 "Ollie" North reports that Iran wants 4,000 more TOWs; "Dutch" Reagan authorizes direct arms sales to Iran.

Jan. 17, 1986 "I agreed to sell TOWs to Iran." ---"Dutch" Reagan diary entry.

Feb 11, 1986 Iran takes Faw Peninsula. Critical to the victory were the TOWs already delivered. Iran cuts off Iraqi oil exports, Iraq too broke to buy needed arms, resorts to WMD.

Feb 18, 1986 Richard Secord delivers 1,000 TOWs to Iran.

Feb. 27, 1986 Richard Secord delivers 1,000 TOWs to Iran.

May 25, 1986 "Bud" McFarland, "Ollie" North and Howard Teicher fly to Tehran to negotiate more arms for hostages deals. They expect to exchange the pallet of Hawk missile spare parts in the hold of the plane for hostages.
They leave without the hostages. Iranians steal pallet of parts from the plane.

July, 1986 Iranian-backed Hezbollah takes 2 more U.S. hostages as further arms-for-hostages negotiations continue.

July 26, 1986 Fr Lawrence Jenco released by terrorists.

July 30, 1986 "Dutch" Reagan authorizes another shipment of Hawk missile parts to Iran.

Early Aug., 1986 12 more pallets of Hawk missile parts delivered to Iran.
Sept 9, 1986 Iran-backed terrorists take Frank H. Reed hostage.

Sept, 12, 1986 Iran-backed terrorists take Joseph Cicippio hostage.

Sept. 19, 1986 "Ollie" North gives late-night tour of the White House to terrorist representative Ali Hashemi Ba Hrami, whose uncle, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, identified later as an Iranian "moderate," who had ordered the kidnappings and terrorist bombing campaign that had killed hundreds of Americans in Beirut.

Oct 5-7, 1986 "Ollie" North meets with a terrorist representative in Frankfort, Germany, and gives him a gen-you-wine Ronald "Dutch" Reagan autographed Bible.

Oct ? 1986 Edward Tracy kidnapped by Iran-backed terrorists.

Oct 27, 1986 500 TOWs delivered to Iran.

Oct. 28, 1986 500 TOWs delivered to Iran.

Nov. 2, 1986 David Jacobsen released by Iran-backed terrorists.

Nov. 6, 1986 "We will never pay off terrorists because that only encourages more of it."
----Ronald "Dutch" Reagan
The same day, the story breaks in a Lebannese newspaper that we had been trading arms for hostages.
"Dutch" assured us, "That story has no foundation."

Nov. 8, 1986 500 mo