I didn't watch either, but then I didn't watch the Michael Jackson charade, the BO inauguration or the O.J. trial. But then I'm also not big on "reality" tv, sitcoms, spectator sports or soap operas. So it only stands to reason. As for another ongoing discussion, JFK technically belongs in Arlington, he did serve. Ted Kennedy on the other hand belongs in Arlington about as much as Ted Bundy.
A lot of hate in this thread. I don't agree with liberals on many issues, but this level of hate can't be healthy. The Kennedys were not Marxist, they even supported McCarthy during his inquisition against communists. They were American through and through. Just on the other side of the isle from many of you. As far as corruption or favors for those in power. Well.... welcome to planet earth, and look at either side of the isle or any country.
Care to list all the ways the right wing god Reagan wasn't perfect? I don't recall any talk of Reagan's imperfections by the right after Reagan's death...
I seem to remember Reagan taking some heat over his divorce and the conduct of a couple of his kids. And because he ran deficits (although Congress was hugely a democrat majority back then). Reagan never killed anyone in a drunk driving accident, fleeing the scene and not reporting the accident for many hours. He wasn't kicked out of law school for cheating. He didn't rely on nepotism and family wealth to succeed in politics. he didn't regularly appear in public so frigging sauced that for decades his behavior was the talk of tabloids. He didn't allow himself to look like some fat fuck drunk 24/7.
Reagan was throwing lavish parties at the white house at the time people were suffering big time economically. He was financed by the "rich" from california and elsewhere. Iran-Contra. Repealing fairness doctrine and setting the stage for parasites such as rush limbaugh. Tripling the national debt, not caring about deficits. Not caring about AIDS... I could go on and on.
In my lifetime I've never seen a candidate financed by "richer" self interests than Obama. Bar none. You consider "setting the stage" for unabashed free speech to be a problem? Is Air America treated any differently than Limbaugh? An Air America voice was just elected to the U.s. Senate. Unfair? Did CBS provide equal time for dissenting voices arguing against Cronkite or Rather? How the hell can you compare the emergence of SYNDICATED talk radio to the institutionalized, FCC granted monopoly given to television broadcasters? Especially in light of Obama bailing out the owner of multiple networks (GE) while another network (ABC) carries the water for his healtcare plan without any dissent permitted, paid or otherwise? And before you lay "tripling the national debt" on Reagan you may know that the Democrat Congress who PRODUCES THE BUDGET had a VETO PROOF majority. The Bond markets, stock market and economy eventually boomed during the Reagan era so it appears few were concerned about it. Further if you think Ameerican's were suffering under Reagan then why was he relected by the biggest electoral landslide in history? BTW: Bush saved more lives via AIDS spending than any other American President. I'm sure you'd care less although you're probably in a high risk lifestyle sub-group. "I salute President Bush for his leadership in crafting a plan for AIDS relief in Africa and backing it up with funding dedicated to saving lives and preventing the spread of the disease," Obama said in taped remarks to the Saddleback Civil Forum on Global Health. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/01/world.aids.day/index.html In Global Battle on AIDS, Bush Creates Legacy http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/washington/05aids.html
Well Mr. 4 posts, Reagan had a republican senate during the time his tax cuts passed. Just a thought. In 1980 election republicans got seats to give them majority in the senate 1986 election they lost majority in the senate. That covers the majority of Reagan's term brainiac. So all this bull shit about democrats running up the bill, is just that bull shit. Reagan did not give a shit as long as his military budgets exploded, if he cared about spending, with his veto pen and senate majority he could have stopped ANY bill. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan's_coattails http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,950490,00.html Your ignorance here is unsurprising since you speak in slogans anyway. The reason, fairness doctrine was important because it prevented the extreme polarization that is occuring now. And the reason liberal radio is not as successful is because a)there are not that many liberals b)educated men are less likely to take their marching orders form radio, while a pickup truck driving yahoo will. When I see idiot glenn beck suggesting that Obama hates america, white people, and wants to destroy america, those kind of views should not stay unchallenged, but on a network such as fox, it drives the ratings. Nobody should get rich from feeding the masses extremism, which is what Limbaugh/Beck and other scum are doing. Bush's efforts in africa are a red herring. Bush damaged USA and the world in so many ways, wasted so much money, got so many killed that his efforts in africa are irrelevant.
Spending bills are ONLY introduced by THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. After the 1982 mid-term elections the Democrat majority in the House was 269-166 which was even wider than the 257-178 of today! So, get your facts straight. And I'm laughing my ass off at your argument over the Fairness Doctrine. Let me summarize: The Fairness Doctrine was good because it stymied argument. How nice. Are you a FUCKING TRADER??? The MARKET is an ARGUMENT, you moron! Why not just "set" prices, "set" opinion, 'set" leadership and we can live in peace? The world is a DEBATE, an ARGUMENT, a DISCOURSE, a TRIAL on issues, policies, rights, punishments, sexual partners. To LIMIT expression or information is the anti-thesis of the process. I bet you favor QUITE A FEW THINGS contrary to EXISTING LAW. Things like gun control, homosexual marriage, etc. How would you LIKE IT, if Big Brother said NO ARGUMENTS about the law! "we're a "nation of laws" and hence our laws should be UNCHALLENGED."