Debate: Should Bill Clinton speak at President Reagan's Funeral.

[peachgirl]

Sorry, but to me that just seems like you're looking for an excuse to slam Bush.

And you don't think that's what the OP was doing with this thread regarding President Clinton? I was simply playing by the rules set by the OP. However, if I were looking for an "excuse", using the death of a former President to fire up the workers would be a pretty good one.

Sorry, but it seems to me that you'll justify anything the Republicans do. Either it isn't true, or if it is true then it doesn't matter.

this is one of those hookaires threads for me.

I agree. It's just the repetitiveness of this type of post that got to me.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by gometros
I don't see the similarities at all. If it were Bush at the Berlin Wall, he would have said "Gorbachev, tear down these walls or I'm going to shoot them down myself."

Actually, I think it might have been closer to "Mr Gorbchovsky, tearing down these...um...wall should come down !"

But I get your point

 

[Snowysmom]

The Reagan family should have the only say in who speaks at the funeral. I really doubt that Reagan and Clinton were well acquainted. I did read in the paper today that he is upset but he will need to get over it. I wouldn't expect Bush to speak at Clinton's funeral either. It is not politics, it is what the family wants.

 

[Lanshark]

They probably didn't ask him since he is so long winded. There will be a lot of old people there and they don't want anyone dying of bordom.

Before anyone gets their nose outta joint it was a joke

 

[jrydberg]

And you don't think that's what the OP was doing with this thread regarding President Clinton? I was simply playing by the rules set by the OP.

Yes, I do. Doesn't make it right to retaliate. But I won't harp on it anymore. I've said my bit.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by Doug123
With that said, however, I also believe each of the US Presidents should be given the opportunity to speak.

Why?

 

[Eeyore1954]

Because then it would be a truly non-partisan funeral.

Of course, everyone would have to dope up on No-Doze and caffiene ... and they'll have to plan several potty breaks for those with small or weak bladders ...

And then there'll be a debate over who speaks first ... do they go in order of when they served, or does the current President go first, then Democrat, Republican, Democrat, Republican ...

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
Because then it would be a truly non-partisan funeral.

Noooooo! Nooooo! Nothing in this country can be non-partisan! Nothing!

I think it's quite ironic that those who praise Reagan to the nth degree are the same individuals who would deny Clinton the right to speak. Hmmm, that's not political play, huh?

And to those who say that Nancy should decide, sure, for the private side of the events, I have no problem with that. But, if we're talking the STATE event, nope, it should be non-partisan and Nancy should not have the only voice in the way it is run.

I think it's also ironic that w is going to speak at the funeral of Reagan. Given w's strong opposition to furthering stem-cell research I would say that it's next to a slap in the face to have him speak.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by peachgirl
And you don't think that's what the OP was doing with this thread regarding President Clinton? I was simply playing by the rules set by the OP. However, if I were looking for an "excuse", using the death of a former President to fire up the workers would be a pretty good one.

Sorry, but it seems to me that you'll justify anything the Republicans do. Either it isn't true, or if it is true then it doesn't matter.



I agree. It's just the repetitiveness of this type of post that got to me.

I don't NEED an excuse to slam Clinton, but in keeping with the recent surge of Bush bashing that I have seen here, let me state for the record; Having President Clinton speak at President Reagan's funeral would be like having Courtney Love give the eulogy for Mother Theresa. Or how about this: Why would the man who couldn't keep his pants on the the oval office speak at the funeral of a man who wouldn't take his jacket off?

 

[jrydberg]

I think it's quite ironic that those who praise Reagan to the nth degree are the same individuals who would deny Clinton the right to speak.

The "right" to speak at Reagan's funeral? It's not all about Clinton. It's about Reagan. He has no more "right" to speak at the funeral than I do. Personally, I don't feel particularly strongly that he should or should not speak. But it's not his right to speak. Honestly, state funeral or not, I think that decision should be left to Reagan's family. It is, after all, a funeral. No one at the funeral should be Republican or Democrat. They should be mourners.

 

[Galahad]

I doubt both that Clinton was "Denied" the right to speak (omission is not necessarily a purposeful denial) and the reports that Clinton is "angry" about it. Drudge has gotten a couple of high profile things right, and his links to other sources are quite valuable....but his own reports don't have a great history for accuracy. When he gets it wrong it just fades away and gets replaced and forgotten. Remember his great "John Kerry's affair" scoop?

 

[gometros]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
And to those who say that Nancy should decide, sure, for the private side of the events, I have no problem with that. But, if we're talking the STATE event, nope, it should be non-partisan and Nancy should not have the only voice in the way it is run.

I love how everyone has decided that since Clinton was not invited to speak, it has to be about politics. How about maybe it has to do with the people who meant the most to Reagan? As pointed out before, Former president Bush, Margaret Thatcher and Brian Mulroney all have ties to Reagan. President Bush (as much as I fear to listen to him) has the right as the standing president. There are no rules that say all former presidents have to speak and only one former president will be speaking.

Sorry, but NOBODY has a right to make a decision about the funeral other than the immediate family.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
I think it's quite ironic that those who praise Reagan to the nth degree are the same individuals who would deny Clinton the right to speak. Hmmm, that's not political play, huh?

People posting on this thread sure do have a lot of power! No one has any right to speak at this funeral unless invited to do so by the Reagan family. Plans for this funeral were made over 14 years ago -- in fact, Mrs. Thatcher videotaped her eulogy many years ago. At the time the funeral was planned, Clinton was still chasing interns in Arkansas. So it's a bit silly to get worked up over his not being invited to speak. Are you also worked up that former Presidents Carter and Ford were not invited to speak either?

And to those who say that Nancy should decide, sure, for the private side of the events, I have no problem with that. But, if we're talking the STATE event, nope, it should be non-partisan and Nancy should not have the only voice in the way it is run.

The family in any funeral has the final say in what goes on. Oh, I get it ... we should hold a national election and let everyone vote on who should speak. Funerals are not a democracy.

I think it's also ironic that w is going to speak at the funeral of Reagan. Given w's strong opposition to furthering stem-cell research I would say that it's next to a slap in the face to have him speak.

I don't find anything ironic about this and I believe Mr. Reagan would approve. He was a man of strong convictions even when they were not popular ones. I believe he would admire and respect President Bush's stand on stem-cell research. My dad died of Alzheimer's this year also and I not only admire and respect President Bush's stand, I support it completely.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
My dad died of Alzheimer's this year also and I not only admire and respect President Bush's stand, I support it completely.

I don't even know how to respond to that....You agree with a policy that, if allowed to prevail, would stop essential research into a possible cure for the disease that killed your father ?

Geez...and people accuse ME of being overly political

 

[Galahad]

I don't even know how to respond to that....You agree with a policy that, if allowed to prevail, would stop essential research into a possible cure for the disease that killed your father ?

1) It will do no such thing.

2) Even if it were true, it is not inconsistant to value the life of one human as much as the life of another and not be willing to sacrifice one for the other.

3) People do not die of Alzheimers. They die of other causes while having Alzheimers.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
I think it's quite ironic that those who praise Reagan to the nth degree are the same individuals who would deny Clinton the right to speak. Hmmm, that's not political play, huh?

And to those who say that Nancy should decide, sure, for the private side of the events, I have no problem with that. But, if we're talking the STATE event, nope, it should be non-partisan and Nancy should not have the only voice in the way it is run.

I.

Let me remind you that at the last state funeral, that of President Johnson, only democrats spoke.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by wvrevy
I don't even know how to respond to that....You agree with a policy that, if allowed to prevail, would stop essential research into a possible cure for the disease that killed your father ?

Geez...and people accuse ME of being overly political

I would respond by saying, "I'm sorry for your loss." This is not a political conviction for me or for my late father... it was a moral one. Without dragging this thread further OT, if you want more clarification, you can PM me or start a new thread. Always happy to chip in my 2 cents.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by Galahad
3) People do not die of Alzheimers. They die of other causes while having Alzheimers.

You are quite correct, Galahad. I "misspoke". His actual cause of death was acute sepsis with congestive heart failure, not Alzheimer's.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Galahad
1) It will do no such thing.

2) Even if it were true, it is not inconsistant to value the life of one human as much as the life of another and not be willing to sacrifice one for the other.

3) People do not die of Alzheimers. They die of other causes while having Alzheimers.

1 - Thank you. Didn't realize that we had a psychic present that could predict the future of scientific research

2 - Nobody was aborting babies to do stem cell research. It's a myth. Period. There were no lives being destroyed by it.

3 - And ? I'm sure that is quite a comfort to the families of those afflicted with this disease. I would rather be dead than to become what that disease turns people into. Most times, you'll hear people say that "his death came as a relief"...think there might be a reason for that ?

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
You actually believe the drudge report?

Yikes!

Where has he been wrong?