Nancy Reagan dead at 94 (let's try this again...)

[msj]

Thanks to Harper, your chances are lower now, yes.

You can claim your ITC's though.

Hmmm, not sure if that is a masturbatuon joke or not. Gonna have to think about that one.

That reminds me: I don't think Nancy Reagn liked masturbation much but I think that Surgeon General came under Clinton's watch!

(My gawd I'm on a roll tonight!).

ETA: yep she sure did https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joycelyn_Elders#Comments_on_human_sexuality_and_termination

Edited March 7, 2016 by msj

[Hal 9000]

Sure I do....now. After years on this forum, the depth of Canada's obsession with the United States has been revealed to me. Who would have guessed that tiny Nancy was seen as President Reagan's Darth Vader/Dick Cheney. It's such a surprise ending.

Trudeau explained it all tonight on 60 Minutes...."Because you can't be Canadian without being aware of at least one other country, the United States, because it's so important to us."

Anyway, some others might think you're trolling with these anti-canadiana slags, but I know that your comments come from an honest, albeit very thin perspective.

[kimmy]

YEP this is going well.

-k

[Hoser360]

Thinking on this a bit, why the hell would Nancy Reagan's "policies" in the United States matter to Canadians, at the time (1980's) and today ?

What were the equivalent "policies" in Canada at the time, and did they clash with Canada's "policies" on sex and drugs to the point of cross border hatred ?

Maybe because US policies affected the hole world and the policies their 'friends' made in their own countries. I remember good old Nancy back when I was about 11 or 12, and her famous 'just say no' propaganda. I also remember watching the movie 'Refer Madness' (another beautiful example of American propaganda), so in 84' when Afghan hash was everywhere I wanted to see for myself what was so bad about these drugs. Well since the war on drugs I have surmised that drugs have gotten cheaper, better quality and more abundant than ever before. In fact I can not easily come up with a commodity that has done this in my life time. An Ounce of pot today is about $200CD as it was 30 years ago, accept that today's pot is many times more potent than it ever has been.

The war on drugs should be about health, science and society, not, crime and punishment. Ironically I almost rather it stays illegal except now I cant get that Afghan hash, like when the CIA was supporting the Taliban against the Russians back in the 80's. ;-)

[Derek 2.0]

YEP this is going well.

-k

About as well as intended by the OP.........somehow, BC2004 is the cause of this forum's stagnation and decline in discourse

[bush_cheney2004]

Anyway, some others might think you're trolling with these anti-canadiana slags, but I know that your comments come from an honest, albeit very thin perspective.

Well, it's not about me or any other American's understanding of Canada. Such an understanding is a burden assumed by some Canadians in some twisted, reciprocal universe. Nancy Reagan was First Lady in the United States with her very popular, two term husband. That she even chose to engage serious issues of the time and influence the president is a credit to her character and purpose.

Americans my age knew about Nancy long before Washington....she was in golden age film and was with Governor Reagan in California, as a Democrat !

[bush_cheney2004]

Maybe because US policies affected the hole world and the policies their 'friends' made in their own countries. I remember good old Nancy back when I was about 11 or 12, and her famous 'just say no' propaganda.

OK, but why would Nancy Reagan's ideas for domestic social policies in the United States mean so much in Canada, or any other country ? It's just bizarre how/why "just say no" sloganeering would garner so much attention north of the border. Is it because Canadians watch so much American television...then and now ?

I asked the question seriously....what were the equivalent sex/drugs/HIV/AIDS policies in Canada at the time ? Can anybody here remember without using America's Google ? Did Nancy Reagan totally dominate ?

Edited March 7, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[msj]

About as well as intended by the OP.........:

What I don't get is why don't you ignore that and discuss the questions I raise rather than call me an asshole?

The moderators love it when we ignore the "troll" parts and get to the substance.

So, let's have at it: what is wrong with saying, in an attempted humourous way, " I don't like this person" and their passing doesn't change my feelings in any way?

[Derek 2.0]

What I don't get is why don't you ignore that and discuss the questions I raise rather than call me an asshole?

Simple, as confirmed by your own words, your OP never intended to broker an honest discussion on the subject, and clearly was meant to insult people you knew from the onset wouldn't share your views.

Same concept as me saying "hey fuckface, why don't you lend me ten bucks so I can buy some eggs to chuck at your house"...........I wouldn't expect a productive conversation to ensue.

[Hal 9000]

Aren't we still touting the idea of "just say no!"? You guys may think it was lame, but what about wearing pink shirts on bully day or the campaigns about cyberbullying,"say no to drugs" "a drug free me", "this is your brain, this is your brain on drugs". Sure, some slogans sound lame but these campaigns work for many people.

I appreciate her attempt at that moreso than Tipper Gore who during the same period was dragging in musicians to testify in congress and censoring music.

[msj]

Simple, as confirmed by your own words, your OP never intended to broker an honest discussion on the subject, and clearly was meant to insult people you knew from the onset wouldn't share your views.

I did not say that.

Yes, I am testing the moderators a bit but I do ask serious questions and if you would stop calling me names then maybe a meaningful discussion could break out.

In fact, I'm also testing people like you and others here: Charles wants us to move on and discuss the substance rather than dwell on the petty attempts at humour or petty insults (depending on if one agrees with my views or disagrees).

Same concept as me saying "hey fuckface, why don't you lend me ten bucks so I can buy some eggs to chuck at your house"...........I wouldn't expect a productive conversation to ensue

I haven't cussed like you have (well, I guess bull poop is a cuss).

I have merely pointed out my opinion of the former First Lady, shared my memories, and asked others to do the same while seriously asking the question of why we have to be nice to the newly departed.

I have asked you several times for a productive response and all you can do is come up with expletive after expletive but somehow this is my fault?

Once again, yes, I dislike what NR stood for.

So what?

Are you so offended by that?

Well, so what?

Get over it.

Now, that's the real point of this discussion: what's sacred to you ain't to someone else and violating the forum rules to the extent that you have because you are having an emotional conniption is on you.

[msj]

I appreciate her attempt at that moreso than Tipper Gore who during the same period was dragging in musicians to testify in congress and censoring music.

But Tipper Gore is still alive so you will hear what I have to say when the time comes....

[bush_cheney2004]

Aren't we still touting the idea of "just say no!"? You guys may think it was lame, but what about wearing pink shirts on bully day or the campaigns about cyberbullying,"say no to drugs" "a drug free me", "this is your brain, this is your brain on drugs". Sure, some slogans sound lame but these campaigns work for many people.

Yes...those same kind of slogans still air today on American television and cable as part of Advertising Council public service campaigns. They are not intended for a Canadian audience.

[Hal 9000]

I did not say that.

Yes, I am testing the moderators a bit but I do ask serious questions and if you would stop calling me names then maybe a meaningful discussion could break out.

In fact, I'm also testing people like you and others here: Charles wants us to move on and discuss the substance rather than dwell on the petty attempts at humour or petty insults (depending on if one agrees with my views or disagrees).

I haven't cussed like you have (well, I guess bull poop is a cuss).

I have merely pointed out my opinion of the former First Lady, shared my memories, and asked others to do the same while seriously asking the question of why we have to be nice to the newly departed.

I have asked you several times for a productive response and all you can do is come up with expletive after expletive but somehow this is my fault?

Once again, yes, I dislike what NR stood for.

So what?

Are you so offended by that?

Well, so what?

Get over it.

Now, that's the real point of this discussion: what's sacred to you ain't to someone else and violating the forum rules to the extent that you have because you are having an emotional conniption is on you.

What are you testing for?

Edited March 7, 2016 by Hal 9000

[Hal 9000]

Yes...those same kind of slogans still air today on American television and cable as part of Advertising Council public service campaigns. They are not intended for a Canadian audience.

Yep, just like I said earlier.

[kimmy]

Aren't we still touting the idea of "just say no!"? You guys may think it was lame, but what about wearing pink shirts on bully day or the campaigns about cyberbullying,"say no to drugs" "a drug free me", "this is your brain, this is your brain on drugs". Sure, some slogans sound lame but these campaigns work for many people.

I'm in favor of encouraging abstinence for young people, be it drugs or sex. But I'm opposed to the idea of abstinence-only education. Abstinence-only education is a proven failure.

I don't think there's a single more powerful lure to get young people interested in something that for old-people to say "Don't do it! I can't tell you why, but trust me, don't do it!"

I appreciate her attempt at that moreso than Tipper Gore who during the same period was dragging in musicians to testify in congress and censoring music.

Well, I agree with you on that much. Tipper Gore and the PMRC are worse than Ebola.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Yep, just like I said earlier.

OK, assuming that to be the case, how/why would Nancy Reagan inspired slogans mean squat in Canada ?

This is all a side effect of American media being viewed in Canada.....even her death at age 94 ?

[msj]

What are testing for?

To see if they can do as Charles has asked: to go to the substance part of the discussion and ignore the parts that you may think is trolling (and which, imo, is humour that is basically saying "I don't like Nancy Reagan").

So, I will ask again: I dislike Nancy in death as much as in life.

I have provided my reasons for it: don't like her policies, she was dreadful wrt AIDS being a disease for "homosexuals" etc etc.

That is, I don't think she was a good person (hence, the good die young expression).

I also think that she bloviated.

Why am I the monster (to dignify this conversation I will use this term) for stating as such?

Why are we supposed to say nice things about the dead?

Edited March 7, 2016 by msj

[Derek 2.0]

Yes, I am testing the moderators a bit but I do ask serious questions and if you would stop calling me names then maybe a meaningful discussion could break out.

In fact, I'm also testing people like you and others here: Charles wants us to move on and discuss the substance rather than dwell on the petty attempts at humour or petty insults (depending on if one agrees with my views or disagrees).

And the results? Would they differ from standing out front a popular restaurant or coffee shop and insulting every other person entering and exiting?

Do you know what you can do with your test?

[bush_cheney2004]

Yep, just like I said earlier.

You just sent me a PM > "Have you ever been tested for autism?"

Please discuss this topic publicly if you want my participation. I do not play the PM game.

How/why would Nancy Reagan's "policies" have any impact on Canada ?

Edited March 7, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Hal 9000]

To see if they can do as Charles has asked: to go to the substance part of the discussion and ignore the parts that you may think is trolling (and which, imo, is humour that is basically saying "I don't like Nancy Reagan").

So, I will ask again: I dislike Nancy in death as much as in life.

I have provided my reasons for it: don't like her policies, she was dreadful wrt AIDS being a disease for "homosexuals" etc etc.

That is, I don't think she was a good person (hence, the good die young expression).

I also think that she bloviated.

Why am I the monster (to dignify this conversation I will use this term) for stating as such?

Why are we supposed to say nice things about the dead?

You are admittedly trolling in the attempt to test to see if others will ignore said trolling.

And, i'm not saying you're trolling - you are!

[BC_chick]

You are admittedly trolling in the attempt to test to see if others will ignore said trolling.

And, i'm not saying you're trolling - you are!

That's not what he said.

[The_Squid]

You just sent me a PM > "Have you ever been tested for autism?"

Just answer the question!

LOL

[BC_chick]

LOL

This thread is so getting locked

Bummer, msj did a great job making his point.

[msj]

And the results? Would they differ from standing out front a popular restaurant or coffee shop and insulting every other person entering and exiting?

Do you know what you can do with your test?

But we are in a discussion forum where one would think questions can be asked and where one would think that a person can say: hey, I know she's dead and all, but I really didn't like her because of this and that and the next thing.

This is the point folks: I am admitting that I don't like her and have provided my reasons for it.

You are the ones who don't like such talk, even when put in a humourous way, because you find it offensive.

As Stephen Fry has said: Well, so f'ng what? https://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.oshonews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Stephen-Fry.jpg&imgrefurl=http://quotesgram.com/quotes-about-being-offended/&h=361&w=550&tbnid=qqFI-7ULVjAAYM:&docid=gAwbM4swAqoTpM&hl=en-ca&ei=Vi3dVtHKL8KmjwPO4oqIBg&tbm=isch&client=safari&ved=0ahUKEwjRzcWohq7LAhVC02MKHU6xAmEQMwgjKAkwCQ

The better point is this: why can't you admit that you are offended over my humour being humourless (in your opinion) and that you are having an emotional reaction.

Furthermore, why not admit that if this were Bill Clinton then all types of jokes would be flying (and I would certainly partake in that too because I don't think being dead is sacred) and there would be others here defending Bill and getting all upset with you.

That is can't one try to get beyond the emotional baggage and get to some kind of objective POV: that some things offend us, some things are not funny to us, but that's ok, they still can be stated and discussed.

Edited March 7, 2016 by msj