DescentBB

Sorry to make a whole new thread about this, but I couldn't find the original thread we were having this discussion in.

Reagans son is releasing a book suggesting Mr. Reagan was showing signs going into the beginning of his second term, and that he just simply wasn't diagnosed.

http://www.wftv.com/news/26502096/detail.html

He is correct about the illness not tarnishing his fathers Presidential history(what he did does enough of that).

Mjolnir wrote:Sorry to make a whole new thread about this, but I couldn't find the original thread we were having this discussion in.

Reagans son is releasing a book suggesting Mr. Reagan was showing signs going into the beginning of his second term, and that he just simply wasn't diagnosed.

http://www.wftv.com/news/26502096/detail.html

He is correct about the illness not tarnishing his fathers Presidential history(what he did does enough of that).

Nice take a subject about a serious disease. and turn it into a political denigration of a dead former President. stooping to new lows are we?

The popular Republican president died in 2004 at age 93 from complications of the disease.

Hate rules.

They hid the fact that your great savior was in a wheelchair…what’s the point?

Um, sorry but historical facts do not denigrate someone. I know the truth hurts but it should at least be refreshing for you.

Also, if I was to denigrate him I would have said something along the lines up of \"Ronald Reagan was dumb as a stump\"... but if I also said that he proliferated violence, totalitarianism in our own hemisphere and mass-murder that would also be both denigrating AND truthful.

I will however not smile and ignore the smell of bull ★■◆● when told how great of a guy President Reagan was.

Mjolnir wrote:Um, sorry but historical facts do not denigrate someone. I know the truth hurts but it should at least be refreshing for you.

Also, if I was to denigrate him I would have said something along the lines up of "Ronald Reagan was dumb as a stump"... but if I also said that he proliferated violence, totalitarianism in our own hemisphere and mass-murder that would also be both denigrating AND truthful.

I will however not smile and ignore the smell of bull ***** when told how great of a guy President Reagan was.

Right !!! your intent was not to denigrate him

(what he did does enough of that)

keep telling your self that

if you wanted to talk about the fact that Reagan possibly had Alzheimer's, fair enough then stay on the topic of Alzheimer's
but your tag to this initial comment says otherwise

He is correct about the illness not tarnishing his fathers Presidential history(what he did does enough of that).

He is correct about the illness not tarnishing his fathers Presidential history

see the difference in the two


what year were you born again?

Who knows? When does the disease start and when does it manifest itself enough to be a factor? At what point does the factor outweigh other factors that restrict one's capacity to think straight? Do you drink? Smoke pot? Stress over work? Are you a daydreamer?
You may have undiagnosed Alzheimer's right now ....should we discount everything you say?

I think it's funny some people are so affected by Reagan they think they need to attack his legacy. It exposes their weakness as much as it does his and since he's gone only one party is hurt by it....

Mjolnir wrote:Sorry to make a whole new thread about this, but ...

"There you go again ..."

Read it. "Reagan’s doctors and Alzheimer’s specialists have been debunking this myth for years."
Check the CNN link there. Only Ronnie, who wants to sell some books, and hard lefties can find any (imaginary) meat on these dry bones. When Ronnie finishes his neurology internship at John Hopkins, let me know.

Mjolnir, you brought this up in another thread along with the comment about Reagan needing diapers. My linked reply should of been enough to dissuade you that Reagan was showing any signs of Alzheimer. If you are trying to use the lefts tried and failed applique's to denigrate a historic conservative figure then I suggest you go back to the D.U.M.B. or the Daily Kos where you will find a more receptive audience. Won't work here.

Why are we dismissing Ronald Reagan's son's book again?

Because the son is a liberal wag out to make a buck off all his fathers hating liberal types. Clever way to sell a book and make money eh?

More like a clever way to dismiss it.

The man's dead...but he still haunts the souls of progressives like holy water on a vampire.

Mjolnir wrote:More like a clever way to dismiss it.

medical doctors have dismissed it. why do we care what Ron has to say about it.

I could buy that a son would know something is \"different\" when doctors couldn't. But Will's point is dead on, Alzheimer's is not a switch, there is a reason it is referred to as \"the long goodbye.\" It is an incredibly painful disease for family members.

And I am willing to bet that the Doctors diagnosis is good enough to know that he wasn't significantly affected by the disease while in office. So then what's the point, what does this revelation change?

Rawstory.com wrote:The younger Reagan also mentions an incident that went completely unreported in the media and remains unsupported in publicly available history to-date: that when his father was bucked off a horse while visiting Mexico in 1989, doctors actually had to remove part of the president's skull to relieve swelling on his brain.

That's when they first noticed physical signs of decay, he explained.

The incident was reported at the time as a minor injury, with Reagan ostensibly being treated for bruises and scrapes.

Apparently his medical doctors like to miss out on telling us stuff anyway. Who woulda thunk it.

The #1 reason it is important to me is the actual/real history of his presidency as opposed to a mythological version that is spewed everywhere... like how he single handedly crumbled the Soviet Union. *facepalm*.

There is also the issue of him being manipulated by corporate interest while in office, ala the incident of a CEO telling President Reagan to "speed it up" during one of his speeches among other things.

Mjolnir wrote:

Rawstory.com wrote:The younger Reagan also mentions an incident that went completely unreported in the media and remains unsupported in publicly available history to-date:

Apparently his medical doctors like to miss out on telling us stuff anyway. Who woulda thunk it.

seriously doubt that. because it would have been reported in the news. things like this are almost impossible to keep a secret. there are too many people on the staff to keep quiet. too many people on the medical team to keep quiet. and too many reporters asking questions, and if a reporter had gotten a whiff on a story that significant about the President they would have been digging like rabid wolves. so I would question taking Ron Ron's LONE word on a book he is trying to sell for profit over history.
I'm sure if you wait long enough Michael will dispute many of the stories in the book.

Mjolnir wrote: Apparently his medical doctors like to miss out on telling us stuff anyway. Who woulda thunk it.

Since this was already addressed in my previous link, I'll give you a couple of other links here to NOT click on, since you are so interested in actual history.

Contemporary newspaper account -
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/05/us/re ... horse.html



from Reagan - A Life in Letters, and

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/09/us/re ... tml?src=pm
There was no "part of the skull was removed" and this WAS reported in the press.

If we aren't trusting Reagan's son for politically-motivated reasons, then we shouldn't trust his doctors for the same reason.

null0010 wrote:If we aren't trusting Reagan's son for politically-motivated reasons, then we shouldn't trust his doctors for the same reason.

Which son should we trust?:

"Ronald Reagan's son Michael Reagan slammed his half-brother Ron's recent claim that the Gipper had Alzheimer's during his second term as President, accusing his liberal sibling of stirring up controversy to line his own pockets.

"Ron, my brother, was an embarrassment to his father when he was alive and today he became an embarrassment to his mother," Michael Reagan wrote on Twitter on Saturday."

CUDA wrote:I'm sure if you wait long enough Michael will dispute many of the stories in the book.

Woodchip wrote:Which son should we trust?:

"Ronald Reagan's son Michael Reagan slammed his half-brother Ron's recent claim that the Gipper had Alzheimer's during his second term as President, accusing his liberal sibling of stirring up controversy to line his own pockets.

"Ron, my brother, was an embarrassment to his father when he was alive and today he became an embarrassment to his mother," Michael Reagan wrote on Twitter on Saturday."

Nailed that one didnt I

Let's see. Michael Reagan is adopted and Ron Reagan is blood relation. So now we have a conservative radio commentator rag on his brother who made a comment on his father's health. And Ron happens to be liberal and rumored to be gay, while Mike is a conservative radio mouthpiece. Nice. Who are you going to believe? Ron was around his father during his presidency, so there's so reason to doubt his voracity and observations. And doctors are full of BS if they think they can tell when someone has early stage Alzheimer's. I would trust the instincts of a relative and loved one who's living with and observing that person before some damn doctor or right wing radio personality with an agenda anytime.

tunnelcat wrote:... so there's so(no?) reason to doubt his voracity(veracity?) and observations. ...

I'm pretty sure that I've captured what you really wanted to say. Unfortunately, your statement is utterly ridiculous. What part of "Ronnie's promoting a book" do you not understand. How much time did Ron Jr. spend in the White House while Reagan was president? And why do you so readily discount the opinions of the many advisers and aides who worked with Reagan on a daily basis while he was in office?

You're forgetting Reagan's little difficulties during the first 1984 Presidential Debate and the Iran Contra Affair.

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_a ... index.html

Mike Reagan is trying to sell a book too.

tunnelcat wrote:Let's see. Michael Reagan is adopted and Ron Reagan is blood relation.

still his children regardless adopted or otherwise

So now we have a conservative radio commentator rag on his brother who made a comment on his father's health. And Ron happens to be liberal and rumored to be gay, while Mike is a conservative radio mouthpiece. Nice. Who are you going to believe?

well it's obvious you made your choice right down the party lines didnt you?

Ron was around his father during his presidency, so there's so reason to doubt his voracity and observations.

No more or less than Michael was.

And doctors are full of BS if they think they can tell when someone has early stage Alzheimer's. I would trust the instincts of a relative and loved one who's living with and observing that person before some damn doctor or right wing radio personality with an agenda anytime.

SO doctors that are professionally trained in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's, and his staff and wife that were around him every day and didnt notices any symptoms, are less qualified than his youngest son, whom he didnt agree with on many subjects. has NO medical training what so-ever, and didnt spend a lot of time around him, plus is trying to prop up the sales of his book about his father.


edit:

Mike Reagan is trying to sell a book too

the difference is Michael's book is not a "Biography" about his father.

tunnelcat wrote:You're forgetting Reagan's little difficulties during the first 1984 Presidential Debate and the Iran Contra Affair.

Not so much. RR competed very well in the second debate and cruised to a 49 state landslide victory.
wiki 1984 election

Reagan was re-elected following the November 6 election in an electoral and popular vote landslide, winning 49 states. Reagan won a record 525 electoral votes total (of 538 possible), and received 58.8 percent of the popular vote. Mondale's 13 electoral college votes (from his home state of Minnesota—which he won by 0.18%—and the District of Columbia) marked the lowest total of any major Presidential candidate since Alf Landon's 1936 loss to Franklin D. Roosevelt. Mondale's defeat was also the worst for any Democratic Party candidate in U.S. history in the Electoral College, though others, including Alton Parker, James M. Cox, John W. Davis, and George McGovern, did worse in the popular vote.

Of course, you're going to tell me how Iran Contra is relevent to this discussion.

CUDA, you show me a doctor that could diagnose Alzheimer's in a living patient years ago without doing an autopsy and be absolutely positive about it, I'll give you Kewpie Doll. Only today did I see on the news a way to diagnose it reliably now with modern scanning equipment. Personally, I'd trust the instincts of my own child to notice my behavioral changes looooong before I'd trust any damn doctor that didn't know me. That child would know all my ticks and idiosyncrasies by the very FACT that they were living and interacting with me constantly on a daily basis. Doctors have to do their \"guessing\" from afar without that benefit or hindsight until long after symptoms have shown up, until recently at least. In fact, I'm not very impressed with most doctors right now and their ability to diagnose something anyway. Let's just say that I'm coming from VERY personal experience on that front.

By the way, why is everyone taking exception to what Ron Reagan is saying about his father? Reagan was the oldest man to hold that office, so there's bound to be some age-related mental problems, it's part of aging, so why is that bad? That's not something that I would hold against him with any decisions he made, because being President is not a single-man dictatorship. There are always others to give advice on any policy and decision making. Just because one forgets some things doesn't mean that one can't function normally. Besides, his wife was the real power behind the curtain in his later years.

dissent, Reagan stumbled a bit during his first debates, a small sign that things were failing. Maybe not definitive proof of Alzheimer's creeping in, but a warning of something changing nonetheless. The fact he recovered showed that he still had most of his mental faculties and was able to deal with it effectively.

As for Iran Contra, it quite apparent during some of the testimony during the hearings that his memory was beginning to fail him. That's a far more charitable reason for lapses of memory than if he'd conveniently \"forgotten\" all the relevant details that transpired during that episode in his presidency.

tunnelcat wrote:By the way, why is everyone taking exception to what Ron Reagan is saying about his father?

Um, let's see - he's making a medical diagnosis for which he offers the most feeble substantiation and which he is entirely unqualified to make. Since you don't trust doctors to make this diagnosis, then why indeed to you lend any credence at all to what a layman has to say. Just askin'.

dissent, Reagan stumbled a bit during his first debates, a small sign that things were failing. Maybe not definitive proof of Alzheimer's creeping in, but a warning of something changing nonetheless. The fact he recovered showed that he still had most of his mental faculties and was able to deal with it effectively.

As for Iran Contra, it quite apparent during some of the testimony during the hearings that his memory was beginning to fail him. That's a far more charitable reason for lapses of memory than if he'd conveniently "forgotten" all the relevant details that transpired during that episode in his presidency.

Another plausible explanation for his hesitancy during the first debate was that he had been overly prepared by his debate prep team - fed large quantities of minuscule details that he hadn't had time to assimilate prior to the debate. (see my earlier links)

As for the Iran Contra testimony you posted, I utterly fail to see how this is evidence of Alzheimer's. I've taken care of a relative with Alzheimer's in my home, so I've seen it up close. In your linked vid I see a man reading documents and answering questions; not rambling, not lost, aware of his situation and surroundings. Looks like typical courtroom testimony to me. Please explain how memory problems are direct evidence of Alzheimer's (since this is the bone of contention), and not just memory problems.

If failure to remember during testimony is a sign of disease in the brain then Hillary Clinton has been a brain dead zombie for about 12 years with over 250 \"I don't recall\" answers under oath...

And hubby Bill seemingly was confused when he said, \"I didn't have sex with that woman, not once...not ever\"

tunnelcat wrote:CUDA, you show me a doctor that could diagnose Alzheimer's in a living patient years ago without doing an autopsy and be absolutely positive about it, I'll give you Kewpie Doll.

and yet your willing to take Ron's untrained diagnosis from his limited observations of his father from 20 years ago that he had Alzheimers as if it was fact. Go figure

Ron didn't say his father had Alzheimer's, he said he \"suspected\" something was changing with his father's mind. And you don't have to be a doctor to notice changes in behavior. Family members are far more observant than total strangers are CUDA. Give me a break! The fact you can't even consider that his son saw something changing in his father shows YOUR partisanship.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/01/14 ... le-presid/

As for the bomb in Spokane, I will admit bias in my thinking about who planted it, so I'll wait to see what the FBI comes up with. But if I was making a bet........

tunnelcat wrote:Ron didn't say his father had Alzheimer's, he said he "suspected" something was changing with his father's mind. And you don't have to be a doctor to notice changes in behavior. Family members are far more observant than total strangers are CUDA. Give me a break! The fact you can't even consider that his son saw something changing in his father shows YOUR partisanship.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/01/14 ... le-presid/

As for the bomb in Spokane, I will admit bias in my thinking about who planted it, so I'll wait to see what the FBI comes up with. But if I was making a bet........

Ron Reagan wrote:"I've seen no evidence that my father (or anyone else) was aware of his medical condition while he was in office," Reagan writes. "

NOTICE the "I've seen no evidence that my father (or anyone else)" that would be Ron himself saying that.

SO lets go right back to the beginning of the debate

I wrote:

You wrote:Nice. Who are you going to believe? Ron was around his father during his presidency,

No more or less than Michael was.

and Michael ALSO says there was no evidence



SO to "ALMOST" quote your own words

Give me a break! The fact you can't even consider that his son saw no changes in his father shows YOUR partisanship.

see I can play those games too

Oh come on! I'm not even bashing Reagan over his Alzheimer's! He was an aging human being with health problems like many people get as they get older. I never said it was an impediment to his presidency. I worried more when he HAD all his faculties.

As for one family member not seeing what's going on in a family unit, it happens to be very common. My mother absolutely hated my stepfather's kids from his previous marriage. But even though my sister and I both knew the truth, my mother never said a word to him directly and my stepfather and brother never had a clue about how she felt. Nobody ever communicated their feelings, either out of consideration or embarrassment. There are just some things that are kept secret in a family for the family's sake as a whole. It sounds like Ron said something to his mother early on and Nancy, being protective, told him to butt out. Denial maybe?

I still think we should elect Reagan president again.

Must resist the urge to reply

woodchip wrote:Must resist the urge to reply

FAILED!

null0010 wrote:I still think we should elect Reagan president again.

with bender's body.

NIXON'S BAAAAAAAACK!!!

ALL HAIL! MAY DEATH COME TO HIS ENEMIES!