Відповіді

• 2004.06.11 | Георгій

  Вічная пам'ять

  Я, як ліберал, не погоджуюся з деякими його дуже консервативними переконаннями, але думаю, що він заслуговує величезної поваги як людина. Рейган не був особливо інтелектуальним, освіченим - люди з його близького оточення іноді скаржилися, що він навіть не розуміє принципів роботи американського уряду (що повинні розуміти учні кожної американської школи). Але він компенсував цей свій брак інтелектуальності своїм непересічним талантом "великого комунікатора." Він, як ніхто, вмів говорити з людьми, розпалювати їх уяву, їх позитивні емоції, їх оптимізм, їх почуття гідності і мети в житті. Тому я не згідний з тими, хто вважає, що СРСР просто розвалився сам собою, а Рейган просто використав момент. Тоді потрібна була його харизматична особистість.
  
  Щодо релігійності Рейгана, мене вразила одна річ, яку він колись сказав своїй дружині Ненсі. Вони поїхали верхи на прогулянку біля свого ранчо в Санта Барбарі. Ронні дуже довго мовчав, і Ненсі запитала його, про що він думає. Рейган відповів, "Я розмовляю з Богом." Дуже в його стилі.

• 2004.06.11 | Р.М.

  Re: Пам"яті Роні Рейгана. Людини. Християнина. Президента...

  ПоручікЪ Красной Армії пише:
  > Вічная і благая пам"ять...
  Приєднююся
  
  > ПоручікЪ
  Р.М.
  згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей

  • 2004.06.11 | Olel'ko Sivers'kyj

    Re: Пам"яті Рональда Рейгана.

    Дiйсно був хороший i як президент i як людина. I все тому, що був добрий християнин. Саме християнська вiра зробила його великим борцем за свободу -
    
    where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
    
    Вічна пам'ять!

• 2004.06.11 | Тестер

  Re: Хороша була людина і президент

  Хоча занадто клерикальний і консервативний.
  Ну це признак майже всіх республіканців.
  А так " і хлопець хоч куди козак"
  Вічна память!!!
  згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей

  • 2004.06.14 | Maрко Ст.

    Re: Хороша була людина і президент? А що думають американці?

    Не знаю, чому тут виплив Рейган. І не став би я писати, якби не помітив, що люди живуть міфами і не дуже орієнтуються в діяннях Рейгана. Натрапив я на цікавий і доволі обєктивний матеріял, де подається погляд американських націоналістів на особистість Рейгана, його політику, на те, як він насправді відстоював інтереси американського народу, і кому він насправді служив. Тут багато неординарних думок, яких не зустрінеш в американській контрольованій пресі для широкого вжитку, читай, для простого американця.
    Гадаю, що Рейганівські поклонники в Україні прочитають цей матеріял до кінця (їхня зацікавленість свідчить про знання англійської) і може змінять свою думку на його ролю.
    Не люблю подавати посилання, щоб ви гаяли час на інтернетні пошуки. Подаю матеріял майже повністю. Модераторе, наберіться терпіння, не стирайте цього дописа, зрештою не я почав цю розмову не по темі.
    Тож читайте:
    
    Fading Illusions: D-Day and Reagan: an interview with Mark Weber
    
    American Dissident Voices Broadcast of June 12, 2004
    
    Welcome to American Dissident Voices. I'm Kevin Alfred Strom.
    
    This week marks two milestones in American history: the 60th
    anniversary of D-Day and the death of Ronald Reagan. With us to
    discuss these issues today is one of the most incisive historical
    minds our nation has produced, the courageous researcher,
    scholar, and publisher, the Director of the Institute for
    Historical Review, Mr. Mark Weber. Welcome, Mark.
    
    Mark Weber: Thank you very much, Kevin. That's very generous.
    It's a pleasure being on the show again.
    
    KAS: Mark, not far from where I sit, in Bedford, Virginia, is the
    National D-Day Memorial, where wreath-laying ceremonies took
    place a few days ago commemorating the 60th anniversary of D-Day.
    Americans of the World War II generation, and their children,
    remember that day, I think, as a milestone in the fight to
    preserve American freedom. And some of my younger listeners may
    only have a vague idea of what it was all about. What was D-Day,
    Mark -- and was it a milestone in history as it's presented?
    
    MW: D-Day, of course, was the American-British landing in
    Normandy, France, on June 6th, 1944. As a purely historical event
    it was important because it was the largest naval operation in
    history. But it's presented in our media -- and quite a lot in
    just the last few days -- as a kind of central turning point of
    World War II. There's a natural tendency among everyone and every
    society to project the present back onto the past, and that's
    nowhere more evident than in how we look at D-Day, because it was
    the very important great military operation by the United States
    in the Second World War in Europe. But the way that landing is
    presented is very misleading.
    
    For one thing, the D-Day invasion did not decisively change the
    outcome of the Second World War. Now I know that sounds
    incredible, given all that we've heard about that, but the D-Day
    landing took place less than a year before the end of the war in
    Europe. The war ended in Europe in May, 1945; the D-Day landing
    was in June, 1944. The decisive battles of the Second World War
    had already been fought, on the Eastern Front. And in the
    emphasis on D-Day is a kind of playing down of the much more
    important military role that the Soviet forces played in World
    War II. Very few people realize that 80% -- four fifths -- of the
    German forces in World War II were defeated not on the Western
    Front, but on the Eastern Front by the Soviet forces. Germany's
    decisive battles had already been fought -- and lost -- on the
    Eastern Front, such as in Stalingrad, which ended in early 1943.
    And then the final major German offensive of the Second World War
    was the Battle of Kursk, the largest tank battle in history,
    about which we hear very little in America; and that was in the
    summer of 1943. So when the American, British, and Canadian
    forces landed on Normandy in June 1944, German forces were
    already largely destroyed. And Germany was fighting a very, very
    desperate defensive war. That's why, when the American forces
    landed on D-Day, I think there were only two German airplanes
    that could take to the air to fight off the landing armada. The
    German Air Force was very, very hard-pressed, what was left of
    it, to even defend the German homeland, which was under intense
    Allied bombardment from the air at that time, and of course on
    the Eastern Front.
    
    So the battle of D-Day is important in our media, in large
    measure, because it comports with a kind of American-centric view
    of the Second World War. But in fact the role of the Soviet Union
    is one that many Americans, and especially American leaders,
    would like to forget.
    
    And that brings us to Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan is remembered,
    in terms of foreign policy achievements, largely as a man who
    opposed Communism. But during the Second World War, the most
    important American ally in that conflict was in fact the Soviet
    Union. To put it another way, no country did more to defend the
    Soviet Union, to help the Soviet Union, than did the United
    States during World War II. And Ronald Reagan spent World War II
    as a propagandist for the American military. That is, in his
    actual deeds as a man working in Hollywood, he helped the
    American war effort which was at that time in alliance and
    concert with the Soviet Union.
    
    But that's forgotten a lot today because we want to uphold, and
    American leaders want to uphold, this kind of myth that one the
    one side of the Second World War were the 'bad guys,' the tyrants
    -- that is, the Germans and the Japanese; and that on the other
    side, the Allied side, were the 'good guys.' But that in fact is
    not only simplistic, it's just simply wrong. During the Second
    World War, the most tyrannical regime in the world at that time
    -- the Soviet Union -- was on the Allied side. And the most
    imperialistic regime in the world at that time -- that is, the
    British Empire -- was also on the Allied side in that conflict.
    While looking at history in simplistic terms of 'good guys' and
    'bad guys' may make people feel good, and it comports with how we
    like to have our motion pictures end and our books and so forth,
    it doesn't correspond with reality in real historical terms.
    
    KAS: The legacy of D-Day, in broad terms, is the legacy of the
    Second World War. That's how we see it from our media-saturated,
    from our -- as you say -- American-centric view. Maybe D-Day
    wasn't a watershed in the conduct of the war, but that war was a
    watershed in diminishing traditional Americans' power over our
    own country, in increasing globalism, and in increasing Jewish
    power. And it was a watershed in breaking down the old order in
    Europe, destroying not only German power, but French and British
    power as well. And it brought about the complete collapse of
    Eastern Europe, which was swallowed up by Communism for almost
    half a century.
    
    MW: Right. There are several points to be made in that regard, I
    think. And it again, I think, relates to Ronald Reagan. Ronald
    Reagan is remembered as the great American conservative
    president. But his idea of conservatism was really just to
    present the best view of American history during the Second World
    War.
    
    The greatest and most decisive conflict of the twentieth century
    was the Second World War, in which the United States fought
    openly for a 'New World Order' in which the United States and the
    Soviet Union, above all, would rule the entire world. When
    Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin met at Teheran, Iran in 1943,
    and then at Yalta in 1945, the three men did what they accused
    the Axis leaders of wanting to do: That is, they decided the fate
    of the entire planet. And, in that, the United States regarded
    the Soviet Union as not only a worthy ally, but a trustworthy
    ally, an ally with which Roosevelt and the United States were
    willing and even eager to cooperate in ruling the entire world.
    
    You know, the wrongness of the simplistic view of how the Second
    World War was fought is pointed up in the tragedy of Poland. In
    1939, Britain and France declared war on Germany because Germany
    had attacked Poland. And, supposedly, British and French concern
    for the sovereignty of Poland was the reason for the declarations
    of war against Germany. (By the way, this was a war that Germany
    and Hitler wanted at all costs to avoid. They didn't want war
    with Britain and France.) At the end of that terrible conflict,
    six years later, in 1945, Poland was no more free than it was in
    1939. It was swallowed up and brutally occupied by the Soviet
    Union. So the principles that Britain and France proclaimed when
    they declared war on Germany in 1939 -- and which America
    proclaimed in fighting the Second World War -- were betrayed by
    the Allied leaders in how they actually conducted the war. They
    not only permitted but they actively cooperated with the Soviet
    Union in expanding its tyranny over half of Europe -- including
    Poland, which was the first victim of the Second World War.
    
    KAS: How does Jewish power fit into all of that?
    
    MW: Ronald Reagan, throughout his presidency, was very pro-Israel
    and very pro-Jewish. He's not alone, of course. Every American
    president since Harry Truman has been committed to supporting the
    state of Israel and its policies. Now fortunately for Reagan,
    there was no great war in the Middle East as there was in 1967 or
    1973. And, also fortunately for Reagan's legacy, there was no
    conflict like the current situation in Iraq. Nevertheless, Ronald
    Reagan was entirely subordinate to and supportive of Israel and
    its policies, even though this meant supporting Israel in actions
    which were violations not only of the principles that we as
    Americans try to uphold, but even of American law.
    
    Specifically, in 1982, when Reagan was President, Israel invaded
    Lebanon. It invaded Lebanon on the deceitful basis of a pretext
    that the Israeli ambassador in London had been shot by a member
    of the PLO. In fact, the person who shot the Israeli ambassador
    in London was not even with the PLO. But on the basis of that
    pretext, Israel invaded Lebanon, costing thousands of lives and
    creating hundreds of thousands of refugees. Enormous destruction
    was the result. And Ronald Reagan supported Israel in this.
    
    One of the speakers several years ago at an IHR conference was US
    Congressman Pete McCloskey. And he spoke out at the time on the
    floor of the House about Israel's violation even of American law
    in that conflict. But Ronald Reagan put America's 'special
    relationship' with Israel above even his oath as President to
    uphold American law. This was pointed up in the case of that
    conflict, in which America helped and cooperated with Israel in
    this completely illegal, horrible, destructive invasion of
    Lebanon.
    
    And this is a parallel with the present. In the aftermath of the
    Lebanese fiasco, the United States sent military troops to
    Lebanon. And Reagan made a big issue at the time about 'staying
    the course' and how we were 'going to have troops there until
    Lebanon was a free and democratic country,' and how this was part
    of a big campaign to bring 'democracy' and 'stability' to that
    part of the world -- pre-echoes of exactly the same kind of
    rhetoric we've heard from the White House during the past year
    with regard to the war in Iraq.
    
    But in 1983, when a Marine barracks was blown up, and 240 some
    American Marines were killed, Reagan cut his losses, abandoned
    all his rhetoric, and just simply pulled the American troops out.
    For all his rhetoric, Reagan was a very pragmatic man. He was not
    one to let principles stand in the way of political expediency.
    And he was willing to cut his losses when things went wrong or
    things went bad. And if he was President, and had engaged in a
    fiasco like the one we're dealing with now in Iraq, he would have
    long ago cut his losses and pulled out, and saved face in the
    best possible way -- whereas George W. Bush seems incapable
    emotionally of admitting a mistake.
    
    To go back to the legacy of D-Day: Especially for Americans, it
    is simply the legacy of World War II. And it wasn't simply a
    defeat for Germany in World War II; it was, in a sense, the
    defeat of Europe -- because the great victorious powers of the
    Second World War were the Soviet Union and the United States,
    which together imposed a hegemony and occupation over Europe. And
    the European homeland, the European heart, ceased to have any
    independent political power or even cultural vitality of its own,
    and was subordinate to the United States in the West and the
    Soviet Union in the East.
    
    Now the legacy of that whole period is receding into the past,
    because the Soviet Union has disappeared as a power and a force
    -- but the cultural and intellectual legacy persists, because
    Europeans have been browbeaten by decades of propaganda.
    
    The Second World War was the triumph in 1945 of the principles of
    egalitarianism and universalism -- and those principles are
    fundamentally at odds with any kind of patriotic or conservative
    principles.
    
    And that's part of the paradox or contradiction of the Reagan
    legacy. He's remembered as a conservative -- but what did he
    actually conserve?
    
    KAS: Good question.
    
    MW: What did he actually conserve? This morning on the radio, in
    a tribute to Ronald Reagan, one commentator said "He was a
    president who made us feel good about ourselves." Well, that's
    true. But that's about all he did. He made us feel good.
    
    But in terms of conserving or preserving anything of real
    substance, Ronald Reagan presided over America's forward advance
    -- or, should I say, backward advance -- in the same direction
    she had been going since the 1940s and has been going ever since.
    When Ronald Reagan was elected, many conservatives thought that
    Reagan was going to make good on his rhetoric and dismantle, for
    example, the unconstitutional portions of the federal government
    such as the Department of Education, which had no constitutional
    validity. There's nothing in the Constitution to permit the
    federal government to be involved in education.
    
    KAS: Yes, I can remember all of that. In 1980, Mark, it was
    almost a sense of euphoria -- he was going to reclaim America, he
    was going to remake America back into the Old America that people
    felt had been betrayed and abandoned.
    
    MW: Exactly. But, to the amazement of many of his conservative
    followers, he did none of that. He didn't dismantle the federal
    government; he expanded it. The irony is that his actual policies
    were in contradiction to his supposed principles as a
    conservative and to his rhetoric. But most Americans didn't
    really care. The hard core of his supporters, those patriotic
    Americans, were satisfied with the mere trappings and symbols and
    mythology of America rather than the reality.
    
    KAS: We've seen that in the celebrations of his life that we've
    witnessed since he died. For many people, I think he still
    embodies the Old America -- the America he helped destroy while
    he was paying lip service to it. Do you think that, now that he's
    gone, Americans are going to wake up from their illusion that
    we've really had a continuity of government?
    
    MW: Whatever the harmful effects of his policies, it's hard to
    dislike Reagan, because he was such an affable guy. Apparently,
    in his private life, he was kind, courteous to people, and wasn't
    deceitful; that is, really, he believed the things that he said.
    
    What Americans are mourning, I think, this week with the death of
    Ronald Reagan is not merely a man, but an America that's past and
    which he personified. The America that Ronald Reagan believed in,
    that he came out of, is an America that's gone. It's an America
    of Norman Rockwell paintings. It's an America of 'Leave it to
    Beaver' television. It's an America of 'It's a Wonderful Life.'
    It's an America that really existed to some degree before the
    Second World War, up until the 1940s or 50s. But it's an America
    that just doesn't exist any more. The Los Angeles that Ronald
    Reagan lived in in the 1940s or 50s -- that Los Angeles is gone
    forever. California itself is changing dramatically. And what
    many Americans are mourning with his passing, I think, is that
    America that's gone.
    
    Now will Americans wake up? I think a number of commentators have
    made this point: the President that we now have, who also calls
    himself a conservative, isn't able to pull it off the way that
    Ronald Reagan could, not merely because he's not as smooth as
    Ronald Reagan, but because the reality is now harder and harder
    to avoid -- the reality that the America that so many Americans
    nostalgically look back upon is really gone.
    
    Having said that, though, I think that the majority of George
    Bush's hardcore supporters are still impressed by -- and loyal to
    -- the mythology or the trappings of America, which are very
    different from the reality.
    
    KAS: I remember Ronald Reagan signing the 'Martin Luther King'
    holiday bill. I remember his unkept promises to roll back the
    intrusive judicial and other federal power over us. I remember
    his giving an award to Elie Wiesel; his continuation -- and
    expansion -- of the anti-European-American policies of all the
    previous administrations going back to the Roosevelt
    administration. It's hard not to see Reagan, from my point of
    view, as man who -- perhaps -- did believe in the Old America,
    but who just wasn't quite bright enough to understand that his
    employers, those who 'handled' him, who organized his campaigns,
    who were behind him all the time, were destroying that Old
    America.
    
    MW: Ronald Reagan personifies that contradiction, that paradox --
    the belief that, somehow, the Old America that he believed in and
    was part of could be kept in place and preserved while at the
    same time supporting and promoting policies that inevitably must
    destroy that very America. That's the tragedy of it all --
    presuming he was sincere.
    
    I saw Ronald Reagan speak in person only once, and that was at a
    large gathering of 'Holocaust survivors,' of all places, in
    Washington, DC. And, as he usually was, he was very eloquent on
    that occasion. But what he did was give a tremendous boost during
    his administration to Jewish power, a power that was working and
    has been working feverishly to tear down and corrode the very
    America that Ronald Reagan loved and represented. As you say: Was
    he stupid? -- or just ignorant, or whatever?
    
    I think it's part of the mythology of America that people of
    whatever background can come to this country and through some
    kind of magic can be made into part of the America of motion
    pictures and Norman Rockwell paintings.
    
    KAS: Well, some ethnicities melt better than others...
    
    MW: Well, of course (laughter). No group -- no ethnic group, no
    religious group -- in America is so determined to preserve and
    hold onto its identity and further the interests of its own group
    as are Jews. No group is as self-aware, as focused, as determined
    as are Jews in America. And that's not surprising, because Jews
    have been focused, determined, and have had a very high sense of
    purpose and identity for centuries. In fact, if Jews didn't have
    such a very very strong sense of self -- of peoplehood -- they
    would have long ago disappeared as a people, under the pressures
    of assimilation and so forth. In America, as in every other
    country where Jews have settled in large numbers, they persist in
    -- and insist on -- furthering their own interests, even as those
    interests clash and compete with the interests of the people
    among whom they live, here in this country and elsewhere.
    
    KAS: Well, if Ronald Reagan understood that about his employers,
    then he was a much more subtle person than I took him to be. I
    tend to think that he was a man with a magnetic personality but a
    nearly empty mind. That made him a perfect 'leader'-type for
    those who surrounded him. After all, did he not take Jewish
    direction in Hollywood, and in his radio network jobs; and all
    through his career as a politician, was he not surrounded by
    powerful Jews?
    
    MW: Margaret Thatcher, who of course is going to be here in the
    United States for the Reagan funeral, and who was an ally of
    Ronald Reagan when she was Prime Minister of Britain, said
    privately on one occasion that he was a great guy, but there was
    very little between his ears. I don't think Reagan did understand
    these larger things. But what drove him, what kept him going, was
    a kind of mythology about America. And it's a kind of attractive
    mythology. In life, I think that most people -- certainly most
    people in any kind of electorate or collective -- prefer a
    pleasant lie to an unpleasant truth. And Ronald Reagan was a
    master at telling people the pleasant untruth that they wanted to
    hear.
    
    KAS: You at the Institute are trying in some sense to give people
    enough perspective to see some of those dangers ahead. Can you
    tell us what lesson you'd like to leave my listeners with on
    these subjects?
    
    MW: The best guide to the future is an understanding of the past.
    And that means not just American history, but world history. This
    is very difficult here in the United States, in many ways,
    because this is a country in which there's a kind of national
    mythology that America is an exception from history. The idea
    that we can be an exception from history is childish. And it's
    only through an understanding of history, of the past, that we
    can have a real understanding of our present plight and think
    wisely and intelligently about the future.
    
    The power of historical consciousness is an immensely important
    one. It's one of the reasons Jews are as successful as they are.
    In fact, their entire religion underscores and emphasizes their
    sense of history -- of Jewish peoplehood. It's a distorted, kind
    of mythologized history -- but nonetheless, it's a sense of
    history.
    
    Americans, as a people, have a great deal of difficulty with
    that, because we are encouraged in this country to think of
    ourselves as individuals. And people who think of themselves as
    individuals are not going to think much about history, because as
    individuals, we simply die. A historical consciousness also
    carries with it an awareness of the continuity of history -- that
    we are part of something larger than ourselves. That's one of the
    reasons history is so important, and why the work of the IHR [
    http://www.ihr.org ] is so important. Fostering historical
    awareness and historical consciousness is a task of very very
    high importance.
    згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей

    • 2004.06.14 | ПоручікЪ Красной Армії

      Re: Жидоозабоченому Старому Маркові.

      Руці чухаються.
      Взути Вашу позицію.
      У тісні шкраби.
      Але - нема кому.
      А мені - нІколи...
      Про померлих - або хороше.
      Або - нічого.
      Це теж придумали жиди.
      Тому - ІГНОР...
      згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей

      • 2004.06.22 | Marko Starshyi

        Re: Жидоозабоченому Старому Маркові.

        Зарікався собі ходити на цей "форум".
        Про яку духовість може йтися, коли тут панує злоба очорнителів українського духа. Та й ще й прибрана в "поетичєскіє упражнєнія" агресивних Паруччікофф.
        Можливо навіть на краще, що не маю стійкости Анатолія.

    • 2004.06.14 | Георгій

      Від модератора

      Пане Марку-старший,
      
      Дуже прошу Вас дотримуватися правил Майдану. Цей форум тематичний, його тема - релігія та духовність, тому політична оцінка ролі Рейгана, його зв'язків з Ізраїлем і т.д. для цього форуму є ОФФТОПІК. Так само абсолютним оффтопіком тут є обговорення тих чи інших подій Другої світової війни - ці теми належать форумові "Історія." На цій сторінці паном Поручіком була започаткована тема про Рейгана як людину і християнина, і про те, як його особиста релігійність впливала на його президентство. ТАКЕ обговорення особи Рейгана цілком сумісне з тематикою цього форуму, але ж Ви перевели його в зовсім іншу сферу. Не робіть цього, інакше я змушений буду застосувати по відношенню до Вас деяке насильство.
      
      Також повинен Вам сказати, що я згідний з п. Поручіком - людина тільки що померла, і вип'ячувати зараз негативні сторони його президентсьва просто неввічливо і неморально.
      
      Георгій

    • 2004.06.17 | Olel'ko Sivers'kyj

      Re: Хороша була людина і президент? А що думають американці?

      Цiкавий епiзод з життя Р.Рейгана. Див. http://www.voanews.com/Russian/article.cfm?ObjectID=DEAA9F9E-FB06-46A5-B6CC480E60257C3B
      
      "Рейгану было легко общаться с людьми противоположных убеждений, поскольку он сам в прошлом был рьяным либералом и демократом. В лагерь консерваторов он перешел после того, как возглавил в Голливуде профсоюз актеров кино и столкнулся с коммунистическими организаторами, отмечает Мартин Андерсон: «Вскоре после того, как он стал председателем профсоюза, коммунисты в руководстве Гильдии
      киноактеров начали подстрекать его к забастовкам, а когда Рейган отказался следовать за ними, они стали угрожать ему самой настоящей физической расправой. Грозили плеснуть ему в лицо кислотой. Дело приняло такой оборот, что полиция выдала Рейгану разрешение на
      пистолет. Этот «смит-и-вессон» 38 калибра он долго носил заряженным в кармане. Убедившись на деле, что кроется за лозунгами коммунистов, он перешел в Республиканскую партию, и там снискал репутацию непоколебимого противника левых».
      
      Отже, Рейган не був анти-комунiстом все своє життя. Вiн просто одного разу зрозумiв, що то за люди. Можуть скоїти будь який злочин, аби
      досягти своєї головної мети - необмеженої влади над iншими. I такими вони були завжди - вiд Сталiна, який грабував Тiфлiський банк, щоб здобути грошi для партiї, до сучасних
      грачiв-януковичiв.
      
      А Рейган як християнин не мiг йти проти совiстi, тому й не пiдкорився їм, не став шукати компромiсу. Хтось, звичайно, може вважати Рейгана ультраправим, але вiн просто був вiруючою людиною. Варто послухати, що сказав про нього Дж.Буш-ст. пiд час меморiальної
      служби у Вашiнгтонському Нацiональному соборi (єпископальної церкви)
      
      http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/11/bush.sr.transcript
      
      
      
      "As his vice president for eight years, I learned more from Ronald Reagan than from anyone I encountered in all my years of public life. I learned kindness; we all did. I also learned courage; the nation did.
      
      Who can forget the horrible day in March 1981, he looked at the doctors in the emergency room and said, "I hope you're all Republicans."
      
      And then I learned decency; the whole world did. Days after being shot, weak from wounds, he spilled water from a sink, and entering the hospital room aides saw him on his hands and knees wiping water from the floor. He worried that his nurse would get in trouble.
      
      The good book says humility goes before honor, and our friend had both, and who could not cherish such a man?
      
      And perhaps as important as anything, I learned a lot about humor, a lot about laughter. And, oh, how President Reagan loved a good story.
      
      When asked, "How did your visit go with Bishop Tutu?" he replied: "So-so."
      
      It was typical. It was wonderful.
      
      And in leaving the White House, the very last day, he left in the yard outside the Oval Office door a little sign for the squirrels. He loved to feed those squirrels. And he left this sign that said, "Beware of the dog," and to no avail, because our dog Millie came in and beat the heck out of the squirrels.
      
      But anyway, he also left me a note, at the top of which said, "Don't let the turkeys get you down."
      
      Well, he certainly never let them get him down. And he fought hard for his beliefs. But he led from conviction, but never made an adversary into an enemy. He was never mean-spirited.
      
      Reverend Billy Graham, whom I refer to as the nation's pastor, is now hospitalized and regrets that he can't be here today. And I asked him for a Bible passage that might be appropriate.
      
      And he suggested this from Psalm 37: "The Lord delights in the way of the man whose steps he has made firm. Though he stumble, he will not fall for the Lord upholds him with his hand."
      
      And then this, too, from 37: "There is a future for the man of peace." God bless you, Ronald Wilson Reagan and the nation you loved and led so well."
      згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей

      • 2004.06.28 | ПоручікЪ Красной Армії

        Re: Хто не був лібералом замолоду - не має серця.

        Хто не став консерватором
        У зрілому віці -
        Не має голови.
        (с)Дізраелі.
        Судячи зі всього-
        Рейган мав і cерце.
        І - голову.
        
        ПоручікЪ
        згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей

        • 2004.06.28 | Георгій

          Про Рейгана правда, але в цілому... (оффтопік)

          ... я не згідний з Дізраелі. Є ліберали, які мають прекрасну голову і разом з тим не гублять серця, і є консерватори, які ніколи не мали ні серця, ні голови. Я думаю, що ліберал Клінтон мав значно кращу голову, ніж консерватори Буші. Буш-старший розвалив американську економіку, а Клінтон створив компетентну команду фахівців-економістів і за якихось три роки ліквідував федеральний дефіцит у 9 трільйонів доларів, перетворивши його на surplus. То як у кого з головою?
          
          Пане Поручіку, а Ви вже подивилися "Fahrenheit 911?" Що скажете? (Правда, на цій сторінці недоречно - може, на Вільному Форумі?")
          згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей

          • 2004.06.29 | ПоручікЪ Красной Армії

            Re: Про Рейгана правда, але в цілому... (оффтопік)

            Георгій пише:
            > ... я не згідний з Дізраелі. Є ліберали, які мають прекрасну голову і разом з тим не гублять серця, і є консерватори, які ніколи не мали ні серця, ні голови.
            Ну, які можуть бути правила?
            Без вийнятків з них...
            
            > Я думаю, що ліберал Клінтон мав значно кращу голову, ніж консерватори Буші. Буш-старший розвалив американську економіку, а Клінтон створив компетентну команду фахівців-економістів і за якихось три роки ліквідував федеральний дефіцит у 9 трільйонів доларів, перетворивши його на surplus. То як у кого з головою?
            Я не фахівець з оцінки діяльності Президентів США.
            І - альтернативна їх оцінка -
            Імєєт мєсто бить.
            Зайдіть на будь-який сайт Республіканців...
            Але, не думаю, що Клінтон був аж такий вже ліберал.
            Так, само, як і Буш-старший - консерватор.
            Стопудовий.
            Взагалі, Президенти - діячі компромісні.
            І час для їх об"єктивної оцінки ще не настав.
            Одне добре.
            Їх оцінюють за головами.
            А не за членами.
            Як Політбюро.
            От, тільки, Моніка...
            
            > Пане Поручіку, а Ви вже подивилися "Fahrenheit 911?" Що скажете? (Правда, на цій сторінці недоречно - може, на Вільному Форумі?")
            Найближчим часом - не збираюсь.
            Не хочу голосувати трудовим баксом.
            За сомнітєльноє кінишко.
            Може, ліпше дам заробити якомусь нєгру-пірату.
            Але - пізніше.
            Абсолютне ІМНО:
            Не подобається мені пика Мура.
            А Ви коли-небудь зустрічали порядних людей?
            З ТАКИМИ пиками?
            А на Вільному - це буде Off.
            Також.
            Бо не має сношеній з політикою Неньки...
            
            Сумний ПоручікЪ Красной Армії

  • 2006.01.24 | Социст

    На-більше користі для соціалізму зробив Рейган!!!(--)

• 2004.06.21 | Ygirl

  Re: Пам"яті Роні Рейгана. Людини. Християнина. Президента...

  Тільки яке відношення це має до розвитку української духовності???
  
  П.С. Так, Америка допомогла розвалити союз коли він вже і так ледве дихав. Та де ж вона була під час голодомору??? Засилала брехливих журналистиків? А під час Чорнобилю? Ага - теж саме.
  згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей

  • 2004.06.22 | ПоручікЪ Красной Армії

    Re: Взагалі-то я флуд ігнорую. Як правило... Но тут

    сдєлаю ісключеніє.
    Із оного правила.
    Дєвушкі раді...
    
    Ygirl пише:
    > Тільки яке відношення це має до розвитку української духовності???
    А що таке - духовність?
    Вобше.
    І - українська?
    В частності...
    
    > Нас щоденно й щогодинно вчать сирітської "натуральності". У розмовах наших інтелектуалів майже відсутнє слово "дух", але на кожному кроці пропоноване щось незбагненне під назвою "духовність". Що це таке? Відомо, наприклад, що під брендом "борщок" у дешевих забігайлівках виготовляють водянисту пародію на борщ. "Духовність" -- це також сурогат: такий собі ужитковий варіант трансцендентного. Метафізика для селюків, з якої вичавлено високу містику священного служіння, а творча складова розбавлена сентиментальною псевдоцерковністю й культурницькою патокою.
    Далі - тут:
    http://postup.brama.com/dinamic/i_pub/usual.php?what=22444
    
    > П.С. Так, Америка допомогла розвалити союз коли він вже і так ледве дихав.
    Без жорсткої політики Рейгана Союз дихав би й до сьогодні.
    Може, і без Прибалтики.
    В своєму складі.
    Але - з Україною - точно!
    Хоча, схоже, все повертається.
    На круги своя...
    
    > Та де ж вона була під час голодомору??? Засилала брехливих журналистиків?
    І це - вєсь спісок?
    Ви ще скажіть, що Америка голодомор організувала.
    З помощью мєждународого сіонізьма...
    А, те, що не няньчилася з далекою і чужою Україною...
    То тоді і своїх проблем хватало.
    Ізучайте історію.
    Хоча, якби і помогла б - не оцінили б.
    Все одно.
    Як Ірак.
    Сьогодні...
    
    > А під час Чорнобилю? Ага - теж саме.
    A ШО було під час Чорнобилю?
    Янкі в отмєстку за "Челєнджер"?
    Чи, я, напевно, щось проспав...
    Знов.
    
    ПоручікЪ

  • 2004.06.22 | Георгій

    Re: Пам"яті Роні Рейгана. Людини. Християнина. Президента...

    Не варто бути таким нищівно критичним до Америки. Дійсно, те, що робив під час Голодомору Уолтер Дюранті, є сором. Але Дюранті, так само як Дж.Б. Шоу або, скажімо, лорд Бертран Рассел, був продуктом лівацької ідеології, яку підгодовував саме СРСР, а не Америка.
    
    Щодо Чорнобилю, то тут як раз Америка добре допомогла. Згадайте хоча б американського трансплантолога Роберта Гейла, який одразу після Чорнобильської катастрофи виїхав до колишнього СРСР і зробив там безліч пересадок кісткового мозку, працюючи днями і ночами. В Центрі Фреда Гатчінсона в Сіетлі теж було зроблено кільканадцять операцій жертвам Чорнобилю. Не всіх вдалося врятувати, але деяких вдалося.
    згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей

    • 2004.06.23 | Thinker

      А лорда Бертрана Рассела за що...

      записали до числа "продуктів лівацької ідеології, яку підгодовував саме СРСР, а не Америка"?
      Що він Вам поганого зробив?
      згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей

      • 2004.06.23 | Георгій

        Та теж похвалював комуністів...

        ... хоч і не так злоякісно, як Шоу чи Ромен Роллан і Ко. А філософ був оригінальний, тут я не маю претензій.
        згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей

        • 2004.06.24 | Thinker

          У мене дещо інші відомості

          В кількох біографічних джерелах про політичну діяльність Рассела зустрічав приблизно таке:
          "Принципиальный противник участия Англии в первой мировой войне, Р. в 1914 г. вступает в пацифистскую организацию «Противодействие призыву на военную службу», выступает против войны в «Принципах социального переустройства» («Principles of Social Reconstruction», 1916), «Войне и справедливости» («Justice in Wartime», 1916), «Политических идеалах» («Political Ideals», 1917) и в «Дорогах к свободе» («Roads to Freedom», 1918). Эти книги не остались незамеченными, однако по-настоящему Р. привлек к себе внимание лишь тогда, когда был оштрафован на большую сумму и заключен в тюрьму за памфлет, осуждающий практику тюремного преследования за отказ служить в армии. За штрафом и тюремным заключением последовали увольнение из Тринити-колледжа, распродажа библиотеки для уплаты штрафа и отказ правительства выдать ему паспорт на выезд в Соединенные Штаты для чтения лекций в Гарвардском университете. Однако Р., несмотря на преследования, продолжает выступать против войны и в 1918 г. вторично попадает в тюрьму – на этот раз на четыре месяца за критику, которой он подверг США за вступление в войну...
          
          В1920 г. он проводит пять недель в Советском Союзе, встречается с Лениным, Троцким, Горьким. Хотя Р. с симпатиями относится к идеям социализма, он выступает с резкой критикой советского режима в книге «Теория и практика большевизма» («The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism», 1920)..."
          (Взято з http://nauka-tehnika.narod.ru/Pege/Biogr/R/Rassel.htm)
          
          Також в "Історії західної філософії" Рассел займає чіткі антитоталітарні позиції (зокрема, див. розділи про Руссо, Гегеля, Маркса)...
          згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей

          • 2004.06.24 | Георгій

            Добре, знімаємо Рассела

            Як кажуть трикляті єнкі з хіксами, "I stand corrected."