Thanks for the ping, CK.
I dread the news that will evenutally come, and thought at first this might be it.
But like Michael says, it would be a merciful release.
Bob Hope w/President Reagan & Nancy 1985
Posted on 09/28/2002 10:53:56 PM PDT by MadIvan
---------------------
Reagan wasn't stupid. He just wasn't neurotic and didn't speak in the pathological riddles that currently pass for intelligence. His vocabulary and sentence structure indicated high intelligence levels.
I dread the news that will evenutally come, and thought at first this might be it.
But like Michael says, it would be a merciful release.
No. It means he did what he thought was right,and didn't worry too much about what other people thought about it.
He's talking about Clinton.
Regards, Ivan
What a poignant article this is, and that was so kind of you to put up the contact with the Alzheimer's association. I fortunately have not had to deal with this dreadful disease, but a couple of my friends' parents are in the early stages. It is heartbreaking for them.
I also agree with you. One hopes that God will intervene in some manner to keep WJC away from the funeral. It is not to be borne.
Crying for him and his family.
I frequently prayed that he would quietly slip into Gods's hands before he became this bad, now I will pray that God takes him soon.
I can deal with that. Make room.
Lucky you. Jimmah Cartah was the first president I voted for...and the last Democrat I ever voted for. At least I wised-up fast. Jimmah taught me well.....and continues to be a waste of good oxygen to this very day.
“George W is closer to my father’s ideology than he is to his father’s,” said Michael, who believes that the September 11 attacks would not have happened under Reagan. “He responded to the Muammar Gadaffis. They knew where he stood.” Despite backing Bush, he thinks his father would have disapproved of the “giant conversation” under way over Iraq. Libya was bombed in 1986 after a terrorist attack on Americans in West Berlin. “Dad didn’t hold a press conference saying what we’ll do with Gadaffi. He just did it,” said Michael.
I hope Peggy Noonan reads the line about W's ideaology being closer to Reagan's than his father's. If Reagan was in after the Clinton era however, I don't know if even he could have stopped 9/11. I distinctly remember the Libya bombing though, and Reagan acted swiftly there. Gadaffi had a transformation after that--thanks to President Reagan. The only time Gadaffi came out of his hole after that day was to express his support of America's actions. I believe history will remember Ronald Reagan for the true statesman he was, and perhaps learn from his belief in a strong America. I am sure he is safely in God's hands as he sleeps, and I pray his passing is peaceful.
Are We Spending Too Much on AIDS?
[...]
This year, AIDS dropped from being the 14th biggest killer of Americans to number 15. Heart disease this year will kill about 775,000 Americans, a figure perhaps 20 times as high as the number of Americans who will die of AIDS in the next twelve months. In the next two months cancer will kill almost as many people as have died of AIDS in the course of the entire epidemic.
Nevertheless, the current PHS allocation of about $1.6 billion for AIDS research and education higher than that allocated for any other cause of death. In 1990, the CDC will spend $10,000 on prevention and education for each AIDS sufferer as opposed to $185 for each victim of cancer and a mere $3.50 or each cardiac patient.
Total federal research expenditures on AIDS this year will be more than 100 percent of nationwide patient costs in the case of cancer, the corresponding ratio of research-and-development spending to patient costs is about 4.5 percent, in the case of heart disease about 2.9 percent, and in the case of Alzheimer's disease, less than 1 percent.
AIDS activists have answers to these statistics. Since AIDS strikes most often in the prime of life, they urge us to consider the years of lost productivity as a cost that could be avoided by more spending now on AIDS research. Yet every year cancer and heart disease each kills more than 150,000 Americans below the age of sixty, while this year AIDS will kill around 30,000 persons of all ages. Nor do the calculations of years lost take account of the fact that intravenous drug abusers, who make up a growing portion of those affected by the disease, have a very low life expectancy and an even lower expectancy of productivity.
[...]
There's no question that federal AIDS spending has gone up tremendously in recent years. President Bush's proposed fiscal 1993 budget calls for authorized spending of $4.9 billion, up from $4.4 billion in the year ending Sept. 30. The budget boasts of a 118% increase in AIDS spending authority since Mr. Bush took office in 1989. In research, the government now spends more on AIDS than on any other disease except cancer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.