<<<Well, here is the problem. I consider it disgraceful that there remain so many people eager
to behave in a prosecutorial manner towards Ronald Reagan, and who will not even accord
him the elementary respect of taking him seriously as a person.>>>
Oh! You have called me disgraceful! Because you mean me! I am so upset! I don't know whether I can shrug this off! I feel disrespected!
Isn't that nonsense?
Anyway, I do take him seriously as a person. I think what his personal popularity represents, and the almost-deification of him represents, have serious and scary implications, as I said.
I've said a lot about the argument issue already:
Message 11481087
Message 11483805
<<<Add to this the effrontery of considering me gullible,
and it is not so easy to shrug off....>>>
But I DO consider gullible anyone who believed, in the 40's, Modern Romances magazine's presentation of The Life of the Stars, because that stuff is myth; and I consider a significant amount of what Reagan has said a meta-page out of the same magazine, and I consider those who, unlike George Schultz, believe Reagan's fabulations, to be gullible.
As Schultz said in his memoirs, Ronald Reagan got a lot of bad advice as president but also deceived himself "almost knowingly" about facts that didn't suit him.
And there were, and are, so many gullible people that he has a vast constituency, to my dismay.
If that is effrontery, I stand condemned and unrepentant. |
