Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (56680)	10/1/1999 7:24:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

This is second-hand knowledge but I believe Reagan was a hands-on and effective governor of California... so he wasn't always a "hands off" manager. He may have simply been too old for the job of president, particularly with respect to the global economic issues, oh man did he seem out of touch. I think Bush really suffered for it too in the 1992 elections. edit - btw I changed my name from Michelle Harris

To: E who wrote (56680)	10/1/1999 7:29:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

>Please don't mistake me as thinking that Reagan, an actor through and through, did not make a LARGE PERCENTAGE OF AMERICANS FEEL VERY GOOD. I have no trouble stipulating that if that is all you ask of greatness, then he had it. < You can say the same thing about illicit and licit drugs- and I don't think very highly of those either. He was wacko- he told lies that be believed were the truth.

To: E who wrote (56680)	10/1/1999 9:00:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Neither. But I do feel very sorry for you. You seem a very bitter person. JLA

To: E who wrote (56680)	10/1/1999 9:03:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

>What do you guys all think? -- Liar, or delusional?< In my darkest heart-of-hearts, I say "it doesn't matter". Either is a characteristic of unfitness. The difference is moral, not operational. I am flatly uninterested in a President's moral geography. But I place highest value on his OPERATIONAL fitness, i.e. he knows what's what and will allow the "buck to stop here". That is why I am a little unhappy with MM's restrictive terms. They pretty much limit the choices to LBJ and later. (JFK for the real éminences grises here) I have highest regards for both Truman and Eisenhower as Presidents. I believe both were savvy, honest and deeply concerned about the interests of the nation. (And each had the inestimable advantage of an obvious political opponent.) Where I confess ignorance is in their foreign policy record ... typically the darkest aspect of the official American psyche. From Kennedy on it was SOP to engage in breathtakingly immoral "deniable warfare" and putschmongering to keep the Red Dread at bay. Did Eisenhower or Truman squeeze an eyelid shut while our intelligence services dispatched discretionary warriors to the planet's hotbeds of revolution and/or liberalism?