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: Jacques Chitte who wrote (56697)	10/1/1999 10:37:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<<<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 agree with you about this. Either means the man was unfit to be president, whether he got away with it, or not. It DOES matter to me very much that this question of whether Reagan was a liar or delusional (the only choices) is not important to so many Americans. The implications of this fact are beyond upsetting. These are citizens on their knees begging to be manipulated by the state. Here is the view of Michael M about this unfit president, this man who had access to the nuclear button, and believed, literally, that a nuclear cataclysm would be followed by the return of Jesus and the establishment of His eternal kingdom on earth. <<<I admire the man greatly as a leader of this country. Regardless of any personal short-coming, he was able to look into a camera and make Americans feel safe, confident, proud, optimistic -- a hell of a gift. >>>

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (56697)	10/2/1999 12:13:00 AM
From: Michael M	Respond to of 108807

L double R -- re. presidential fitness -- expand the list if you wish. The objective of my "restriction" was to insure evaluations were based, at least in part, on direct observation and experience of effect. The wider discussion might be even more interesting but will rely on "hearsay" for foundation. That's fine in some circumstances, esp. debate among scholars who give appropriate weight to many sources. It may be fine HERE. I know more than I want to know about a lot of stuff, and, I revere legitimate scholarship (a bow to Neo, Joan, Edwarda and others), but I am not a scholar and I find the opportunity, if not likelihood, for/of mischief daunting. Example -- I think you're great E, regardless of what we disagree about -- but, if you're going to cite Gary Wills to judge Reagan, you may as well scare up a Hatfield for his views on the McCoys. Back to your reference to HST, IKE and JFK. IMO, Truman was a simpleton -- an honorable, hard-working man -- but, a simpleton. Best move: dropped the bomb. Next best move: integrated the armed forces. Next best move.......? On the other hand, eviscerated the military after WWII -- allowed the Soviets to lock in their position in Europe -- "invited the conflagration in Korea and handled the resulting problem incompetently. For any who might want to test the last assertion, I invite them to find the connection between HST and Mac in WWI. Ike. Honorable man. Not really a soldier (not that he wasn't willing) -- a career HQ kind of guy. Hey, LRR, imagine for a moment, had Ike been the boss in the Pacific and Mac in England..... The next round of "Oh-my-God's" are on me.....Hi Dozo, bitte! By the way, give Ike credit for the interstate system -- HUGE economic benefits. More sentient than The Gipper perhaps -- then again, this was BCNNE! JFK, I mentioned the first time around. Fan of Ian Fleming, Father of the Green Berets and charming rogue. I ramble. Please forgive. Thanks for your provocative comments. Mike