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: Neocon who wrote (57153)	10/5/1999 1:36:00 AM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I don't act as if anyone "supports my position." That would be argument by testimonial. I am not so silly as that. There is factual material in the book, many items that are on the record, and the results of many interviews. I have merely cited some of them. Do you deny that Reagan was very... er... absent minded, lol? That he said he saw a scene on a battleship that he never saw? That he liberated a Nazi death camp, when he never did? Do you deny the dozens of evidences that your man was delusional? I have no reason not to think that Reagan was "incorruptible." In his way. I think, also, that he was "honest." In his way. I believe he had many qualities that were good ones, and have no reason to argue with any of those you quote Morris as saying to Newsweek, though not in his book. So... what do they have to do with his fabulating, and confusing fantasy with reality, and being an ignoramus, and calling his son "Schmuck," (not too sentimental there) and refusing to wear glasses, according to Zoltan, even though he was SO BLIND without them, he couldn't recognize his own son when shaking his hand? Do you think a combination of "sentimental and emotional coolness" is good, btw? There's great and there's great. Reagan was the first, poor thing.

To: Neocon who wrote (57153)	10/5/1999 1:41:00 AM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

When Reagan said he was places he wasn't, and saw things he didn't, was he lying? I don't think so, in the ordinary use of the word; as I said, I think he'd have passed a lie detector test. Was he delusional? I think so, since I don't think he was lying, in the ordinary use of the word. How come you guys won't say which one, or offer a non risable alternative explanation? Come one,Neo. Tell me. Which? Maybe he WAS at the death camp? Maybe he WAS at Pearl Harbor? That's the only other choice you have. Was that it? Or lying? Or delusional? Which? I wish all of you guys would answer this. I keep asking, and none of you answers, except to act like there's another option you're just not gonna tell me, I'm so bad. Come on, you guys, tell me. What's the answer?