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: Michael M who wrote (57671)	10/7/1999 9:16:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

About restating endlessly. Just answering posts addressed to me. Like this one. I am answering it. When they stop, I may stop. Not promising, though. It's according to how ornery I feel, hehe. The subject of the disagreement here is Ronald Reagan, the personal admiration of whom I consider an ominous portent and disgrace to the nation. I have argued my conviction entirely within the bounds of the the normal rules of engagement, even in heated argument, I believe. You object to this statement of mine, but it remains my view, and I feel it strongly. I do not mean that each and every individual Reagan fan is a disgrace to the nation, and did not call you, personally, one. As a mass phenomenon, though, the willingness of millions and millions of Americans to deny his untruthfulness and other proven phantasmagorical qualities, as though hypnotized by a smile, scares the sh*t out of me. I posted this, but it received no comment: <<<George Schultz wrote in his memoirs in 1993 that Ronald Reagan got a lot of bad advice as president but also deceived himself "almost knowingly" about facts that didn't suit him. >>> Reagan did this to a remarkable degree. But the concentration camp untruth and the bathing himself in the light of others' glory untruth and the I Was In Nicaragua untruth and so many others are all rationalized or brushed aside in most disturbing ways. Not by George Schultz, but by many here. Hey, I don't mean to call you disturbing! Hey, I just got an idea! You know how Reagan nicknamed his adopted son, Michael, "Schmuck"? Well, it's about the only incident of his history that hasn't been denied by Zoltan and others. But you know, the word shmuck or smuck or smuk probably means "my dear, fine boy," or some other nice term, in some language or other! I suggest that the position be taken by Zoltan that when Reagan called his little boy "Schmuck," (a particularly sensitive thing to do to an adopted child) he was using an Icelandic endearment. <<<In personally swearing off this subject for the nth time, I want to ask you serious question (and one that I do not mean as an insult). Do you consider yourself fundamentally a marxist (lower case "m" intentional) in any meaningful way?>>> Michael, I had to call my husband to see that! It is hilarious. I am so far from being a marxist you wouldn't believe it. I don't even converse with marxists, so boringly predictable are they, so deeply imbued with adolescent notions about human nature, no, pre-adolescent. And generally so boringly PC. When I pick up the scent of the marxist from a person I meet at a party, I struggle with instant sleepiness while trying to escape to where the thinking people are. I am closer, personally, by intuition and temperament, to being a libertarian than to being a marxist. Except that I'm not, because the libertarians haven't noticed that there are things the market fails at. Protecting the environment, for example. My husband says I'm closest to being a Jeffersonian democrat, small d. I am very apolitical. This, I suppose, is why I feel no obligation to endorse any of the presidents you name. Jimmy Carter was the least like Reagan. That's a quality I admire in a man. I hope you haven't felt that I have made ad hominem attacks on you, Michael. If you have, I am very sorry.