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.

Politics : The Left Wing Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (3099)	1/15/2001 5:17:05 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 6089

Funny thing about Reagan, though. He knew how to pay lip service to the Christian Nation crowd without actually giving them much. That seemed in character with his personal religious practice. W's father never had that luxury. W himself, I can't quite figure. The nearest analogy to Ashcroft I can remember in the Reagan era was James Watt, who did enough damage, I think. But it's better to have someone who's upfront than a quiet and effective behind the scenes type. On a different topic, an article you might find interesting from yesterday's paper: Christianity's Original Sin ( a review of 'Constantine's Sword' by James Carrol) nytimes.com As a lapsed Catholic, I still find church history interesting; it tended to be heavily glossed over in my youth. I am utterly mystified by JPII's attempt to canonize Pius XII, though. Cheers, Dan.

To: Lane3 who wrote (3099)	1/15/2001 8:23:11 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6089

I worried when Reagan won and nothing earth shattering happened. Nothing so awful happened if you lived in the US. The Reagan impact was felt most drastically by the citizens of those right-wing dictatorships that Ms. Kirkpatrick loved so dearly. (Imelda Marcos celebrated Reagan's victory with a party that would have made Bacchus blush). This is something I worry about with the Bush crowd: it is easier to push a far-right strategy in foreign policy, which is less closely examined and less likely to provoke a mass backlash. If Bush feels he has to let the wild-eyed crowd have their way somewhere, he might choose to let them have it somewhere far away.

To: Lane3 who wrote (3099)	1/16/2001 12:12:14 PM
From: Rarebird	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6089

<Am I allowed to say that on this thread?> Of course you are, I think, I hope, oh well.... SI is primarily made up of finance service professionals and short term traders, not exactly the type of group that lends itself to a liberal outlook. My experience from posting on SI for over 3 1/2 years is that there is very little political diversity here: Most range from extreme right wing to moderate conservative. The more liberal members tend to be centrist. I suppose I'll have to read more of this thread in my spare time before I make a final judgement. But Liberal and SI makes me laugh: Mostly everyone here reasons on political issues from the standpoint of their pocketbook. It reminds me of my middle son, who talks about the virtues of his latest girlfriend from the standpoint of his "pencil."

To: Lane3 who wrote (3099)	1/16/2001 2:30:09 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6089

Religious wars have created some of the most serious problems for the world --Northern Ireland, The Middle East, and Indian and Pakistan, which Mr. Clinton calls the most dangerous place in the world. An attorney general who supports cold-war politics, like Mr. Rumsfeld, (sp) may add ammunition to those countries that are already a powder keg. I didn't live in this country when Reagan was President. We didn't hear very many good things about him, other than he got along very well with Margaret Thatcher. Of course, we heard the reports about his wife and her obsession with free designer gowns and dresses that she strutted before the public. And then there was the to-do about her White House China, the dishes, of course.