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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (41395)	11/18/2005 11:50:29 AM
From: Tommaso	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 116555

Nice of you to let Hoover off the hook. I have felt for years that he just came at the wrong time. Also, some things that Roosevelt did were really bad ideas; my understanding is that the "Bank Holiday" destroyed more banks than it saved. But the world looks back to the end of WWII and his perfect timing in leaving the stage (unlike poor Churchill) and calls him one of the greatest.

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (41395)	11/18/2005 10:56:36 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 116555

I think you've labeled many good candidates... In order to compare you have to decide what you think Bush is guilty of. If you stick with Nixon and compare, you have to declare Bush already guilty of something that he isn't even close to having proceedings against him for. As you may know I got banned from Loantech's thread because I said I thought it laughable that people were declaring Bush guilty of starting the Iraq war to make money for himself and Cheney. I still think that's just paranoid FWIW... and there is no serious inquiry into it. <Katrina would not have surprised them.> IMO this has nothing to do with the question at hand... I thought we were talking evil, or criminality. Let me sum up the entire topic this way: if you look at US society and government specifically as a whole it's actually QUITE A BIT more integrous now than at any time. Less "payolla", less corruption, more transparency in goverment BY A MILE, less old boy networking.... on and on. It's not even close. From the Police dept {"Oh, I take care of the cop... I can park here"} to corporate America {look at all the guys tossed in jail or run out of town in the stock scandals... Martha Stewart and Cheney's aid going to jail or at least found guilty for lack of integrity... never would have happened back in the day... ever}, spotlight so hot on Clinton he couldn't even screw around (stories abound about that on most presidents as far as I know), FDR getting in the war all by himself before we were even in the war???? IMO everything is much more open... which is great. <And both had major accomplishments, whereas Bush has done nothing of lasting positive value> That wasn't the issue. If you just don't like Bush that's different. I don't either, so what? DAK