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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (358727)	11/15/2007 4:41:01 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1587223

" It's obvious that his whole goal is to trash the Reagan legacy, which he characterizes by bringing up all of the times Reagan opposed civil rights legislation." Brooks tried to claim that Reagan used the term "states rights" rather innocently and wasn't playing to the racists. Both Herbert and Krugman have noted that Reagan pretty consistently played to the racists throughout his whole career. He even used other code phrases that have no other meaning other than to the racists, unlike "states rights". "Brooks says it best, "It’s spread by people who, before making one of the most heinous charges imaginable, couldn’t even take 10 minutes to look at the evidence. It posits that there was a master conspiracy to play on the alleged Klan-like prejudices of American voters, when there is no evidence of that conspiracy. And, of course, in a partisan age there are always people eager to believe this stuff."" The problem is, they took more than 10 minutes to look at the evidence. In this particular case, there was a master conspiracy, Nixon was pretty public about it and Lee Atwater talked about it before he died. And those prejudices still exist, although they are a lot less strong these days.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (358727)	11/16/2007 12:51:05 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1587223

But it's clear to me that he wasn't just talking about that time and place. It's obvious that his whole goal is to trash the Reagan legacy, which he characterizes by bringing up all of the times Reagan opposed civil rights legislation. Herbert brings it up because its true. I moved to CA just as the Reagan presidency was ending and he was moving back to the state. I can tell you that there was not a lot of love for him in CA. That's why I was shocked when Republicans refer to him as the greatest president. If you look closely at the history of Reagan, you will see he was not necessarily the best of us........and he did many things as governor and president that I find embarrassing.