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 : About that Cuban boy, Elian -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (6491)	5/28/2000 1:09:00 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 9127

I was responding to your statement that my application of the blak/white principle is uneven here. Perhaps your application of the black/white principle is a bit uneven, eh? The people advocating for Elians removal have constantly used a black and white line of thinking which goes something like this. "His father should decide what happens to Elian, end of story." And most of them are completely unwilling to address any of the other issues related to the case. As a matter of fact, I have yet to read one supporter of the governments action criticize the smallest detail the government took on behalf of Castro. Oh sure, there have been the occasional, "they could have handled things better" (or words to that effect). But then it's back to the "the father has all rights" argument. I have never argued that Elian should be separated from his father. Or that the father should return without his son. So, I am not sure what you disagree with. I have argued that the father and son should be given every opportunity in the world to stay if they desire. And it's clear to me our government has created the environment around which that is extremely unlikely to happen. By ferrying in Cuba agents, Cuban doctors with drugs, keeping the boy and his father away from independent news agencies, Demagogueing the relatives, keeping the relatives separated from Juan Miguel and the boy, and breaking into their home to snatch the boy. Our government, lead by Clinton/Reno have practically ensured the outcome. Anyone who may influence a change in the fathers decision to take the son to Cuba has been kept as far away as possible from him. Have you ever wondered why? The nasty "politics of personal destruction" which has become a hallmark of this administration has driven events from the first moment they "made a deal" with Castro. And those unwilling to take a critical examination of events are leading our country toward a path where civil rights are subservient to the wills of political appointees. Saying someones arguments are not rational or coherent doesn't make it so. It may help to convince you of your position. But that's about it. As far as I'm concerned you have defended the governments actions from the beginning of our conversations. To me, that's "advocating a position". Whether you want to call it that or not is up to you of course. When the supporters of the governments action lay out a coherent logical reason for the governments dangerous and reckless actions, and explain why America is getting into bed with Castro in order to return a boy and his father to a fascist communist murderer. I will understand their defense of this administration. Thus far I have read no such logical postings. The only thing I have read is "my government right or wrong" excuses. Michael