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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Futurist who wrote (102424)	12/5/2000 5:59:48 PM
From: haqihana	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Futurist, Call me insulting if you wish, but you are a pompous ass, and your condescending attitude, indicates that you are a bigoted, elitist, that is prevalent among liberals. You feel that you are qualified to instruct every other soul in the country how they should act, and how they should think. You, and your type, are why the liberals have lost this election. You helped to defeat the candidate you support by your haughty, falsely superior, attitude. You have indicated that you are totally stupid where human communication is concerned. ~H~

To: Futurist who wrote (102424)	12/5/2000 6:03:15 PM
From: lawdog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Good post, futurist.

To: Futurist who wrote (102424)	12/5/2000 6:09:31 PM
From: Dr. Voodoo	Respond to of 769667

So, using a bunch of big words, you're generalizing that Republicans are a bunch of partisan goons who won't play fair? Too bad. V

To: Futurist who wrote (102424)	12/5/2000 6:13:53 PM
From: SecularBull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Your argument would be worthy of consideration if you didn't make posts like this: Message 14951139 I would also note that you are positing on the George W. Bush Thread. While you have every right to do so, you are also entering the wolves den in so doing. As for your last point, the outspoken minority is about to be out of power (not to be confused with most Democrats), and the division they promote is moot. LoF

To: Futurist who wrote (102424)	12/5/2000 7:24:45 PM
From: Aggie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Futurist, I'm a lurking Independent with a strong conservative flavor. The death of moderation is a ubiquitous feature in modern american politics, thanks mainly to modern broadcast media's mistaken belief that conflict on the air (between two polarised political positions) equals maximum revenue, in spite of the disgust on the part of the viewers, both conservative and liberal. Reading through the political texts of old, the discussion between opposing belief systems was on a much higher plane, with much more of the gentlemen's agreement to maintain a common gentile (polite) ground. The ability to spin or parry a good debate on this level was a credit to the debator, and a measure of his or her skill, and thus it was tied not only to their credibility, but their political astuteness. One needs only to read the essays from the first 100 years of this country to stand in awe of our country's forefathers. No more - it's Jerry Springer, WWF, and in-your-face these days, and the picture we're presented with, as political consumers shopping for a plank, is one of diametric opposition. This is fundamentally insulting to anyone with a shred of political knowledge, as it is plainly obvious that the legislative process in a representative republic such as ours is one of moderation and compromise for the greater good. This is the essential underlying premise of the constitution, and it is coincidentally one of the main issues surrounding the resolution of the election. The post I'm responding to (from you) is a balanced and perceptive one - but some of the others from you have been indicative of exactly the kind of gripes you are airing. How come? It is my opinion that this thread has about 1 decent post in 40, the rest are simply moronic drivel which fall back on a cheap tendency to imitate the media - that is, throw mud and see what sticks, rather than contribute to a meaningful discourse. I long for the old days. As an independent and conservative, I abhor many of the things that the so-called right wing conservatives espouse - but on the other hand, they are a distinct minority and do not have much political sway - and won't, either, in the administration of GWB, IMO. But as a conservative in H.L. Menken's tradition ("A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged"), it's also fair to say that I find the last 8 years of the Clinton presidency to mark a new low in the standard of American Politics, thanks in a large part to the concurrent ugly puberty of the modern broadcast mass media. I won't go into fault-finding - there's plenty of it to go around to both sides - but the balance of the responsibility or fault of this new low goes to Clinton and his administration. Again, IMO. Like the modern media, it's a lowest-common-denominator type of excercise, and I find it appalling. The reason that the balance of fault goes to Clinton, IMO, is because his was the party in power, at least during the first part of it, and so was saddled with the responsibility of carrying the idealistic torch. The results of the subsequent election, the so-called republican revolution, made it clear that the American population overwhelmingly thought there were serious flaws in the Democrat's approach. I believe that a change is called for, to challenge Americans to participate, to capture their interest, and to present ideas, not dogma. In this, the american press has failed miserably to seize the opportunity to take the high ground during this conflict to examine and dispose of 90% of the issues which are currently polluting the airwaves. A huge service could have been done and wasn't - and it should have been called, by both sides. By the way, I believe that some of the Gore supporters are every bit as vindictive and spiteful as some of the Bush supporters. Keep up the balanced posts, Regards to all, Aggie