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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bald Eagle who wrote (1324)	1/16/2001 11:52:20 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I didn't attack you, I attacked what you said. I happen to think that any attempt to state a single hypothesis and label it "what liberals think" or "what conservatives think" is infantile and idiotic, for reasons I think too obvious to bother explaining. If you make statements I think are idiotic, I will say that I think them idiotic. I will not call you an idiot, tempting though the prospect might be, unless you prove yourself one beyond reasonable doubt, a task which you seem determined to accomplish. If you want to discuss something substantive, please tell us if you think the stated intention of the incoming administration to increase defense spending is consistent with their declarations of fiscal conservatism, and whether you think it will be possible to simultaneously cut taxes, increase defense spending, and still balance the budget.

To: Bald Eagle who wrote (1324)	1/17/2001 1:18:47 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You are posting to Steve, referencing this post: Starting a discussion with the assumption that liberals want X and conservatives want Y, as if either philosophy was rigid, consistent, and devoid of internal variation, seems to me to be an infantile and thoroughly idiotic premise. However, since we're descending to the lowest common denominator of political discussion, how about the opposite premise: since conservatives are the ones that want to reduce taxes, increase defense spending, and indulge in large talk about budget cuts that they haven't the political will to implement, shouldn't they be forced to make up any resulting deficits out of their own pockets? Please note that I do not actually support this proposition. I'm just playing along with your game of reductio ad absurdem. ..................... Would you please show me the insults being hurled at you? Because I am unable to find them. Unless you are speaking of some other liberal, and then generalizing? Is that what you are doing? I am unclear on what you are trying to say. If liberals always feel the need to attack the person (rather than the ideas) of the person they disagree with, than there MUST be an insult in that post by Steven. And just to make sure I understand- was it civilized discussion you were having when you said Poet's husband liked narrow minded bigots? Is that an example of your moderate "no insults" stance? And if that is not an insult, what exactly would qualify as an insult? and here: Maybe you are the types who like to dish it out, but can't take it yourselves, generally known as wimps. Would you consider this a personal insult? It doesn't seem to pertain to any idea, or discussion. Actually it seems to be a bit of an attack. And this post! To: toscano who wrote (1283) From: Bald Eagle Tuesday, January 16, 2001 5:06 PM ET Reply # of 1330 Who cares what you ask for, this is the "NO GLOVES" thread. You probably have an I.Q. of less than 50. You don't even know that a sentence is supposed to start with a capital letter and end with a full stop. Now go away and don't post again until you at least graduate from high school. Whew! That's just full of what I would have thought were insults. And of course as you yourself say- NO GLOVES- but then you seem to have forgotten you said that- and now you seem to be saying you prefer "civilized conversations". I am not seeing any evidence for that. I am, in fact, seeing loads of evidence to the contrary (which would be fine if you owned up to it- but since you insist on maintaining that "moderates" and "conservatives" are occupying the high moral ground I would love to see some evidence of that- so far I've seen black mail, I've seen an allusion to hitting someone with a hammer, I've seen out of control emotion- and I've seen no attempt to control personal insults- rather the reverse- since the males (and their few females) of the RWET have always performed interesting bonding rituals involving insults which predate the RWET-). I see no evidence that you can disagree without being disagreeable. Can you show me anywhere where you did this? None of this is an insult, btw- I am merely describing behavior. I can give post numbers to support each point I've made should that be necessary for you. I wonder if we counted up the number of personal insults on the RWET and the number on the left wing porch who would win? I think I know the answer to that. If you really believe your thesis I suggest you perform such a study.

To: Bald Eagle who wrote (1324)	1/17/2001 2:14:00 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

you have just proved my belief that it is impossible to have a discussion here without personal insults being thrown at me. This is actually kind of funny. You came on this thread today and posted a pretty nasty attack on poet and then whine that you can't come to a liberal thread without getting attacked. So to disprove your argument, you are one case of a moderate that felt the need to attack the person rather than have a civilized discussion. And to give you another example, I am very likely more conservative than you are on some topics and I too will descend to a personal attack. You are clearly a microcephalic twit. Examples of Conservatives or Moderates making personal attacks rather than have a civilized discussion: 1. Bald Eagle 2. Jorj X McKie