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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (7624)	11/13/2001 6:50:08 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

"For example, all American whites are guilty for slavery, even if their ancestors arrived after slavery ended." That sounds like a great many black and Democratic leaders recently. Surely you've heard of the reparations demand? I'm certainly aware of the reparations demand. The last person that I read on the subject was Charles Krauthammer who said something to the effect of pay it [something] and move on. I'm agnostic on the point. I just had a conversation quite recently on the use of the word "guilt"; my point being that it was the wrong word to use. As guilt implies something specific to the person[s]. A better word might have been "shame". There are things that this country has done which were wrong. Slavery happens to be one of them. It's hard to be proud of our country's participation in slavery. At the same time, the effects of slavery did not end when slavery ended and those effects are still real. " All Christians are guilty for the Crusades and Inquisition, even those whose ancestors suffered from them. " And that sounds like OBL. All Americans are to be killed, right? You don't want to defend everything written by gao seng and you expect that I might defend a hypothetical position of OBL? Here's the Clinton speech referred to;... Being a bit picky...that's actually a Washington times article on a speech that Clinton made. Title of the article being...Clinton Calls Terror a U.S. Debt to Past. Just within the extracts that the Wash Times makes, I find the title to be off base. IMO, that's not what Clinton is saying at all. Getting into that subject in a meaningfull way is well beyond what I'm willing to type up. jttmab Clinton Calls Terror a U.S. Debt to Past