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: tejek who wrote (148251)	7/15/2002 11:48:53 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572505

This is the person you think is so great. I didn't say she was so great. I did at least imply that she was inteligent but I also called her "over the top". I do think she is a good writer, and some of what she says needs to be said. I'm not her enemy but I'm not her biggest fan either. I assume you are concentrating on the bolded quotes so I wont post about the rest of her article. Like everything liberals oppose but don't have a good argument for, all reasonable national security measures are called "unconstitutional." Whenever liberals are losing on substance, they pretend to be upset about process. Like I said a little over the top, esp. since it implies that all liberals act like this all the time (or at least when they are "losing on substance".) Sen. Patrick Do-Nothing Leahy has complained about Ashcroft's "disappointing" failure to run all internal guideline changes past the Senate Judiciary Committee. Instead, Sen. Do-Nothing said, "we're presented with a fait accompli reflecting no congressional input whatsoever." Both the action the Leahy is complaing about, and the complaint, are just normal politics. While hooting with laughter at patriotic Americans, liberals prattle on and on about the right to dissent as the true mark of patriotism and claim their unrelenting kvetching is a needed corrective to jingoism. (It's not jingoism, and the only people who use that word are fifth columnists.) This seems to be a counter attack but if your point is that not many people (liberals or otherwise) have attacked the idea of patriotism lately then I might agree that you have a point. Still all it takes is one person to make the attack, but Coulter doesn't specify a person or a group, or even say "some liberals", but rather implies that all liberals are attacking patriotism or patriotic support for the fight against terrorism, and clearly that is not accurate. During World War II, George Orwell said of England's pacifists: "Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively, the pacifist is pro-Nazi." To paraphrase Orwell, in this war, those who cannot stay focused on fighting the enemy are objectively pro-terrorist. There is a point to this. Those who oppose the effort to fight the enemy, help the enemy out. But then you can oppose particular methods of fighting the enemy with out opposing the effort. Also I think both "pro-terrorist" or "pro-nazi" are poor terms to discribe most pacifists. You could make a comment about how they are hurting or at least opposing the war effort and perhaps indirectly helping the enemy without saying they are for the enemy. Tim