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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (37418)	8/12/2002 10:34:58 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Well, Ashcroft may come from a small group among a small group but he certainly has the hearts of the fundamentalist right. As for whether we should feel free to criticize brother Ashcroft, please. It is after all an American fetish to do so. And will continue to be so. He's wrong for the job and has proved it a rather large number of times. As for Clinton and mental illness, you have not the foggiest. And it's way off topic.

To: KLP who wrote (37418)	8/13/2002 1:39:07 AM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

>>but the thinking person didn't cleverly mention he was mentally ill. << No, he merely was Satan incarnate who ruined the economy, destroyed the military, allowed Osama to happen, wagged the dog, killed Vince Foster, allowed Arafat to bamboozle him, gave military secrets to the Chinese, fondled or exposed himself to half the women in America and, oh yeah, his wife's a shrew with thick legs and his daughter's dog ugly too. That is what passed for intelligent political discourse for the past decade and to a degree, continues - even on this thread - today. And I get chided.... repeatedly now, it seems.... for making an overwhelmingly obvious sarcastic dig suggesting the current Prez is stark raving bonkers. That's insensitive name calling????!!! After Rush ripped a 13 year old girl's ego to shreds? In real life, I spent more than two years as a psychiatric security aide at a state mental hospital in the 70s. Many in the psychiatric staff were, imo, far sicker than the clients. I spent many years after working with the homeless, many of whom were deinstitutionalized to become two-time victims. But the largest group that went mostly untreated were PTSD Viet Vets, because homeless men don't offer as many warmfuzzy photo ops as the far smaller numbers of homeless women and children. I also have experience with close family members suffering from both mental illness and/or substance abuse. And again, the shrinks proved to be worse. There isn't much I haven't seen or closely experienced when it comes to mental health illnesses and aberrant behaviors. I am a thinking person, and I could readily make a legitimate case for Bush family dysfunction, inherited substance abuse disorders and yes, mental illness. But I didn't even go that far. My comments were sarcastic and clearly intended as satire. Perhaps it did not suit some tastes or it whooshed over some heads. But I used no vulgar language, called no names (by my definition), used none of the former slang that demeaned the ill, and, as a thinking person, directed an unflattering (but I thought, amusing) potshot at a guy who appears to be amazingly lost at times, while he plots out a course for a war with a greater potential to flash out of control than any I've observed since Korea and Vietnam. I've made far more cynical and non-satirical digs at most Presidents before him (his father and Carter fared better in my estimation, despite certain failings each of them had). F/L's made it clear he doesn't want that type of satire here, which I'll respect, now that I know. Am I to suppose that tossing back at me my bit of farcical amusement is considered fair play? Then I must admit, you are far more the clever one... My apologies, as well, to Little Poonky the Pwezzident, for hurting his tender feelings.