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.

Pastimes : My House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Poet who wrote (6207)	3/22/2003 3:20:23 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7689

The US has been criticized for supporting Somoza, Batista, the Shah, ......... And now many of the very same people criticize it for refusing to tolerate a brutal dictator. Isn't this a bit disingenuous? And what was said was not that those who are articulate do not supoort him but those "Elitists who speak artfully, while failing to listen honestly". There are many articulate conservatives.

To: Poet who wrote (6207)	3/22/2003 3:22:54 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7689

The article did not say "all" elitists are articulate, it merely criticized those who are articulate but who fail to listen honestly (the article's words, not mine). Elitists in my experience fall into the same four quadrants as everybody else: articulate and wise; articulate and unwise; inarticulate and wise; inarticulate and unwise. They also appear on all points of the political spectrum. disregards the very history and alliances that helped make our country something to be proud of. I guess the issue is, proud or not, was that history a success? Was tolerance of evil until it attacked a success? Was tolerance of evil after it attacked in small ways a success? I suppose a few conflicts were averted, here and there, at the time (some arguably or undeniably were only postponed to a later, uglier phase). But did it really work? And in a world where it's harder and harder to see it coming, and the stakes of an attack are far greater, can we allow that system to once again fail? To me, that's where the debate is, and there are valid points on all sides. EDIT: Sorry, I didn't read Laz' response first, I see I repeated something he said. (Which means maybe I should reconsider it! <g>)