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: TimF who wrote (167619)	4/12/2003 5:06:47 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1594603

From flat out refusals of access, to having crowds shout down speakers opposing affirmitive action or other ideas from the left. Boy Scouts are banned from using public facilities in some cities. The left likes to think of itself as supremly tolerant but it is only tolerant of ideas that it consider acceptable. First lets lay down the issue..........because at some other envent, they showed the V sign which apparently is considered a peace sign and because they are against the war, Saradon and Robbins were banned from the Hall of Fame festivities. http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/november_2000_1.html Flynn was not not invited. He was invited and got booed down. He went to a university known as a hot bed of liberal radicalism and tried to present his conservative views on a controversial subject. And you're surprised that he got heckled? That's the equivalent of a white guy in black face going to all black party.....its just plain stupid. And it really doesn't relate to the Rob./Sar. situation. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/nj/taylor2002-01-25.htm Another one........W. Connerly goes to a predominately black university to promote what many consider to be racist views. He's invited to speak but he's surprised at the response. Why? Conservatives seem to think they can say obnoxious things or at least things that are not politically correct but still expect people to be grateful. I don't get it......you might explain this one to me. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3411 This is Flynn again......he can't understand why they didn't like him at Berkely. Is there a course for people who are socially inept? http://www.cornellreview.org/nsogart.cgi?num=99 Come on, Tim, the guy's been a student at Cornell for 9 years. What does that tell you.......he's an idiot. He's in his late twenties and he's debating guys in their late teens and he thinks they're acting like kids.......well, duh....they are still kids! http://www.townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/ps20030325.shtml This one is just too silly. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2000/12/19/123702.shtml I thought this one might be analogous but frankly, it turned out to be more stupid stuff. Its not surprising that the Olympic Committee made 18 the cut off point........I thought 21 was the standard. And of course, the boy scouts were not to be allowed to wear their uniforms......its not that kind of event. This guy is looking for trouble where there is none. http://www.nljonline.com/December2000/boy_scouts.htm I agree with LA's policy.....if the boy scouts intentionally discriminate against gay boys, why should public funds be used to support them. As a private organization, they're entitled to be selective in their membership but don't be surprised when you get cut off from public funding. "Schwartz described a recent case in which the Boy Scouts were refused permission to use an auditorium at the National Zoo because the Boy Scouts officially acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being. " nationalcenter.org; Finally, this one appears to be analogous so long as the facts are as presented above. http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosophicalissues... Another silly one.......that tells me little. In any case, the girl trying to stop her boyfriend from drinking Snapple is an attempt at social pressure to insure conformity. The head of the Hall of Fame used his clout and political views to exclude. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-kurtz052401.shtml I am unclear what conservative women are trying to accomplish but some of their so called myths are suspect but the one most easily disproved is the one re women and emergency rooms. The IWF states that only about 1% of women at ERs are there due to abuse. I knew that one was bogus. Past studies have shown that roughly 10-35% of the ER visits by women were due to abuse. The low number of 10% was established in a 1991 Dept of Justice study: scils.rutgers.edu It would appear that the IWF is lying for what purpose I have no idea. I would almost say that some of what the IWF calls myth is inflammatory rhetoric not unlike someone crying fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Its not a wonder they are not well received. But again, this is not like the Saradon/Robbins case. http://www.iwf.org/pubs/exfemina/September2001c.shtml More IWF stuff. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-kurtz030501.shtml This guy lost me half way thru the article. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnleo/jl20010527.shtml Still more IWF stuff. "At UC Berkeley, birthplace of the Free Speech Movement, a graduate teaching instructor who is a leader in the pro-Palestinian movement on campus has incited a nationwide controversy by trying to control the tenor of discussion in his class. Snehal Shingavi, 26, a fifth-year graduate student in English, who will be teaching an undergraduate English class on "The Politics and Poetics of Palestinian Resistance," in the fall included in his class description a "warning" that "conservative thinkers are encouraged to seek other sections."" campus-watch.org Clearly, Shingavi is an a-hole. Clearly, Berkeley missed his informal attempt at discrimination. It looks to me like Berkeley is trying to correct this oversight. Again, its not like Robbins and Sarandon........they were formally excluded. ted