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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (378)	4/18/2003 8:21:08 AM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

They believe in being with the majority. Passionately. Notice how he lumps "moderates" and liberals together in an attempt to increasing his base. A place for all moderates, and liberals,

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (378)	4/18/2003 10:24:42 AM
From: tsigprofit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

Charleymane has been excluded from this forum, and I've put him on IGNORE. It's easy to spot troublemakers, who don't want to contribute anything positive. They show up, and start their first post with insults and rantings: "To choose to be moderate is gutless." "Dumbass idea for a forum." Goodbye.

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (378)	4/18/2003 7:16:08 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Moderates are OK, They would not think like this. It's True: 'Liberals' Wanted Saddam to Beat U.S. Gary Kamiya, executive editor of the left-leaning Internet journal Salon, confirms what some Americans have suspected: Liberals were cheering for the enemy in Iraq, the Washington Times pointed out today in an item headlined "Cheering the enemy." "I have a confession: I have at times, as the war has unfolded, secretly wished for things to go wrong," Kamiya wrote. "Wished for the Iraqis to be more nationalistic, to resist longer. Wished for the Arab world to rise up in rage. Wished for all the things we feared would happen. I'm not alone: A number of serious, intelligent, morally sensitive people who oppose the war have told me they have had identical feelings." But surely, you object, these "serious, intelligent, morally sensitive" liberals couldn't possibly favor a mass-murdering, torture-loving dictator? Surely they couldn't agree with "Latino studies" assistant professor [21]Nicholas De Genova, who told a cheering crowd of appeasement activists at Columbia University that he "would like to see a million Mogadishus." Think again. More dead American troops would have been preferred to the "larger moral negative" of a victory that boosted President Bush's chances for re-election, according to the Salon big. "Many antiwar commentators have argued that once the war started, even those who oppose it must now wish for the quickest, least-bloody victory followed by the maximum possible liberation of the Iraqi people," Kamiya wrote. "But there is one argument against this: What if you are convinced that an easy victory will ultimately result in a larger moral negative four more years of Bush, for example, with attendant disastrous policies, or the betrayal of the Palestinians to eternal occupation, or more imperialist meddling in the Middle East or elsewhere? "Wishing for things to go wrong is the logical corollary of the postulate that the better things go for Bush, the worse they will go for America and the rest of the world." Thus goes the reasoning at Salon, which is moderate compared to the hateful rantings of some U.S. leftists. How ironic that the more these "liberals" reveal themselves to America, the more they boost a president they so despise. newsmax.com