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: rrufff who wrote (4762)	11/30/2003 10:50:35 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

ROFL you spent a really long time on that- are you sure you aren't the one who wants the last word? You also seem angry, still. Nothing I can do about that, but I'm not, nor is this personal for me, as it is for you. "I will compare you to the French. They posture and claim to have the moral imperative. Yet, when it comes down to the bottom line, there is no way they would have moved away from their own self-interest." Look at this- how ridiculous. You don't know me, and you don't appear to understand my posts, and yet you want to compare me to the French, whom I suspect you also do not know and do not understand, in a sad effort to insult me. Why? Because you are still angry. I'm not interested in you, or what you think of me, I don't care- I just like the ideas here, and I don't like them obstructed by namecalling. That's all. It's an OPINION- there is no absolute right or wrong about it, which you seem to absolutely fail to comprehend. Now you've managed to go on about my POV, the fact that I'm like the French, the fact that I post back to you, and so many other things you might as well have thrown in the kitchen sink. It's not about any of that, and it's not about thought police- it's ONLY about name calling police. That's IT. That's ALL. Whatever else you've added, has nothing to do with me. It's your baggage. If you can't see how silly your "arguments" have been in this last series of post, we might as well be different species. Since this is rapidly turning uncivil on your side, as I figured it would, I will ignore your next post, if there is one, and the rest or your posts. You obviously think you should be able to write a long rambling insulting post to me, and then tell me not to answer because I would be provong myself right (about opinions! Amazing you would say that). Well, it's a sly trick fellow poster, but that's all it is, a trick. I understand your position all too well, and I see your incivility- others will too, I don't need to tell them, and from now on I'll let others tell you, for I'm sure they will have opportunity. If you want to talk about agendas, look in the mirror. Now there's someone with an agenda. I hope you and your agendas will be very happy together though.

To: rrufff who wrote (4762)	11/30/2003 11:09:06 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 20773

Just a generic point about arguments and logic - I see this pattern often on SI's political threads: assuming an opposition group's reaction to a hypothetical situation that will never happen then condemning them for that assumed reaction. Imagine someone saying that the Democrats could be given the chance to cure cancer but they wouldn't because they want to have a class of suffering victims to pander to and use for their own political ends. Or let's say the Republicans have a chance to spread capitalist wealth to every last American citizen using a magic free-market formula, but they are too greedy and elitist to want to see inferior social classes share in the wealth and the power. (Note how absurd these arguments are given both parties' history in power of supporting efforts that reduced suffering from disease and improved everyone's chances to be more prosperous.) I have seen less crude variations of both arguments made on SI and on hate-talk radio. They are total nonsense but they serve the purpose of the propagandists who peddle them. You have your opinions on French motives and actions, fine. I haven't seen anyone on SI who knows France and French foreign policy (myself included) well enough to do more than string together a few anecdotes or assumptions then draw a conclusion from that. But to say that the the rest of the world would fail in Iraq if offered the opportunity is totally specious. The US would never dare make that offer for fear it might be accepted, and the whole PNAC transformation myth discredited (which is already underway but that's another story). This is not personal and it's not an attack. If you disagree, I won't take it personally. But for the sake of legitimate moderate debate, pushing imaginary hypothetical negatives doesn't hold water. Until the US makes a legitimate effort to include the international community in Iraqi stabilization and reconstruction - not just an invite to jump on the US bandwagon - you can't judge anyone's reaction. The only fact in evidence is the US failure to make the offer.