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 : President George W. Bush - a lame duck President -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (111)	11/6/2004 3:57:26 PM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 128

In 1996, when Clinton won re-election, the fascist right declared war. They peeped into his private life, prevented him from functioning as President, and created hell for this country. Now it is payback time and Bush has invited it himself when he said he has the "mandate" and he is going forward with his agenda. I didn't hear Clinton say that in 1996. He was well liked by all and nobody even dreamt that Clinton would be a divider and hence they did not feel the need to ask him that. But with Bush, people are not confident and comfortable. His base of the types of Pat Robertson (who claims to have diverted a storm through) and Robert Reed etc. are in for a lot of trouble.

To: geode00 who wrote (111)	11/7/2004 2:36:42 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 128

Do the liberals have a prayer? WIZBANG - Several years ago, during the height of the Political Correctness silliness, there was a bit of a kerfuffle at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst about their mascot, the Minuteman. A group of students (I seem to recall them being predominantly female) protested to the administration that the Minuteman was "sexist and promoted gun violence." When the administration declined to change it to something more acceptable (perhaps "The Self-Sacrificing Collectivists"), one of their leaders was quoted on the news as saying "so much for our right to seek redress of our grievances." I wanted to reach right through my radio and smack her. Or at least drag her bodily to a Remedial English class and attempt to cure her unbearable, arrogant ignorance. There had been no infringement on her right to seek redress. She sought a hearing, and was given one. But to her, the idea of "seeking redress" was synonymous with "receiving redress." She couldn't comprehend the notion that her ideas would be listened to, and rejected. I'm noticing the same sort of mentality in those who most stridently supported Senator Kerry's bid for the White House. Or, more accurately, who most forcefully opposed President Bush's quest for a second term. They keep coming up with new and more convoluted rationalizations for why they lost. Karl Rove is too great an evil genius, the voting machines were rigged, Kerry was too weak a candidate, and so on. But the most common refrain is that "we didn't get our message out." The conceit behind that thought is staggering. They are presuming that the innate truth, purity, and sheer goodness of their beliefs will convince anyone, if only they can grasp it. And, it logically follows, those who reject their wisdom are either evil or ignorant. Therefore, if after repeated explanations, they are either confirmed as either unrepentant evil or irredeemably stupid, and worthy of their contempt. The simple possibility that we (speaking for myself, but by logical extension there must be SOMEONE else who agrees with me) have heard their message, understood it adequately, considered it carefully, and then rejected it is one that seems beyond their comprehension. And until they find a way to grasp that simple, un-nuanced concept, that people of good conscience can disagree on profoundly major issues, they are doomed to fester in the swill of their own sour grapes until they fade away until irrelevancy. I don't want that to happen. I see practically every day what a one-party system can do to a culture (hello, Massachusetts!), and I believe America needs at least two strong parties if for no other reason to keep each other honest and on their toes. But the current leadership of the Democratic party seems hell-bent on strapping themselves tightly into their handbasket and taking the expressway to Hades. As I've said before, I call myself a born-again agnostic. But a born-again Christian friend of mine once gave me this piece of wisdom. "God hears all prayers, and God answers all prayers. But sometimes God's answer is 'no.'" The Democrats better listen to that bible-thumping Jesus freak and put aside the loonies like Michael Moore and the loonies now running their asylum -- he's telling them the truth, and they need to hear it.