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 : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (89864)	11/28/2004 4:37:19 PM
From: Ish	Respond to of 108807

<<Anyone who likes GW is an absolute moron>> Good thing you don't do any name calling.

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (89864)	11/28/2004 4:37:27 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

ok question-and I really mean it in the nicest possible way, really. I am truly curious as to the answer. When you post: " take pot shots at stupid thinkers who believe GW is a good thing and that civil rights are unimportant. Anyone who likes GW is an absolute moron IMO and is also dragging me and my once free country over a cliff. " what do you think your "pot shots" are going to accomplish? BEcause they don't seem to change any minds. And while you really may feel (and you may be correct) that the people you don't like are dragging the country over a cliff- how does your post stop them? Surely infiltration and gentle persuasion are more optimal if you really think people can be changed. Quite frankly, from what I've seen, running up against people who namecall because of ideas, tends to make the person being called names dig in their heels- even in those VERY clear (and unusual) cases where the person is obviously wrong (because most cases deal with opinions, and are open to debate as opposed to being about facts, which one can look up and check). And if your pot shots and namecalling accomplish nothing, or WORSE, if they help to solidify opinion against you, what rational end are you working toward?

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (89864)	11/28/2004 4:43:59 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I presume you are one of the "few" on SI who are "searching for new knowledge" and "open to new ideas." It is an honor to be addressing you. I humbly present the following, passed on to me without attribution as to source. I found it an interesting commentary on our stupid president. Of course, I don't consider myself capable of judging its true worth, and so I pass it along to you where it might do more good. 1. Our "stupid" President not only won re-election with a huge popular and electoral vote, but in the process, not only defeated the liberals, but severely disrupted them, to the extent that half of them are lamely trying to spin the results, in total denial; and the other half, more responsible, are looking inward, in an effort to learn where they went wrong (they need to look way, way back in history to learn that--think of all their failed social programs--and then also look more closely at just what kind of solid people really populate this country--did everyone see the "county map"?). Can anyone else envision Barbara Striesand spending the night in a Comfort in in Arkansas? 2. Our "stupid" President wasted no time after re-election in setting forth our military in Iraq to clean up Fallujah and Mosul, with more pockets of terrorist resistance to come. Recent discoveries indicate exactly what a haven and hotbed Fallujah was for attacks on our troops, torture, and vicious killings of innocents. 3. Our "stupid" President now has Iran on the defense, worrying about whether it might be next, as a member of the "Axis of Evil." He's clear in statements that he's not taking their peaceful disclaimers at face value. They know it, and they should. 4. Our "stupid" President now has North Korea on the defense, wondering whether it might be next, as a member of the "Axis of Evil." Right now, no one knows for sure what has happened to the country's insane leader, who was betting on Kerry to win the election and negotiate. 5. Our "stupid" President now has an opportunity to reach some kind of peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict, now that the despicable Nobel Peace Prize winner is dead (What? No virgins? Hey! Wait! Damn!). He has selected as his Secretary of State the woman the Israelis have historically preferred to deal with, rather than Colin Powell, who, despite his tremendous record of accomplishment, was never taken very seriously over there--they do have a very good intelligence service...). As an insight to the thought processes of the left, they first claimed that Bush was taking everything Condi said as Gospel. Now they claim that she's nothing more than a mouthpiece for Bush. Go figure... 6. Our "stupid" President has been spending the last few days solidifying our position in South America and Mexico, while making statements of world impact along the way. This suggests to me that he is in such a "cat-bird" seat at the moment that he can afford to goof off with the Latin bloc for a week or so. Investing his political capital, wisely, as usual... 7. Our "stupid" President had the grace to make the most impressive and lauditory (albeit obligatory) speech given at the ridiculous ceremony celebrating the opening of the Clinton Library and Massage Parlor--the gross looking thing that resembles a double-wide trailer floating over a river, surpassing only that of his equally gracious father. Class. 8. Our "stupid" President still has plans to reform our national tax system and our Social Security system, and address other important domestic matters (which, by the way, were important, but should not have been factors in the decision on for whom to vote). I anxiously await more details on those issues. 9. Can anyone else recall when a newly re-elected second-term President ever took such dramatic and drastic steps so soon afterward? 10. Thank God our "stupid" President was re-elected. God bless him, his family, his staff, our wonderful republican form of government, and our dearly beloved country.

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (89864)	11/28/2004 5:19:03 PM
From: Alan Smithee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Let's go back to your original post. I think Republicans have very selective vision these days. That goes along with the low IQ's. Which btw is not a slam, it's a fact that Democrats have higher IQ's generally. Message 20805855 I responded by asking you for your support for that statement. Message 20805981 To which you replied, Support for that statement? Observation!! Every republican recites what they hear on the news and none of them seem to be able to think for themselves. Any argument disproving the propaganda they recite meets with more recited propaganda. Original thought seems to scare the hell out of them and they want that to stop right away! They have no concept of what losing civil liberties means since they seem to think they don't need them. Observation shows me that the smarter the person I am talking to is, the less they like GW. Message 20806999 So, when all is said and done, this is your opinion. Your evidence, at best, is anecdotal. Frankly, I find it rather stunning that you say every republican recites what they hear on the news. Pretty sweeping generalization isn't it Sidney? Maybe your circle of acquaintances is limited and you don't know many republicans, which brings to mind the remarks of Pauline Kael after Reagan's victory. She said, and I'm paraphrasing here, "I can't believe he was elected, I don't know anyone who voted for him." You might want to refrain from making such sweeping generalizations. At least 51,000,000 Americans appear to think otherwise. In response to a post from Buschman, you said, among other things, The sheer stupidity of what some people think has forced me to resort to sarcasm. So excuse me!! These are perilous times in the US. A would be "savior", GW, is fooling the people into accepting a police state and morons and imbeciles are enabling him to do it. siliconinvestor.com I asked this of another poster the other day, and didn't receive a response, but I'll ask you here, what civil rights have you, personally, lost under the current administration? Is there any place you have wanted to go that you have been prrevented from visiting? Is there anything you have cared to say that you have been prevented from saying? Has your house, car or place of work been searched? In short, Sidney, what police state are you talking about? It would appear that 51,000,000 Americans do not share your views or concerns, so is each and every one of those people a moron and imbecile? (aside: the terms "moron" and "imbecile" have specific meanings. A "moron" is defined as A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive. OTOH, an "imbecile" is a person of moderate to severe mental retardation having a mental age of from three to seven years and generally being capable of some degree of communication and performance of simple tasks under supervision. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive. Thus, a moron has a greater mental age than an imbecile. The terms are not interchangeable, and you might not want to use them as if the were.