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: tejek who wrote (212776)	12/6/2004 6:29:17 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574788

Packwood was a Republican Senator from Oregon. He behaved as Clinton did. He also happened to be Anti-Life. While the Democrats needed him, the press called him a "maverick", in "independent minded". After the new groper arrived on Pennsylvania Avenue, there was no longer a need for Packwood's vote to block abortion legislation. Overnight the maverick became a pervert. Here is some information about the biased coverage by Dan Rather from a watchdog. Tantalizing Packwood Allegations Covered Despite his downplaying of the Levy-Condit story, Dan Rather found "sex and power gossip" stories more newsworthy when Oregon Senator Bob Packwood, a Republican, was the subject. The day after the Washington Post broke the story, Rather immediately reported it: DAN RATHER: One of the better-known names in the U.S. Senate is caught up in accusations of sexual harassment. In addition, with a record number of women senators coming into the new Congress, this could be an early test of how much politics in the Senate is destined to change. Chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer has the story. BOB SCHIEFFER: For Oregon Republican Bob Packwood, the November election was sweet. He won a fifth term after one of his toughest campaigns ever. But suddenly, it has all gone sour over allegations of sexual harassment. ... "United States Senator Bob Packwood has checked himself into an alcohol treatment program. The Oregon Republican also hired an attorney in case the Senate Ethics Committee decides to investigate sexual harassment complaints made against him by 10 women. Packwood was just elected to his fifth Senate term. He emphasizes that he will not resign." --Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather and Connie Chung, November 30, 1992 The media harassment started within days of the November 1992 election. Does that date have any significance? Most of us recognize it as the month is which Clinton was elected President. With a Democrat in the Whitehouse, the left had no use for "Independent Minded" Republicans, and started a fake "moral" crusade against him. It is very intriguing how morals shift in importance depending on the party of the person in question. You may doubt, and question the validity all you want, but hypocrisy is more evident to independent thinkers than to partisans. I do not doubt that you think Juanita Broderick is a liar. You perception filter requires that belief. Never mind the fact that she had nothing to gain by reporting it, and much to lose. (To remind you, she owned a nursing home, subject to Arkansas regulation when Clinton raped her.) (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39ea902128fc.htm ) Of course, the widow of the Democrat Virginia Governor was honest as long as she was useful to Democrats; the moment she reported Clinton's attempt to force himself on her, she became a liar. Elizabeth Ward who Harry Thomason got to, was not raped either. My opinion of Clinton stands......it has nothing to do with partisanship but my take on the man. Its my opinion and it could well be wrong. As I have said multiple times, my opinion is not related to the party of the person. A perjurer, thief, and murderer are all criminals. None of them has the moral standing to qualify for the office of President of the United States. It took the Clintons a couple of months of spinning and polling to stumble on the magic phraseology that would get Democrats to compromise their integrity to support a perjurer. Remember that Democrats abhorred Clinton's perversion just as much as everyone else did until they could grasp ahold of the phrase "just lying about sex". Here is the link to a summary of some very interesting research. I suspect that it is descriptive of the gulf that separates our opinions. psychology.emory.edu Cognition and Emotion: Cognitive and Emotional Constraints on Judgment and Decision Making Using political data, we have begun testing a model of inference under conditions of ambiguity and emotional significance that integrates connectionist models in cognitive science, models of conflict and compromise in psychodynamic psychology, and models of cognitive dissonance in social psychology. This model proposes that inference about emotionally meaningful events reflects a process of parallel constraint satisfaction, in which the mind equilibrates on a solution that compromises two sets of constraints processed simultaneously: cognitive constraints (data) and emotional constraints (feelings, emotion-laden attitudes, and motives). We tested this model with three studies of people’s inferences during the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal of 1998, and found that people's political judgments at every point in the scandal bore minimal relation to their knowledge of relevant data but were strongly predicted by their feelings about Democrats and Republicans, Clinton and high-status philandering “alpha males,” feminism, and infidelity. We replicated these findings during the contested election of 2000, this time using an experimental design, and similarly found that cognitive and emotional constraints interacted to predict political and legal judgments, but that emotional constraints accounted for most of the variance in people's beliefs about the relative validity of manual versus machine ballot counting. Perhaps my feelings about infidelity are the best predictor. I have strong moral values in this area, and despise Clinton and Packwood equally. Both are serial rapists using their power over women to get what they desire. It is likely that the topic of perception filtering will be a reoccurring theme with us. All of this is ancient history. Current events involve President Bush attempting to push through a hurriedly jumbled together intelligence bill. It also involves the biased reporting of FMSM involving the liberation of Iraq. Additionally it involves the humorous prostration of the FMSM about Condi. We could even discuss the current crisis in the space program. How about the crisis in Arab leadership?