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: Oeconomicus who wrote (91147)	12/11/2004 11:22:43 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

That was an excellent post, R.D. Somewhat related, I think the liberal left has quietly crossed a big divide in their "dissent." Namely, it is that they have ceased to support our military, even if it was always in name only. Formerly, when dissenters would attack the nation's leaders and their policies, they always felt obliged to add, "Of course I fully support our men and women in uniform." They may not have really meant it, but they knew how important it is not to harm the morale of troops actually engaged in battle. They were also sensitive and compassionate about the feelings of families who have lost loved ones serving their country. Examples of what I am saying are the prisoner abuse stories, Guantanamo, and the Marine in Falujah. There are others. This "hands-off the troops" was a long-standing tradition honored by the media, opposition politicians, and anyone speaking in a public venue. Even with Vietnam, the dissenters held to this tradition no matter how much they opposed the war, save for a very tiny number of extremists, like Jane Fonda (or Kerry in one his many incarnations). Fonda finally felt compelled to apologize, no doubt gritting her teeth as she did the mea culpa. What I am seeing now is the embolding of the liberal left to take the gloves off and say what they really feel, which is that the "men and women in uniform" are just thugs and killers unworthy of support. We see it here on SI in the not-so-subtle posts that cheer for the enemy and gloat over new additions to the death rolls of our troops. I think it is a sickening trend. .

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (91147)	12/11/2004 11:57:18 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I've gotten all my information about Bush's schooling, the fact that he felt strange at school because he was from Texas, his reading habits, the way his mind works, how he likes to make decisions, etc. from reading generally favorable biographical works on him, plus watching a favorable CNN documentary. I cannot really explain why he felt different at school, since I am well aware of his well-connected East Coast background. Bush himself perceives himself as being from Midland, Texas, not the preppie elitist East Coast. There is really nothing I can do about that. Even though I'm not a Bush supporter, I find psychological backgrounds and management styles very interesting, and there is a lot written about Bush in these areas. While I bet most inbred hillbillies did vote for Bush, I've never mentioned that here in those words. I have enough problems without people putting words in my mouth. Clinton was a populist, and he was interested in public opinion. He was also interested in the way the bigger world--the international world--worked, and was very intelligent and loved information. He wanted to actually help solve problems in places like Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine. Bush has no interest in events outside of the United States unless our strategic interests are involved, and then he will cheerfully cause thousands of civilians to be killed after lying to Americans about why we are doing that. Let's see, hhhhmmmmmmm, it sounds to me like Clinton is the better guy in that sense. The fact that Bush doesn't read newspapers got a lot of press coverage, and not just from the left-wing press. You don't have to be a right winger to be concerned that the leader of the free world is just being influenced by daily Cliff Notes from advisors with one point of view. The press also has voiced concerns because the more moderate voices in his first administration--Colin Powell is a good example--are being routed out. The idea of only one ideology in an administration is of concern to many more people than just me, some of them conservatives. Regarding your last paragraph: "The real problem is YOUR narrow-mindedness, your inability to conceive of the possibility that intelligent people could actually disagree with you, your inability to cope with the notion that you just might be wrong." It is acceptable at Feelies to criticize someone's opinion, their post, their attitudes, etc., but you need to do that without attacking them personally. Intelligent people have been disagreeing with me forever (in fact, I find it interesting when they do) and I could be wrong about a lot of things (probably not this one, though, because it's based on Bush biographical materials). Whatever you are saying, you need to do it without saying things like "the real problem is YOUR narrowmindedness . . ." You definitely do not have to post here if I upset you that much.