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 : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (7004)	1/5/2005 2:20:23 AM
From: CYBERKEN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35834

<<This may come as a SHOCK to you, but there are actually PARENTS of troops in Iraq that don't support this idiotic war.>> And manipulating and using their personal sentiments is a tawdry act of treason and symbol of support for the Islamic murders...

To: RMF who wrote (7004)	1/5/2005 2:50:56 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35834

"idiotic war" So you opine. I guess we should have left Saddam in power so he could continue with his well known plans to bribe his way into a removal of sanctions, then rebuild his WMD arsenal, maintain close ties to terrorist groups that harbored the same hatred toward America, while he continued to slaughter his own people, ET AL. And don't forget his well known desire to dominate the ME. No doubt you have stumbled upon a brilliant POV that would have made the world a much safer place to live in. NOT! "Podhoretz would have made a great Natzi..." How so? Please elaborate on your other brilliant POV.

To: RMF who wrote (7004)	1/5/2005 3:26:46 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

I figured it out. You are British! <gg> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Media Bias In Airstrip One By Ed Driscoll · January 04, 2005 05:35 PM · Oh, That Liberal Media! Melanie Phillips is a British journalist who looks at the natural consequences of bias and poor reporting in the war on terror: <<< At a recording of the BBC radio panel show Any Questions, in the solid Conservative heartland of Wokingham in Berkshire, an overwhelmingly conservative audience applauded and cheered the veteran far left activist Tariq Ali when he said that that America was the fount of world terror, that George Bush was more of a danger to the world than Saddam Hussein, and that if any country was a menace to world peace through its weapons of mass destruction it was not Iraq but Israel. >>> How has Middle Britain come to applaud the view – hitherto confined to the most extreme left-wing circles -- that the President of the United States is more of a danger than an unbalanced dictator with a terrorist history? How have such solid citizens come to view a democracy – Israel – that has been under attack since its foundation as the greatest threat to world peace? And how has the ancient libel of sinister global Jewish power been allowed to rear its head so openly once again? Britain is gripped by an unprecedented degree of irrationality, prejudice and hysteria over the issues of Iraq, the terrorist jihad and Israel. All three are intimately linked; all three, however, are thought by public opinion to be linked in precisely the wrong way. This is because all three have been systematically misreported, distorted and misrepresented through a lethal combination of profound ignorance, political malice and ancient prejudices. This systematic abuse by the media is having a devastating impact in weakening the ability of the west to defend itself against the unprecedented mortal threat that it faces from the Islamic jihad. People cannot and will not fight if they don’t understand the nature or gravity of the threat that they face, so much so that they vilify their own leaders while sanitising those who would harm them. Yet that is what is happening. Public debate in Britain is now marked by a collapse of objectivity, truth, fairness and balance. Logic and morality have been stood on their heads. Victims are portrayed as oppressors, while mass murderers have to be understood and sympathised with. The outcome is an ugly and dangerous climate in which prejudice and lies have achieved the status of unchallengeable fact; a climate which is now being eagerly manipulated by terrorists who know that if they ratchet up their barbarism and distribute the video the result will merely be an ever greater public clamour for Tony Blair to split away from President Bush and shatter the coalition in defence of the free world. The public has been grossly misled by the British media, and falsehoods have become accepted as fact, so much so that any statement of actual facts which undermine this mindset are excised from the debate altogether. Much more here, in PDF format. melaniephillips.com

To: RMF who wrote (7004)	1/5/2005 3:37:25 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35834

ThoughtsOnline - Question: what ails the Democratic Party today? Answer: what do protests against the Vietnam War have in common with protests against the Iraq War? I know I've answered the question with a question. But you need to know the answer to the second question before you can understand my answer to the first question. And, the answer to the second question is that both protests were built on frauds hoisted upon the American people. I will never be convinced that protests against the Vietnam War were driven by anything more than a bunch of spoiled kids afraid that the war would force them to give up their sheltered and pampered lifestyles. They were afraid of being drafted (whether or not they were sent to Vietnam, being subjected to military discipline and crewcuts are not what the little dears were looking forward to). They were afraid of having to mingle and compete with the uneducated rubes who actually wanted to be in military. They were afraid that military spending would force cuts in their dear social programs (guns over butter), forcing them to give up their dreams of having society continue to support them and their non-productive lifestyles. They were afraid that a successful war would discredit the Marxist ideologies that were so in vogue on college campuses across the country. They were afraid that a successful war would, as was the case after World War II, result in society fawning over those who served, promoting the veterans into positions of authority, and relegating those who sat on their student deferrments into secondary and subservient roles. And, being the smart kids that they were, they knew that they wouldn't get anywhere opposing the war on these grounds, so they went looking for 'better' reasons to oppose the war. They had support from their comrades in the media and had some success in convincing Mr. and Mrs. Average American to distance themselves from public support for the war. The same pattern holds with (most of the) opponents to the Iraq conflict. They didn't actually think Hussein was a good guy. They weren't fans of his regime. They didn't really care if there were or there weren't WMDs to be found. They didn't really care about the 'Arab Street'. They didn't care whether we did or we didn't have support from a 'real coalition'. They were driven by simpler, and less noble, motivations. There are actually two elements of opposition. For one group, everything centered on their opposing President Bush, about their needing to constantly attack him and his programs, about their refusing to accept the results of the 2000 and 2002 elections, their refusal to acknowledge the voters didn't pick them to lead the country. For them, it wouldn't matter what position Bush took - on any subject. Anything and everything Bush did and advocated was fair game for attack. And, Iraq, being a really big deal, served as the central point on which to attack the Bush Presidency. For the second group, everything centered on their needing to maintain the 'legitimacy' of their anti-Vietnam War positions. They had lived the lie for so long there was no chance of coming clean now - no chance they would ever admit to being driven by cowardice and selfishness back then. Nor was there any wiggle room to devise an argument for supporting intervention in Iraq that was consistent with opposing our involvement in Vietnam. They knew their conservative critics from the 60s and 70s were watching them, looking for anything that could used be to undermine their opposition to the Vietnam War. And, they were determined not to give their bitter rivals any ground. Now, of course, being the smart people that they are, neither of these two groups could admit that was what they were doing. As in the 60s, they needed 'better', more acceptable reasons for opposing Bush. So they went about looking for them. As in the 60s, they had support from their comrades in the media. But their efforts came up short this time. A large part of Middle America is now comprised on those who grew up in the 60s and 70s and who are very aware of the con that the anti-war protesters pulled on America (some of them may actually have participated in the con, but have come to grips with what they did). They are very aware that the Communists in North Vietnam and the VietCong were not peaceful, but that they were murderous thugs who tortured our soldiers and killed hundreds of thousands of their own citizens. Today, unlike the 60s, much of Middle America is not so gullible so as to buy the arguments being peddled by the Moores, Sarandons, Streisands, Baldwins (Alec, not Billy), Mahers and the like. For younger voters, the volunteer Army removes the risk that they would ever have to die in service of their country so they could go back to their video games and downloading music files. So, the protesters arguments fell on relatively deaf ears... and Bush won re-election. Which finally gives us the answer to the first question: the Democratic Party is driven by the architects of these frauds - and the public knows this. The Democratic Party is, in large part, comprised of the above two groups - the Bush haters and those who refuse to admit we were wrong in the 60s. There are others in the Democratic Party, to be sure, but not in sufficient numbers to drive the party (and what few of them there are are shrinking). And America refuses to back a fraud. So until the Democratic Party is able to show the rest of the country that they have undergone an exorcism, that they have rid themselves of these elements, they just won't be trusted. They just won't win. thoughtsonline.blogspot.com