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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (98567)	2/3/2005 11:49:38 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793659

Manipulative Rhetoric (KBJ) By Keith Burgess-Jackson The Conservative Philosopher I’ve had the same long-distance telephone company for many years. It’s Working Assets, the slogan of which is “Making Your Voice Heard.” I was a leftist when I joined, and I’ve been too lazy to change companies since I became a conservative (or realized that I was conservative, depending on how you look at it). Among other things, the company donates part of its earnings to “progressive” causes, such as feminism, multiculturalism, and environmentalism. Each bill contains a section entitled “Citizen Actions.” Here is one of the paragraphs from the most recent bill: Save Social Security from Privatization The White House is working to convince Americans that Social Security is in crisis. In fact, keeping the program healthy into the 22nd century would require only a small future revenue infusion: less than we’re spending in Iraq; a mere quarter of the amount lost annually to Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy. The real danger is Bush’s “fix” for Social Security. Diverting money to private accounts for today’s workers would mean cutting benefits to retirees, raising taxes or massive government borrowing—or all three. So why is Bush pushing privatization? To put an end to a program conservatives have never liked while handing billions in account-management fees to Wall Street. The rhetoric is despicable. I’ll leave it to readers to pick it apart. But I can’t resist one comment. Note that the president of the United States is referred to as “Bush.” Not President Bush; not even George Bush; but “Bush.” Somehow I don’t think the author would have referred to President Clinton as “Clinton” or President Kerry as “Kerry.” This is disrespectful. Whatever you think of the president or his or her policies, show respect for the office. Query: Are liberals more disrespectful than conservatives; and if so, why?