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: DMaA who wrote (121028)	6/20/2005 2:44:32 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 793723

was the end he was trying to achieve by making this speech in the well of the Senate, worth the damage he has done to our war in defense against terrorists Just a thought on damage. Incidents like this remind me a bit of farting at the dinner table. There are two ways for observers to handle that. One is to wrinkle the nose or roll the eyes but mostly ignore it. The other is to carry on, running out of the house and into the street spreading the word and pointing fingers, causing traffic accidents and trampling small animals in search of an apology. Just who is doing which damage? If the objective is to avoid giving ammunition to the bad guys, it makes no sense to cause a commotion that draws international attention to something that would otherwise be well below their radar.

To: DMaA who wrote (121028)	6/20/2005 2:55:54 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 793723

The primary question, which you ignore, is are the assumed abuses so horrendous that they can be compared with the travesties perpetrated by Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot, as Durban claimed? Well, wouldn't the answer to this be subjective? Isn't "horrendous" in the eye of the beholder? I did say that personally, I thought he was over the top with his commentary. An almost as important question, was the end he was trying to achieve by making this speech in the well of the Senate, worth the damage he has done to our war in defense against terrorists? Now you're the one who's over the top. If the acts themselves are indefensible, then don't blame the messenger. If the acts themselves are defensible, then what harm has Durbin done by what would then be hyperbolic mischaracterization? He's got a right to his opinion, even if he's wrong.