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 : A Neutral Corner -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Hurst who wrote (304)	9/21/2005 1:02:53 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2253

Well, that implies you think Bush IS personally and completely responsible, and that seems to me to be much farther from neutral than considering the complex factors involved. I don't think anyone here is opposed to hearing any facts about Bush's role-- several of us are quite anti-Bush-- but attention has been called to those with great speed, enthusiasm, and sometimes inaccuracy, so it's good to offer some additional thoughts and possibilities. Of course, if you are one of the tried and true Bushhaters, anything that might make him less reprehensible will strike you as biased- in which case, you will just get upset here.

To: Don Hurst who wrote (304)	9/21/2005 1:38:29 PM
From: Constant Reader	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2253

Perhaps you misunderstood the thread header, Don. I doubt anyone posting here is neutral about anything. We all have our own points of view. We express them. And we welcome others. What we don't welcome is pretty clearly spelled out in the thread header. Now the, what was it about my post itself that you didn't like? My tasteless joke about evil George W. Bush caring Bill Clinton? I'll admit it was tasteless and that I should have left it out. Did you think I was defending George W. Bush? I wasn't. Did you object to my mentioning that the concrete levees were built in the 1990's? Did you dislike the fact that I mentioned how Bush's funding cuts were repeatedly broadcast around the country immediately after the hurricane? They were. In many cases, they were portrayed as a possible cause. As the Washington Post story shows, there was no relationship between the two. Do you disagree that many people, left, right and hysterical made many statements that they probably now regret based on just the actual facts that have since come to light? I offered my opinion, Don. That's what the thread is about. You seem to believe that by venturing to have an opinion that I must believe that I am the sole source of truth and justice. I don't know why you seem to think that, but I don't. If you bothered to read back in the thread, you would find that we admit mistakes freely here. We'd all prefer to avoid them - we just don't believe perfection is attainable. As the thread header says, this is a place for congenial discussion. If you prefer the hit-and-run, the blindly partisan, or the sarcastic, there are plenty of other threads for you, but this isn't one. If you'd like to kick around a couple of ideas about this or that issue or policy without taking yourself or your politics too seriously then this might be a good place for you.